DO YOU REMEMER ?

on material conversations

Here is always a before. There were always other hands touching this object before you.
It didn’t start with you.

The things we touch, hold and use are relying on us, to be touched eventually by others after us.
It’s not a lineage a heritage and future of touch

but rather a holding gesture, not to represent, but to acknowledge,

not to demonstrate but to be with.

In taking care of materials and objects,

repairing or giving them in other hands as a meaningful

and thoughtful gesture,

I am acknowledging the permeability of things as becoming hybrids,

as shape shifters, as passengers.
It will never start with you.

There was always a context before and it’s about us taking active part

in this stream of ever arranging constellations.

In this, there will be none object becoming only a product.

Products are a false entity, constructed by consumerism that suggests:

it starts and ends with me, where the strong emotional attachment is linked to purchasing and will quickly dissolve over a short period of time.
Insisting on an ongoing conversation can make you encounter interruptions...

Sometimes the habitual touch and approach slips through the addressed. We could name this moment broken-ness. But what is actually unfolding here? What is it if you are speaking to someone and this person is not responding to your question the way you were expecting it?

Can broken-ness be framed as a misunderstanding?

As in: do we always expect to be understood? Do we always consider things as going with us as we want?

This intoxication and contamination of ownership as it implies a starting and ending with me, leads to multiple misunderstandings that things need to arrange in a certain way when we approach them.

As we societally inhabit products as the major capacity that hosts our habits and daily postures, answering precisely in order to enable, we disregard the multiplicity and complexity of configuration.

Products only work in artificial producted context (read: produced for products) where products are enabling other products.

There has been a major effort in casting out a context for them to perform their best productivity, it sugar’s us, creating an illusion of effective relation. But actually it is a pre- scripted, a scientific, clean, sterile relation.

There is a strong effort to preserve the context for products to burn off, to perform in miraculous sharpness, but there is no sound to it,.

Gestures of sorting out of dropping a conversation are silenced too.

And we are silent in our expectations, feeling pleasurable shivers when opening an other conversation, where we assume the world-ness is starting with us, where the newness suggest a beginning, a being part of.
A world without products would be noisy.

Our expectations can sometimes slip through, our conversation will not disappear behind the product promises and purposes.

Lifting a bag you might ask, can you hold it? You become aware of the weight too, you are joining a shared sensation of relating to heaviness and gravity.

What would change if we would approach these conversations by asking more questions?

Do you remember the last time you were surprised by an answer?