Introducing The Morning Studio

He is also the founder of OpenStructures (OS) an ongoing exploration of durable and democratic forms of design. OS is a construction model that links modularity to open collaboration and unfolds through a continuously evolving process, with a community of authors that test and evaluate its potential within the fields of design, art and architecture. Lommée and Christiane Högner lead the Brussels-based creative studio OS_Studio, the major driving force behind OS. He described his previous studio, Intrastructures, as a ‘pragmatic utopian design studio’, applying product-, service- and system design as tools for change.

Writer and DAE alumnus Emma Lucek spoke to Thomas Lommée about OpenStructures, the politics of authorship, qualifications for teaching, and his ideas for the continuation of The Morning Studio.

“Our society is built on individual freedom almost to a fault – that’s what we’re questioning”

→Emma Lucek: Could you start by telling me a little bit about your journey through Design Academy Eindhoven? What initially fascinated you about the idea of becoming a designer?

Tomas Lommée: I’ve been in contact with the Design Academy since I was 17. I joined as a student, and I was attracted by the idea of design and how things were made. But actually, I had no idea about design, to be honest. At that time, it was all about minimalism: Bang&Olufsen and Sony, that was really considered good design. Lots of glass and steel and very slick and perfect – perfectly shaped, perfectly produced. It was fascinating but also intimidating. And then I came across the work of Droog design: it was the doorbell that has those two wine glasses I have it here, it’s called Bottoms Up. Maybe not anymore, but back then it was really different and inviting because it was humorous and simple and very human. And it was then that I thought ok, if this is how design can also be done, maybe that’s something I could be a part of.

→EL: Tell me about the idea behind OpenStructures? The best and shortest description that I’ve read has been “Lego-meets-Wikipedia”.

TL: It’s a very simple idea, and I think that’s a great description. It’s like Lego in that it’s a modular system and like Wikipedia in the way that it’s developed by a community. We developed a geometrical grid, a common design template, that we distribute to designers and architects, and we ask them to design things on the basis of this grid. The result is that the chair by designer A and the bench by designer B have the same DNA. You could take both of them apart and recombine them with pieces of one another, and the parts will be compatible because they’re based on the same grid.

“Crediting people is one of the most crucial steps for an open system to work”

→EL: You call it a utopian idea – what do you believe are its challenges or drawbacks?

TL: I think the challenge is that it’s a restriction, in a way. It’s a sort of common design language, and in order for different designers to speak the same language, there somehow needs to be a common framework. With OpenStructures, it’s a modular system which gives a lot of room to play but, of course, because of this common framework it’s restrictive and that is seen as a challenge, when in fact if you look at our current society, we’re not used to restrictions at all. In design or architecture over the last 50 or 60 years, we’ve had absolute design freedom, we could make up any shape and use any material that we wanted. Our society is very much built on this individual freedom almost to a fault. So that’s what we’re questioning with OS. We come from a collective society and have emancipated ourselves from that, and to an extent that’s good, but haven’t we gone too far?

→EL: Have you also used the idea of OS as some kind of framework within your teaching practice? I read that you try not to impose it as a way of working or thinking.

TL: That’s true, I really try not to impose it. But at the beginning of the semester, I do an exercise that is based on OS. I ask the students how we might create the studio space together – could we make some communal structures (herby integrating the parts and components that the previous group left behind)? Could we think about how we would want this space to work? And then it’s not really about individual needs, but collective needs: creating a waste system, a material bank, a table for meetings, and so on.

→EL: What place does authorship have in this open source approach to design?

TL: It has for sure a place. Crediting people is one of the most crucial steps for an open system to work. There is absolutely authorship, it’s just that each individual author is no longer in possession of the whole or the process. Maybe co-authorship is a better term, then, because it’s just a different balance.

“It doesn’t take much to come up with an idea, but to push that idea into implementation takes a lot of belief”

→EL: Changing gears a bit, I wanted to know what prompted you to start teaching? What do you think qualifies you to teach?

TL: I’ve also asked myself that question because I was invited to teach at DAE although I do not consider myself to be a very successful designer. I still struggle in my practice on a daily basis. On the other hand, rather than teaching the students how to be successful, I do have other lessons I can share. Like, how not to give up, how to develop a process that is worth it, that you believe in, that you can enjoy (even if it’s not successful). It doesn’t take much to come up with an idea, but to really push that idea into implementation takes a lot of belief in the idea. At The Morning Studio we’re focused on three key elements: firstly, social impact. Secondly, finding a new balance between the individual and the collective. And thirdly, pushing our design proposals into everyday life, from the gallery to the street.

→EL: A last question: Why is it called The Morning Studio?

TL: It refers a bit to a moment. The morning is in between the world how it is today and how it could look tomorrow – sort of a window of opportunity. I think a good design is an idea that is bold and surprising but also tangible, a part of everyday life (beyond the experiment or the statement), and therefore accessible. And in being so, it sends out a signal. That’s how I see the function of the studio: to be broadcasting new kinds of signals about how things could be done differently.