A mix of DNA and proteins; A design position; A design problem
As can be read in all reliable and verifiable sources of information on the (hi)story of furniture design, at its genesis furniture design was a universal practice, one in which all cooperated as equals; however, around the same time as furniture design materialised in society, the American based Welsh researchers Mawr Hill and Tene Brio discovered that in addition to the known X chromosome some humans, not all humans, just some, also possessed a Y chromosome, a Y chromosome Hill and Brio postulated coded not only for the ability to play football, make political decisions and cook meat on a barbecue, but also for the ability to design furniture.
A postulation that despite being only vaguely formulated and even more vaguely substantiated was planted in a global society whose wider social and cultural discourses formed fertile ground for such a divisive, polarising position, and thereby instigated a heated international discussion on the role of nature and nurture in terms of football, politics, barbecuing and the ability to design furniture.
Critics of Hill and Brio's position arguing it was nonsense to believe that ability in football, politics, barbecuing or furniture design was genetically defined and thereby inheritable, next they'd be arguing the ability to act and sing were genetically defined, then where would we be if every actor and/or singer's offspring thought they could follow in their parents' footsteps simply because they were their offspring. Imagine! While specifically in terms of furniture design they argued that far from being genetically coded it was something that one mastered through practice, theory, observation, iteration, was something open to all within whom the desire to contribute had been awoken.
While on the other side a great many readily accepted Hill and Brio's postulation, often because they were in possession of a Y chromosome and saw for themselves a great advantage in establishing Hill and Brio's postulation as a natural law against which no one could sue. That this second group contained a great many who were involved in the industry, the architecture and the media of that day, who we're able to both loudly shout their position and pressurise others to follow their position, nature quickly acquired and ascendancy that became a primacy over nurture.
And so it came to pass that having began as a universal practice furniture design as a profession quickly became the sole preserve of those fortuitous enough to possess a Y chromosome, those who chance had seen fit to grant a Y chromosome.
However, as those same reliable and verifiable sources of information on the (hi)story of furniture design also note, a great many individuals without a Y chromosome remained active in their opposition to the new diktat, refused to be cowed and continued to design furniture, continued to reflect on relationships between furniture, space, users, society, continued to articulate their definition of contemporary in context of furniture and space, and sought with their work to argue against Hill and Brio's postulation and for the universality of the ability to design meaningful, responsive furniture. For furniture design as nurture not nature.
But only very few were listening to their arguments. And many of those who were listening, including the Momanians of MoMA, those fabled Guardians of "Good" in art and design in America, misheard and took great delight in those without Y chromosomes as playful, delicate muses of those with Y chromosomes, rather than as designers of furniture in their own right.
Thus, for a great many centuries it appeared that the only hope for those without a Y chromosome would be the inevitable degeneration of the Y chromosome, an event that was predicted to occur sometime within the next 5 to 10 million years. Patience was called for.
Then, as one can read in volume 11 of The Annals of European Chromosomology, a young researcher by the name of Em Pirical analysed Hill and Brio's original research and speculated that their work may have been corrupted by a trace of the toxin misogúnēs in their sample, and presented their own physical evidence by way of testing Hill and Brio's theoretical postulation. Specifically Em Pirical juxtaposed works by individuals without a Y chromosome including Îleen Gray, Nan Naditzel, Li Lyreich, Clara P O'rset, or the af Front siblings, with works by their contemporaries with a Y chromosome. The result was conclusive: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome has no role in the ability to design furniture. Similar testing by Em Pirical also disproving Hill and Brio's postulation in context of football, politics and barbecuing.
Yet despite the results of Em Pirical's research furniture design today, as with football, politics and barbecuing, is still primarily the preserve of those with a Y chromosome, a lingering consequence of generations of an enforced primacy of the Y chromosome, a lingering consequence of generations of conditioning; of the long period when the Y chromosome was assumed to be defining for the ability to design furniture. A long period which has resulted in museums full of furniture by individuals with a Y chromosome but almost devoid of works by those without; libraries of books about furniture by individuals with a Y chromosome but almost devoid of books about those without: manufacturer's portfolios almost devoid of works by designers without a Y chromosome, but awash with works by those with a Y chromosome.
A lingering consequence of generations of conditioning which aside from resulting in an inability on the part of most individuals to name 6 furniture designers, historic and/or contemporary, without a Y chromosome, continues to exist as a barrier to those without a Y chromosome hoping to work as professional furniture designers. With all the inevitable consequences that has for our furniture and our spaces, for our relationships with our furniture and our spaces; furniture and spaces which continue to be dominated and defined by the singularity of the Y chromosome gaze. As they have been for generation upon generation.
And while at times one could be forgiven for believing the degeneration of the primacy of the Y chromosome in professional furniture design will be as slow as the degeneration of the Y chromosome itself, an increasing awareness amongst museums and publishers of their role in the generations of conditioning, and of their responsibility to help right the wrongs done, is seeing ever more discussions on and with the furniture, the design, the positions of individuals without a Y chromosome, an increasing visibility of the work of those without a Y chromosome on both the narrative of furniture design (hi)story and also in discourses on furniture design's future. A process that has yet to have any noticeable effect on furniture manufacturers, but whose course raises hopes that before all too long it will.......
.......à suivre
