Reduce, more or less
In a world committed to safeguarding the interests of our future generations, we need to realise that the word “Reduce” has not been given enough importance even as we follow the tenets of Reuse and Recycle propounded by Green Architecture.
In the name of design that is minimalist, we are trying hard to shed the habits our grandmothers ingrained in us: of hoarding rather than throwing out things we do not need today, just in case we need them tomorrow. But if we tell ourselves that the things we throw out will be of use to those who have not, maybe it would encourage us to de-clutter.
Those who do succeed in having less will vouch for the fact that it gives them more space to store the essentials that make their lives comfortable. Consider the breathing space that the lack of clutter gives – whether it’s in the design of a page, a building or a room.
Less is more, as architect Conrad Gonsalves says in this issue. But would architects and interior designers be ready to do the responsible thing and advocate the judicious use of resources? After all, the more embellishments their clients ask for in the name of design, the more money they are likely to make.
Our life expectancy has increased thanks to modern medicine; but the longer we live, the more resources we use – leaving less for our children and grandchildren. Should we quietly lie down and die so that they can live? Now, that’s a rather extreme reaction to the problem.
So, we advocate the middle ground: restraint in buying all that we see. Maybe we should instead really see what we buy.
As Joss Stone sings…
Don’t go sending me those three dozen roses
Don’t you know that just one rose will do?
Don’t go trying to put diamonds on my fingers
Don’t you know that I’m making money too…
… Back it up slow it down let it breathe
Cause you know too much of a good thing can be bad
See we don’t want to go out like that
Less is more