The Goldfish Bowl Effect

While it has been shown that the goldfish with the 3-second memory is nothing more than an urban myth, recently perpetuated by the character, Dory, in Finding Nemo, it has also been acknowledged that their memory is selective and their attention span brief. On the popular pseudo-science programme, Myth Busters, a goldfish was shown to be capable of basic ‘training’ and therefore the existence of memory was proven. However, it is the selectivity of that memory and the limited attention span that is of interest here, and the fact that while the goldfish may have some kind of consciousness of what has happened in the past, this consciousnes is unclear.

The metaphor of the goldfish swimming endlessly around the goldfish bowl to illustrate the process undertaken by the designer is an effective one. Just as the goldfish has only a vague memory of what it has seen before and therefore, sees things ‘anew’, so the designer is in the business of reinvention – finding innovative solutions to existing problems. Design is defined as the human power to conceive, plan and realise products that serve in the accomplishment of any individual or collective purpose. But it is also defined as a creative process, and creativity, in all its many and varied definitions, always includes the element of innovation or originality – the new.

Just as the goldfish with its selective memory, sees things ‘anew’, so the designer sets about developing new takes on what is already there. Creativity does not come from nothing but is rather a reinvention or a recasting in a new way of what already exists. Unlike the artist, for the designer this creativity is linked firmly with the public whom he serves. Design, innovation and reinvention are undertaken to “serve in the accomplishment of any individual or collective purpose”. An artwork, in contrast, serves the artist and, incidentally, the public (unless, of course, the artist is working on commission!).

Concrete examples will help to make this clear. How many of the tools and processes that we consider ‘modern’ or ‘advanced’ are simply the end result of thousands of years of innovation? Take the supermarket trolley, for example. Is this not simply the reinvention of the straw basket? Just as the goldfish sees things anew, so the designer sees what is in front of him and devises ways to make it better. In short, he uses the act of creativity to find innovative solutions to existing problems. Is the toilet nothing more than an advanced hole in the ground? Is the Roman dome nothing more than a new way of creating the idea of ‘roof’?

Even creations or inventions that seem to have come from nothing, have their origins in observation and the transformation of that observation into something new. For example, Leonardo da Vinci’s original designs for the first flying machine came from his study of the flight of birds. Having observed the mechanics of the process, he transformed, re-created, invented, designed his own creation. It can also be reasonably assumed that the first boat was created from observing floating wood, or birds or leaves. And so the designer may change the form of the object but the process or impetus remains the same.

Take photography, for example. From cave paintings to illuminated manuscripts to landscapes and portraits, man has produced a visual record of his existence. The impetus is the desire to record and document; to make something lasting from a short and often precarious life. The designer of the camera responded to the same impetus, developing new ways of recording man’s time on earth. Yes, this was a ‘new’ invention, but one which had its origins in a previous form. Similarly, the telephone was created or designed in response to the impulse to communicate. From message sticks, to clay tablets, to paper and pen, man has always fulfilled his desire to communicate across distance. Using the technology available (be that technology parchment or electromagnetic signalling) man as designer has looked ‘anew’ at the desire to communicate and has created means accordingly.

Is the internet nothing more than an enormous reference library or interactive filing system floating around in cyberspace? While the technology is clearly new, the human need/desire is not. This is where the designer, as goldfish, is strongly linked to his public. He responds to human impulse and human need by creating new ways to see those impulses and needs fulfilled.

If the metaphor of the goldfish in the bowl is to be extended, then the restricted world, or global village as it is often called, creates our limits. But within those limits we view, and review and review again what surrounds us according to our needs. It is the designer’s brief to be just like that goldfish - able to see anew those things that we already have. To finish off, even in biblical times, man’s re–creation had already been acknowledged in Ecclesiastes 1: 9 -10:

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time.

Ardeshir Gholipour
27 February 2010

PEOPLE AND THINGS

Man is a maker and user of objects but these objects have far greater significance than as simple tools. It is with objects that man orders his life and creates stability and against objects that man achieves a stronger sense of self. The objects we use can both reflect and determine who we are and who we would like to be or how we would like others to see us. My nephew’s sparkling blue ute with the oversized bull-bar and enormous CB radio antennas is more than a vehicle to get him from point A to point B. It is an image of himself that he has created (which may or may not be a true reflection) to present to the world. It is where he directs a considerable amount of his energy and, as a result, the object becomes a significant part of the self. Not very far removed from the A A Gill’s purchase of the Rolls Royce. The self chooses the object which in turn determines or defines the self.

The strength of man’s relationship with objects as defining of self can be seen in the monastic traditions of both Christianity and Buddhism where a vow of poverty removes the believer from the things which define his sense of self, allowing him to attain a level of freedom from his ‘earthly’ self. Attachment to objects is also an attachment to concern for self and personal identity which detracts from a more altruistic outlook.

Ardeshir Gholipour
30 January 2010