THE SPEAKERS CORNER CONTAINER – CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT

 

LINDA

Hello, good morning Anne, and good afternoon, Sam. It’s good to have you here in the conversation, cause you’re both so fascinated by algorithms, by patterns, by a lot of things that for me are a little bit difficult to understand and a bit weird. I would like to introduce first Anne, what are you doing today? What is your main job today and how are you working also in relation to companies making that brand identity, working with all that technology? 

 

ANNE TIMERMAN

We work with a lot of companies as creative partners: with Dior, Cartier, Issey Miyake, Nike, Vuitton. Our projects originate in identity, and then expand into architecture, interiors, facades, even master planning. Our approach is about technology and creative ways to use it. So I can tell a little bit more what kind of tricks we’re using. But, right now, there are three ongoing projects we develop in parallel and try to use with all of our clients. One is Visual Analysis that allows us to look closely at images, at existing images of the company. And since we work so much with large brands that have amazing history, it’s really a lot of materials that we can look at. We build custom databases to look at these. The next one is work with design elements and patterns, and the most recent one is transforming into time, being able to look at the development of shapes and patterns in time. 

 

LINDA LOPPA

Sam, It might be a good thing to talk about that, to understand where you would like to go with technology. 

 

SAM COTTON

Well, I suppose from a background point of view I approach projects and work in a similar way to Anne, but that’s kind of process usually lends its way towards the actual production product and also the sort of creation of the sort of philosophy behind why that product needs to exist. So, from that point of view, I go quite deep into history of philosophy, mystery of sciences, algorithms, why people make the decisions they make, how humans behave. And through this process, I have worked with a variety of brands, in tandem with the University of Central London and the Institute of Making. And this year I’ve been sitting on these projects for a while. And I kind of just wanted to really start to explore them a little bit more and some of the projects themselves are, but the one you mentioned, An Image of Thoughts basically challenged the idea of the fallibility of language. I’ve always found, I suppose from a macro level, I’ve always found computers and algorithms, quite a beautiful thing. 

 

Luxury fashion really struggles with technology. I think they find technology not very sexy. Unfortunately, these sort of things, have hampered the growth of projects that I wanted to do in the past. So, this point, I just decided that I would actually go ahead with it. I worked with this creative algorithmic processor based between Canada and America and New York. And together we wanted to challenge, looking at the works of Derrida, Wittgenstein, the fallibility, as I mentioned, of language. So, we started this project together where we took the evolution of language, we showed how language itself potentially can be affected by invasions, by cultural slurs, changing of languages. And what we wanted to do is that we wanted to see that sort of track of evolution towards what language is doing, and then push the language even further and see if we can get closer to meaning as Wittgenstein wanted; he wanted to find what language potentially could do for us and not be so constricted by what it’s actually doing organically really. 

 

LINDA LOPPA

Anne, Tell me what’s your reaction?

 

ANNE, 

Well, I think that’s the most interesting thing that happened, happen by chance. So, you do something very intentionally and you set up a process and then something goes wrong. Or maybe we just, you know, we’re kind of clicking away. I think the worst thing is to be very serious while you’re working. 

 

LINDA LOPPA

I know that you both are interested in errors, the error of weaving, the error of…. Could you go deeper in that concept, Sam? 

 

SAM COTTON

I always find there’s an argument that people always make that the reason why creativity through humans is always going to stand out above creativity over robotics or algorithms, is that there’s the fallibility of error what makes human art beautiful. I’ve always been quite fascinated by this and the more that science has kind of read into it, the big thing that I’ve kind of been processing the most is this idea of the non-free will. So, everyone believes that they have the free will to make every decision they make. But ultimately through a variety of tests, which I’m not going to go into all of them because there’s a lot and it takes quite a while to explain, but actually this argument, to say that we don’t actually have free will, or the decisions that we make are based on, nurtured our DNA processes that occurred for us in the past. So, if that is the case and everything that we’re doing, even the mistakes that we’re making are, they’re kind of already outlaid for us to process them and do them. Now, there’s no reason why you can’t do the same thing with computers. Things like chaos algorithms, there’s an artist I’ve always loved called John Cale and John Cage as well. John Cage and John Cale both used to produce this thing called prepared piano, where they’d take equipment and they’d put nuts and bolts and scissors and stuff, and they’d be able to resonate noises that were not what that instrument was supposed to do. And in theory, it’s just processing errors into the instrument. For me, it was like, how do you take that to the next level? How do you start making errors for something that is seen as so perfect? But it really isn’t because you can cause a lot of mischief and problems by putting code errors into algorithms or into machinery, like we mentioned, like weaving machines. I just find that quite interesting.

 

ANNE TIMERMAN

Yes, yes, yes. For sure. It’s actually so, I love this work, it seems that machines can be much more creative than humans, but it’s always the interaction between humans and computers, how you program and how you interact with the computer. And that’s actually where we try to subvert the way a program is working. Right? You can say that, any computer program we use was built to do certain things. So, you can draw a rectangle or you can move or scale. But how you can play against this program, against the machine, and do something that was not predetermined to do in it. So, it’s this kind of interaction.

 

SAM COTTON

I was just gonna say, it’s the same as Anne is saying, bang on, it’s like people often talk about how important craft is. And I love craft. It’s like, I never knew another business that focuses on the encouragement of craft. But people obsess over the historical processes of craft and machinery and men, women putting their hands together and making something. But all of those things are exactly what Anne said that is still the same process of using a machine or a tool to process and make through human thought. Now doing that same process in algorithms or within high-level machinery is exactly the same process. So, it’s just the next level up of craft, basically for me.

 

LINDA LOPPA

I know you’re both interested in 3D printing. How do you see the connection with algorithms and the errors?

 

ANNE TIMERMAN

Lots of errors happen in 3D printing for sure. But I think if we are talking about computers, we’re producing bits, hopefully we’re producing meanings. But if we start to talk about how we make, weave, build things that we designed, how we turn bits into matter, it’s a completely different story in terms of what kind of errors can happen. And it becomes already way, way more complicated.

 

LINDA LOPPA

Sam, you were also hoping to do objects as an artist. I mean, artistic work. How do you feel about that with the 3d printing? Is it working? At what stage are you in this process?

 

SAM COTTON

Again, I’ve got a printer in Switzerland that I’m working with at the moment, and it is on trial level because I think, I mean, the things that I want to do with 3d printers have to take a lot of trust by the person who owns the printers, because I kind of want to put material through them that isn’t conventional. We spoke a little bit about this and herself, quite serendipitously, was interested in running clay and cement through machines. And I’ve been trying to ultimately 3d printers will print anything that can become liquid form. So, metals, I’ve seen works by some artists to melt down the processes that they’re using to generate the 3d and then reprint that into an item. Anything that can melt down and do it, is game. But it’s making sure that those people who own the machines are like, okay, yeah, we can clean them afterwards, or it’s not going to break the thousands of pounds worth of machines. So yeah, we’re close.

 

LINDA LOPPA

Anne what is your latest project that you like so much?

 

ANNE TIMERMAN

Well, the latest thing that we made actually, I sent you this morning. It tracks the development of form in time. We’re trying to understand what’s the best way to create and develop form. The typical process, if you work with any program is command — response, back and forth. Another way is to use an existing algorithm, something like Voronoi, for example, that has a certain look that you can use. You can very easily recognize both designs that were made with the back-and-forth process and parametric designs. You can recognize the algorithms that you know already. We work with brands that all have to be differentiated from each other. They have to be unique and look different. We cannot allow any certain recognizable look that will be the same across different brands. So what we’re trying to do is build design processes, maybe they are black boxes in a way, right? You put something, some input on one side and you get a result on the other. The process is completely custom built, code that is done for a specific project, and leads to a unique, new design. And I always felt that the process itself is so much more interesting, seeing how form is put together. So now, we’re trying to actually capture the process and see how form develops in time. So we get a time object that not only happens as one image but it’s continuous. So that’s, in a way, what was interesting. And I think part of it was this lockdown and the fact that we could no longer make things that are three-dimensional, for example, a facade in the store. A person walks around, the object is still, but it’s still animated through the movement of the person. But if we don’t have that, then the movement has to be somehow built into the digital object itself.

 

LINDA LOPPA

There is a link between not only the technical, but also the fashion element, you know. Sam, you’re a designer, you have your own brand, Raiment, you’re doing a lot of consultancy lately. I heard you’re quite busy. Yes, that’s good news. And so, I wanted to ask you a little bit about the shift in fashion, like high fashion, luxury, all those big brands where Anne you are working for. Sam, talk a bit about your consultancy and how your brand is doing and what you actually, how do you feel about fashion today?

 

LINDA LOPPA

Be careful! Because you wanted to be in the “speakers’ corner” and this is the speaker’s corner. We have to say what we think here. Yeah, go!

 

SAM COTTON

So, I suppose, being someone who can actually say something for free, trying to work out the best way to put it, this I suppose means being freelance to me.

 

I was based in-house before I was freelance. I had a lot of different consultancy gigs. And I had started at my own brands, which I got investment for. I came back earlier this year, obviously to what happened with coronavirus and, as you know, been getting more and more disillusioned with the industry itself. I’ll go into that in a little bit more detailed in a minute, but I think, also basically what happened with my brand, we had a second season, we had a really good season. We took like 40 stores, we’re a brand-new brand, which is really good. We were picking up like some really good department stores and luxury boutiques. Obviously, Coronavirus happened, all of those wholesale banks wouldn’t lend us any money. Everyone canceled their orders or if they didn’t then, like I said, I couldn’t get money from the banks to loan because it was too much volatile market. The whole world kind of changed. I was thinking, I really value the life I lead in London. I really love it here. I found the city I was in quite restrictive. I found what I was doing quite restrictive and the industry quite difficult. And I thought this is really troublesome. And kind of long story short this year has kind of really changed that. 

 

I think more companies now have become aware that it is possible to work abroad. It is possible to have people digitally communicate and design is possible to, I don’t know, work in this way that involves less physical presence and more openness to innovative ideas that come over, come online. So, for me working freelance has been really good. I think it’s, in some ways, I suppose, being freelance, you’re free to say what you want. There is still that fear of longevity to the work that you have. But I suppose in terms of that, now it enabled me to be more selective with who I work with. I think in the past for other companies, if you worked in a house, I think you start developing the worst like Stockholm syndrome, in effect going along with that house’s narrative, go along with the house typologies, what it is to deal with sales, buying behavior, who the consumer is and then I think ultimately when you’re in that bubble, working in luxury, you sort of sink deeper and deeper and deeper into this reactive design decisions, which is probably the only way I can really put it. 

 

The collection starts from a point of view that’s now mirroring the consumer rather than creating something new and groundbreaking. And because ultimately, I suppose new and groundbreaking is a risk and a risk means money and risking money is like the equivalent of playing Russian roulette with your career, I suppose. It’s like, it’s really scary. And I think, I think for me now working in this way, and now there’s this big shakeup in the industry where, I don’t know, I think freelance is now really vital to businesses because it’s important that they come in to shake the sort of status quo of the brand that ultimately, it’s, I suppose, it’s like a fresh set of eyes for the company. You’re somebody coming in with a completely different aspect, from a completely different, maybe, cultural notion. Seeing a planet at the moment, which is shut down literally in different times in times of the week, day, month, so many changes. So, I think it’s really important. And I think at the moment, I think people are starting to notice that maybe I was saying something right before all this happened and now, they want a piece of it.

 

LINDA LOPPA

Always good things in the bad things. It’s always love and hate. And it’s always a struggle if something happens like we had this year, some good things happened as well. I mean, like I was writing those containers, I didn’t know when it was going to be. And here we sit talking to each other. It’s sometimes a break that we need and a shakeup to say hello in the morning, what are we doing with our lives, where are we going? 

 

SAM COTTON

I was just, sorry to interrupt. So, before miss the point, I was going to start with that. Um, yeah, exactly. What you’re saying is, it’s really weird, I mean, it’s not weird how we’ve got into it, but that idea of you valuing products that you’ve owned 40 years, like, the idea of craft and consideration of design, somehow, well, obviously through neo-liberalism, mass manufacture, mass consumption, we’ve now being kind of blindsided towards what is important in design. And, I think for me, I mean, I know I mentioned before when we were talking about this, before you mentioned this idea of wild design being important and I think, sorry, wild ideas. And I was going to bring up this thing then, because I put a note on it. 

 

I think wild ideas are really important and shaking up the industry is very important. But ultimately wild ideas need to be grounded and understanding. My research, it starts with philosophical writing, economic models, social engagement, ethical processes, historical design. And I think to do those wild ideas, we also need to understand where those ideas have come from and to know where we’re going. For example, we know, I’ve mentioned, for me homogeny is one of the worst things in design at the moment, it’s killing the industry. It’s basically this whole industry was built on this idea of having self-expression and individuality. But brands are so, so scared at the moment of doing something new, and trying something that’s different to what everyone else is doing. And, I don’t know, it’s just really, really, really hard. And I think for this to have an effect, it’s like you said, in the past, you’ve grown up valuing quality and design and something that’s timeless. I need to change that, we really need to, I think we’re doing it now, but I think we need to go deeper into this new idea of awareness. I don’t know, how things are being developed, why things are being developed, why it has it place in society, its meaning, its innovation. I don’t know, all of these things. I think the only way this will ever change is if there is a monumental change, politically, ideologically, I think, mass manufacture needs to be considered, we did this to ourselves with offshoring, but I don’t know, until that sort of stuff is levied and controlled and businesses are more inclined to sell better and less, then we are going to find it really difficult to overthrow this sort of mass consumerism at the moment. Sorry. That was a bit of a tirade, but yeah.

 

LINDA LOPPA

Nothing is impossible. It’s just to believe in it and be enthusiastic and convincing. Anne are you optimistic with your research because you found out now that new, well, you found now that maybe there are smaller brands who need you.

 

ANNE TIMERMAN

Yes, but when you’re talking about the environment, I am not very optimistic. We have a three-year old and I don’t know how things are going to be when she grows up. I’m coming from the old world; I was brought up in Moscow among grandparents who grew up during the first world war and then went through all of the disasters of the 20th century. Their stories always loomed large for me, only in the last few years I stopped thinking about them. And with the lockdown the memories of my grandparents came back. At the same time, when I talk to people we work with, at technology companies, the feeling is completely different, it’s perceived as an opportunity to do business around environmental issues and technologies that deal with cleanup and the development of new materials and processes.

LINDA LOPPA

In fact, we made a mess out of it, that’s true. We were unconscious, greedy, and we were not really thinking about the globe. Now, if we plant a tree every day, maybe we solve the situation, but I don’t have the..I have a garden but I forgot to do it. So maybe we should have a new technology to have a tree that we can plant. I don’t know where, to save the situation of the world. But I think what our work is and what your work is, it’s always about passion. You know, it’s passion that drives us. And for you, that drive can bring the brand identity to a better level. I think we have to be positive in a way. I mean, you can’t think about all the negative things. It’s the ‘speakers’ corner’ the solution to say what we think aloud?

 

SAM COTTON

And it’s really important right now, personally, because I think, I mean, as you kind of touched it, I’ve been growing really disillusioned with the industry. I mean, as you know Linda, I mean, you more than anyone because you’ve started this whole container project because of your disillusion with the industry. So, I think I thought when COVID hit, myself felt like one of those, frustrated, prophetic, soothsayers where I was basically, I mean, I’ve been working on projects for the last four years, like I said, with the UCL and the Institute of Making and all these material innovation departments, because I just really wanted to see a change happen. That’s what drove me aesthetically, functionally. And I could see how behind the times the whole luxury industry become. 

 

I saw this massive gap that was being utilized within automation and architecture. And I kind of saw this stuff, innovation, material design, economic models, marketing, all these things. And I was trying to bring the luxury industry into the future and kind of let it embrace progressive innovation and technology, but apparently that’s way easier said than done, because it was difficult. Nobody wanted to budge on the old methods. And as we said technology, isn’t sexy. It wasn’t sexy at the moment, but now you see the whole industry, like, and it’s frustrating because you just see the whole industry now panicking. They’re trying to jam round pegs into square holes and desperate for the technology to be sexy for them. But they just don’t know how to do it. And I don’t know, it just seems really disingenuous. And when you start seeing Chanel, without naming names, you see Chanel trying to do this, 360° digital, catwalky 3d affair things. And I’m just like, have you just gone on to future laboratory, clicked who does 3d shows when you do this? Cause this is technology. You can be smarter than that. You don’t have to, your consumers, aren’t people are going to log into your 3d show and get a VR headset to scan themselves into a thing, it’s like be smarter. But I believe this opportunity allows people like myself and Anne to come together and actually start to find the right and restricted platform to show our thought and our design process and actually let it have influence. I mean, Anne has all the big names, just have influence because she’s got all the biggest names in the industry working for working for her. But for me, I need them. So, here I am.

LINDA LOPPA

The subtitle of my project, of the containers, it’s connecting people. So, connecting. I’m thinking that this is a good connection.

 

ANNE TIMERMAN

Yes, yes. Actually, because you were talking, in your project, about chaos algorithms, it started another round of discussions with my dad who is a mathematician, he specializes in nonlinear systems and generation of patterns in nature, for example coloration of animals and insects. But always the discussion stops where the numbers begin, because I cannot understand any of the formulas. I think that we should really push harder and get this going. But in general, maybe the solution is also to produce less, fewer material things and more things that we can enjoy digitally. 

LINDA LOPPA

Yeah, I think it’s possible. I think we can conclude, let’s enjoy the digital. I thought it was a good conclusion. Let’s enjoy life and the digital. Thank you both. Thank you.

SAM COTTON
Thanks for having us.

ANNE TIMERMAN

Thank you so much Linda. Sam, we’ll try to catch up and discuss.

 

LINDA LOPPA

Yeah, we have to go further, because we could do another hour of talking.

 

SAM COTTON

Anne I’d love to introduce you to the guy that I’m working with, who’s a creative algorithmic processor, because I think you’d love his work, so yeah.

 

ANNE TIMERMAN

Yes. It would be awesome. Thank you so much.

 

LINDA LOPPA

Good to have a nice day have a nice evening. Thank you, both. Big kiss. Thank you.