Certain ideas need to be allowed to persist, even if there is no evidence of their having any value. The reasons for doing this might not be immediately apparent but they need not be known for this allowance to be given. Ideas need to be allowed to continue on the basis of what they need. If they do not ask for attention, do not ask for money, do not ask for practitioners and do not ask for validation, what is the harm in letting them do what they need to do? Sanctuaries are structures that give such inert desires that do not require much a nestling space. A nestling space only means that a space to develop from a spark to a fire is available. Resources for adding fuel to the fire exist.

But what are the criteria of such an offer of nestling space? The criteria is purely instinctive. When we feel that a desire has yet not become enveloped in a puddle of cynicism, we include it in the sanctuary. Cynicism does not allow a desire to achieve its ends. The desire gets stuck in limbo, not being able to reset and not being able to go ahead and pursue its ends either. This sanctuary does not have only a personal implication for us. It has a wider implication even if you do not care about us or the Museum. We are not saying that culture is infectious so we indirectly and invariably have some influence on the way things will shape up. But we are stating that till the total annihilation of all the sanctuaries that offer nestling spaces is completed, there is no victory for either side. Sanctuaries are detested and their role in fermenting opposition is not easily tolerated.

But this depends on what the nestling space offered is able to trigger. Provided the nestling space is actually able to seed a drastic set of alternatives, it will really end up meaning something. The truth is that there are far fewer resources available for causes that are taking a bet on the future that might never be realised. There is a simple one-to-one correlation between investable futures and liveable realities. If an idea does not have the desperate desire to become investable, then it is an empty symbolic gesture and cannot be taken seriously. Not being take seriously means that there we retain no power and remain a benign entity on the landscape.

Things wear out on frequent and unrestricted use. When they wear out, they are in the middle space, neither are they broken nor are they fully functional. Being worn means there is a handle with care sign generally put out. The sign is put out for the one who would still want to use the object. Sitting on a worn chair means that one has to be open to the dangers of falling. When we sit, and we sit without fear or without care, we are as if leaning on the chin. A relationship of trust can easily be traced between the user of the chair and the chair.

When we sit and sit with full trust, we sit as if the ground beneath our feet is not going to move or shake. We sit in reliance. Just as we stand in responsibility.

So sitting on a worn chair is not compatible with the idea of sitting at all.

What does the object allow us to do? What it allows us to do is its affordance. But some objects are generic and have multiple affordances. It is OK to do something with them and at another time it is also possible to do something else with them. This generic quality will have to be known in greater detail. The generic is the object that has not found its unique function yet. Some objects do not ever find their unique function. They remain like idle objects that can be used as chairs of a varying efficiency. A chair can be just a sitting surface with a backrest or it could be a sitting surface that could be of the right height and the right depth. It could have arms. It could magically match perfectly the height of the table that is not a table.

Objects that have not found their affordance form the blueprint of our future.

Copies are made not because there is a dearth of ideas but because putting new ideas into motion is a risk. And risk and capital have a relationship that is opposed to each other. Where there is risk, there will be no capital. Capital is available only for a predictable multiplication, for some factor of extrapolation. If something works as an idea, then it can be scaled up. If it has been not proven yet then there is no opportunity or stage available for it. The task of vetting of ideas and deciding which is worthy of investment and which not is performed by the faculty of copying. If something is worth copying then surely it would at least be worth doing.

How do we make our ideas easy to copy? We should expose them through whichever means possible. Spam, for instance has a very low success rate, but when it gets though, it makes a connection which feels like a discovery.

Ergonomics is the economics of comfort. Because it is the economics and not for instance the dynamics, there is a certain amount of give and take that needs to be taken into account. What can be given away and what can be retained in the context of a given design object? Not all aspects of the use of an object can be made comfortable, everything is inter-linked and some flips trigger some flops. When comfort becomes perfectly calibrated, luxury emerges. Luxury is the abundance of comfort in ways ordinarily imagined to be untenable. There is no constraint of cost in a luxury product. Actually the more the price a luxury product demands, the greater the chances of it keeping its promise.

Authentic luxury does not care about the money. It just wants to provide an unsparingly exact response to our fantasy of how well things can be coordinated.

The form that is given to a given entity is not an accident. Deep consideration is given to each parameter of its design. And form is not even a parameter. It is not even derived from a set of parameters. Form is a constraint. The aesthetic a specific form needs to meet is not decided by any process that occurs across a single instance. The template of the ideal form is derived from working on scores of projects across time. The aesthetic of a designer is developed by a lot of factors. Some of these factors have nothing to do with design and have something to do with the life of the designer. The word life includes all the content staged off the drawing board. What is seen? What is spoken? What is heard? What becomes part of the filter and what is only a mannerism that is brushed off over time?

The form emerges out of the fiction of the designer’s self-construction.