It’s interesting to me how you’re approaching thinking about the object “Lotte Lamp”. As the current producer of Lotte Lamps, it’s interesting to me how your view of the object certainly reaches and reflects on the surface of the object as an object, but perhaps could also extend into the “soul” of the object and it’s makers as well. It was the soul of the designer and original producers, and their work and outlook on the world that resulted in the item you’re examining. Perhaps that is hidden by the outer surface of the physical object, or at least obscured, but there is an entire world inside there. I suppose that inner world created the object, and hopes to communicate their values and souls to the item so that it would create some sense of meaning to its future owner. Sometimes this succeeds and sometimes it falls short, perhaps the shared fault of an incomplete communication on the part of the producer, combined with varying degress of receptivity on the part of the owner. When it succeeds, the owner feels the attachment as a reflection and appreciation of their own attitudes, and “loves” their object.

If we don’t relate to our environment (our city/art/design/social media), then we can’t relate to our culture or work to redeem it.

If you covered only the great creative works of Thomas Kinkaid and Helen Keller, who exactly can you expect to interface with? Who are you relevant to?

Le Corbusier, van der Rohe – these guys didn’t set out to make objects, they set out to change the way people live. Their medium was material, but their message went beyond. That’s worth blogging about.