Actually, the hon­or was all mine to be intro­duced by Massimo who’s a god, a leg­end already, and to be here with you. There’s noth­ing bet­ter than being at a con­fer­ence where I don’t know hard­ly any­body. It’s real­ly a big plea­sure. And I’m here today to talk to you about food and design. About what’s cook­ing in design, and what’s design­ing in food. But most of all I’m here to rec­om­mend to you nev­er to let design­ers decide what you will eat, because this is what you’re going to get:

Michael Burton & Michiko Nitta, Algaculture

Designers late­ly are obsessed with how we will eat in the future. They’re so con­cerned about the short­age of food in the world that they’re envi­sion­ing so much of what will hap­pen, and so much of it is cat­a­stroph­ic in their minds. You all think, or maybe not all of you, but many many think that design is cute chairs and graph­ics and maybe fonts. But so many design­ers, instead are think­ing of sce­nar­ios for the future, think­ing of the con­se­quences of the choic­es that we make today. And in this case Michael Burton and Michiko Nitta have decid­ed in the future we will have to rely on algae. And of course we already are, but sea­weed will be the way to go. And they’re think­ing of these kind of sci­ence fic­tion sce­nar­ios that will help us under­stand and sur­vive the future.

Or even worse. Arne Hendriks, a Dutch design­er, is sug­gest­ing we shrink to 23 of our cur­rent size in order to real­ly cope with how much we’re con­sum­ing of the world’s resources. So, it real­ly is a set of par­ty poop­ers is that we’re deal­ing with, in terms of design. And so much so that they’re think­ing of how we can change our phys­i­ol­o­gy, and even start just ges­tat­ing endan­gered species. 

This is Ai Hasegawa, who thinks of how we could actu­al­ly ges­tate a dol­phin as opposed to babies. As opposed to human babies, we should start think­ing of species that are endan­gered right now.

Wonderwater Café menu designs

Even worse, some­times design­ers get so far as to remind­ing us before we even start eat­ing of how much we have con­sumed already by choos­ing those pieces of the menu.

So, I think design­ers real­ly need you, because if, as Julian [Baggini] remind­ed us before, there are so many dif­fer­ent schol­ars and chefs in the past that have talked about the dif­fer­ence between feed­ing and actu­al­ly enjoy­ing, and about eat­ing and instead just get­ting nour­ish­ment, design­ers need to have a lit­tle bit of lev­i­ty and delight inject­ed in what they do, and to stop think­ing of sce­nar­ios like this.

Dunne & Raby, Foragers

These are Dunne & Raby, the great design­ers from London that are the father and moth­er of crit­i­cal design. They’re actu­al­ly think­ing of out­sourced gas­troin­testi­nal sys­tems that in the future will enable us to go back to digest­ing things we stopped digest­ing mil­len­nia ago, such as, once again, algae, or roots, or leaves from trees. A pret­ty sad sce­nario for the future were think­ing of. But I don’t know how many of you are involved in the under­stand­ing of new the­o­ries such as the the­o­ry of the sixth extinc­tion, as Elizabeth Kolbert calls it in her recent book [The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History], or the the­o­ry of the Anthropocene, that thinks of the fact that humans are real­ly con­sum­ing too many resources and there­fore are on the way to extinction.

But before we get to the [?] of extinc­tion, we’re going to enjoy it as much as we can. And we’re going to try to replen­ish as many of the resources as we can. But when design­ers think of food, even though they are so sad, they also try to get a lot of under­stand­ing and lessons from the way food is cooked. And more and more, design­ers are try­ing to cook their objects. They’re try­ing to do alche­my and chem­i­cal reac­tions in what they do. You see it in the way so many objects are designed today. I’m sure that all of you have heard of 3D print­ing, which means chang­ing a slur­ry of plas­tics, and hard­en­ing it through heat or light, which is not that dif­fer­ent from what we do when we cook, for instance pas­ta or many oth­er ingredients.

Markus Kayser, SolarSinter; Tomáš Libertíny, The Honeycomb Vase, 2007;
Dirk Vander Kooij, Endless Chair, 2010

And you can tell how it’s usu­al­ly done with resins, but some oth­er design­ers like Markus Kayser tried to do it instead of using resin using sand, and the sil­i­ca that is in sand that can become glass. So he uses sand in the Sahara Desert and he con­cen­trates sun­beams using the—you know, we used it as chil­dren, the Fresnel lens to burn the leaves. And by doing so he makes beau­ti­ful ves­sels that look at the same time cen­turies old and done yes­ter­day, because they report the scan­ning of 3D print­ing, but they are made of sand and glass.

Or Tomáš Libertíny, that takes forty-five thou­sand bees and sets them on a scaf­fold made of card­board so that they can make beau­ti­ful vas­es such as this.

This idea of grow­ing, this idea of mak­ing using nature, of try­ing to under­stand new ways in which things can be gen­er­at­ed by the rules that are intrin­sic to them (which is what we do when we take nat­ur­al ingre­di­ents and we cook) is hap­pen­ing more and more also because design­ers and sci­en­tists are com­ing together. 

Skylar Tibbits & Arthur Olson, Fluid Crystallization, 2013;
Aranda\Lasch, Rules of Six, 2008

You see here a set of exper­i­ments that are from nanophysi­cists work­ing with archi­tects. Or chemists and biol­o­gists work­ing with design­ers. More and more it’s about crys­tal­liz­ing new forms. More and more it’s about learn­ing from nat­ur­al struc­tures, crys­talline struc­tures, how build­ings, objects, our envi­ron­ment, even infra­struc­ture, can gen­er­ate itself in a way that is at the same time nat­ur­al and also new.

Nature does it best. We all know it. You know, when we look for the ingre­di­ents to make our best dish­es, we look for some­thing that already is the best in nature. And then we try to under­stand how to opti­mize those process­es so they can gen­er­ate some­thing that is even more delightful.

Neri Oxman & Mediated Matter Lab, MIT Media Lab, Silk Pavilion, 2013

And nature has done it best for mil­len­nia. The work of Neri Oxman, who is a great engi­neer and archi­tect from MIT, is par­tic­u­lar­ly impor­tant because she’s try­ing to incor­po­rate the way nature makes things into archi­tec­ture. In this case, you see this pavil­ion that she built at the MIT Media Lab in Cambridge Massachusetts. The con­struc­tion work­ers are actu­al­ly silk­worms. Silkworms that are applied to a struc­ture that is set to light and tem­per­a­ture con­di­tions that are opti­mal for the silk­worms to build exact­ly that pavil­ion. It’s woven, it’s made by nature, it’s biodegrad­able, it’s a per­fect struc­ture that is also per­fect for human beings. 

Jonas Edvard, Biodegradable MYX; Philip Ross, Mycelium Furniture, Mycotecture;
Maurizio Montalti, Continuous Bodies — Bodies of Change, 2013

And so on and so forth, design­ers try to real­ly real­ly cook. Mushrooms seem to be one of the biggest obses­sions togeth­er with silk­worms for so many design­ers. And in par­tic­u­lar mush­room myceli­um, which is what mush­rooms secrete that helps them attach them­selves to trunks of trees. 

The myceli­um of mush­rooms is used by so many archi­tects and design­ers to look for a new way to bind bio­bricks to make struc­tures, to actu­al­ly make it so that a biodegrad­able bind­ing ele­ment can be added to build­ings. And to chairs, and to lamps, and in this case this design­er is actu­al­ly think­ing of a shroud in which dead corpses can be insert­ed so that they decom­pose more nat­u­ral­ly. Fun, huh? I’m talk­ing about real­ly cheer­ful stuff today. 

The Living/David Benjamin, Hy-Fi, 2014

But there is cheer­ful stuff to be done. Because you see here one of the first exam­ples of a struc­ture that is built with bricks made of corn stalks that are kept togeth­er with mush­room myceli­um. And actu­al­ly we have some­body in the audi­ence, Audrey, that has worked on this. She has worked on this beau­ti­ful project that is cur­rent­ly at MoMA PS1 in Long Island City.

Christina Agapakis and Sissel Tolaas, Selfmade

So, real­ly it’s hap­pen­ing. Designers are cook­ing. They’re also cook­ing their own body ele­ments. You see here the work of Christina Agapakis and Sissel Tolaas. Sissel in par­tic­u­lar is a won­der­ful scent artist and design­er, and I am sure that so many of you would love to work with her. She’s based in Berlin. She uses sci­ence and she uses design to dis­till new types of scent. And in this case, Christina and Sissel worked togeth­er to make—sorry to tell you—human cheese. Which is cheese that is har­vest­ed using in part human milk, and bac­te­ria from armpits. So you know, it’s about self-sufficiency for the future. In fact it’s called Selfmade.” So this kind of alche­my, it’s hap­pen­ing a lot, and design­ers are actu­al­ly talk­ing about it.

Formafantasma: Autarky, 2010; Botanica, 2011, De Natura Fossilium, 2013

This is the work of two fab­u­lous Italian design­ers that work in the Netherlands. One is from Sicily, one is from Venetto. They’re called Formafantasma togeth­er. And they have been doing so much of what you have also been doing. Looking to the roots of our cul­ture, look­ing to the way argilla and clay come togeth­er. Or look­ing for these nat­ur­al resins that make up straws and hon­ey and beeswax, and try­ing to teach oth­er design­ers how to cook them, lit­er­al­ly. There’s a depart­ment store in Milan called la Rinascente where they did this per­for­mance in which they had big pots, and they were cook­ing pret­ty much like here we saw noo­dles be made. They were mak­ing resin there and stir­ring it, some­thing that could nev­er hap­pen in United States. There were fumes all over the place and peo­ple throw­ing boil­ing hot resin [at each oth­er]. It was was pret­ty fun.

So, design­ers are cook­ing, too. But what I would like to real­ly talk about is what Massimo was actu­al­ly hint­ing at. Every day, every­day foods, basic foods the come from mate­r­i­al cul­ture, from dif­fer­ent parts of the world, foods that no design­er and no new archi­tect could ever impro­vise. And I would like to link them to an idea of design.

You see here the at” sign. This is some­thing that we acquired in the col­lec­tion of MoMA two years ago, as an exam­ple of design. Why? Because it real­ly answers all the ques­tions that you ask of a great design. It is old. It is ancient. The first time it was encoun­tered was actu­al­ly in medieval man­u­scripts. The monks used it to abbre­vi­ate the Latin prepo­si­tion ad,” which is in rela­tion­ship with in direc­tion. And it’s remained through­out the cen­turies, used by mer­chants, to think of at the rate of,” quan­ti­ty ver­sus price, used by accoun­tants. It was even in the type­writ­ers in the United States at the end of the 19th century.

And it remained through­out his­to­ry. Until in 1971, an elec­tron­ic engi­neer, Ray Tomlinson, was work­ing for a con­trac­tor for the gov­ern­ment of the United States. They were design­ing the Internet. And in par­tic­u­lar he was in charge of the email pro­gram. And he need­ed some­thing to shrink the line of pro­gram­ming code that con­nect­ed the name of the per­son to the name of the com­put­er. It was the name, and then always the same command.

He looked at the key­board of this tele­type that he was using. He saw this beau­ti­ful lit­tle thing, did some research, under­stood that it meant exact­ly what he needed—connection—adopted it, and the first email that he sent was about this sign.

So, tra­di­tion and moder­ni­ty, old and new, sim­plic­i­ty, econ­o­my, and also beau­ty. Because if you think about it, beau­ty is in this piece, is in this object. And beau­ty is not some­thing that costs more than ugli­ness. Beauty is a human right that is avail­able to every­body, and that’s what we seek in design objects.

Objects like this need to be iso­lat­ed from their con­text for peo­ple to notice their beau­ty. And since my job is to explain to as many peo­ple as pos­si­ble the pow­er of design, and I try to do it with every­thing. With the at sign, with the Post-it note, with any sim­ple things, the paper clip. Why not food?

So I start­ed think­ing years ago of a book called Design Bites that would not be a recipe book but a design book that would talk about food from all over the world. And the food would be divid­ed in chap­ters that were designed chap­ters. So you would have a chap­ter with struc­tur­al breads from all over the world. Chapters about focac­cia and mat­zo and naan and bam­my and tor­tilla. Everything that is flat and made from a mix­ture of a cere­al of sorts with some water, maybe some leav­en­ing, and then flat-cooked, or no leav­en­ing at all. 

And that would then become struc­tur­al and sup­port for some­thing else. So you see piz­za and Nutella, Vegemite; what­ev­er goes on the struc­tur­al bread. 

So this idea of real­ly think­ing of the world as a set of designed mate­r­i­al cul­tures that gen­er­ate foods that nobody else could gen­er­ate, that real­ly are picked up gen­er­a­tion after gen­er­a­tion and trans­formed and metab­o­lized into some­thing new.

A chap­ter would be on rolls. So you would have of course tor­tilla rolls, and all of these dif­fer­ent maki rolls, and rugelach. And even though the ingre­di­ents mat­ter so much and the qual­i­ty mat­ters much, it’s more the way things are made that would actu­al­ly be mean­ing­ful to these chapters.

We would get to this kind of con­coc­tion. New mate­ri­als such as a crème brûlée or such as pud­ding. Putting togeth­er cer­tain very sim­ple ingre­di­ents that cre­ate a new con­sis­ten­cy that cre­ates a new way of eat­ing the ingre­di­ents that by them­selves would be so much less than the sum of their parts.

Of course that would be a chap­ter on sushi, and on all these lay­ered ingre­di­ents. And a chap­ter on icon­ic shapes. From the crois­sant to the bagel, and all their background. 

If you think about it, it’s real­ly about how things are made. It’s about…not real­ly you. You would be giv­ing wis­dom to a wider audi­ence for them to under­stand what design is about.

Giorgetto Giugiario, Marille; Philippe Starck for Panzani

Pasta, indeed, would deserve its own chap­ter. And it would deserve its own chap­ter also because of the dif­fer­ent rela­tion­ships between dif­fer­ent parts of the world. Also, it’s impor­tant to note that pas­ta can­not real­ly be touched by design­ers. I’m show­ing to you here two exam­ples of colos­sal fail­ures from the 1980s. And under­stand that the 1980s were extreme­ly prob­lem­at­ic for design. I’m sure they were also for food, if I remem­ber cor­rect­ly, as an ama­teur eater.

But for design it was a real weird moment of celebri­ty design­ers that thought they could design any­thing, like Giorgetto Giugiaro, who always designed cars. All of a sud­den he starts design­ing pas­ta for Barilla, Marille. It was actu­al­ly put in pro­duc­tion. It was in the stores. And nobody bought it. Why? Hello. Ask any Italian woman (or man) and she would have told you that some parts would over­cook and some oth­ers would undercook. The over­cooked part would be flop­py like that [flaps hand at the wrist] while the doubled-up part would be com­plete­ly undercooked.

The same with [Philippe Starck]. This is even more absurd, this kind of strange peace sign, yin and yang sign with two side can­ules. That also did not work at all. It was a com­plete flop. So in some cas­es, these basic units of food can­not be touched by any­body but gen­er­a­tions after generations.

And then pas­ta in itself, because of how diverse it is to accept dif­fer­ent kinds of sauces and to accept dif­fer­ent kinds of prepa­ra­tion, would be for a wide audi­ence a won­der­ful exam­ple of how design is universal. 

We’re used to divid­ing design, art, food, movies, and keep­ing every­thing sep­a­rate. But if you think about it, the act of tak­ing mate­ri­als that are avail­able and elab­o­rat­ing them togeth­er in order to achieve some­thing that—as we said before—is more than the sum of its parts, is some­thing that we all do. So, what is the dif­fer­ence between art and design? We were dis­cussing it before with Massimo. Art is com­plete­ly free from any bounds. Artists can choose whether to be respon­si­ble towards oth­er human beings or not.

Design, much like the prepa­ra­tion of food to a cer­tain extent, has to respond to cer­tain expec­ta­tions. You expect to not be poi­soned, first of all. Maybe you expect to be delight­ed and sur­prised. You expect to have a rela­tion­ship with the food that is pre­pared for you of affin­i­ty, if any­thing else. It’s part of your system.

The same for design. Function used to be some­thing real­ly prag­mat­ic. Today, func­tion some­times is emo­tion, delight, and sur­prise. But it’s still some­thing that peo­ple expect from design. So there are dif­fer­ent degrees of design, just like there are dif­fer­ent degrees of food prepa­ra­tion, but qual­i­ty is some­thing that we expect all the time. And so is the pres­ence of some sort of mate­r­i­al cul­ture or local culture. 


You know, the eter­nal argu­ment about the birth of spaghet­ti and noo­dles is an exam­ple of such. I would rather leave it to his­to­ri­ans to real­ly dis­si­pate any kind of doubt, but as far as we’re con­cerned, they exist togeth­er and they con­tribute to each other.

Of course, in the book you would get to more and more tech­ni­cal and syn­thet­ic kinds of foods. And some­times the cat­e­go­ry of snacks and cere­als, which I’m sure is it some of you a guilty plea­sure and to oth­ers of you a blas­phe­my alto­geth­er, is extreme­ly inter­est­ing. Some of these tech­ni­cal foods we have in the col­lec­tion of MoMA. The jel­ly beans, we have the M&M’s, and we have the Chupa Chups, and what else do we have in terms of foods? 

And peo­ple ask me how do they get stored. And it’s like no, we store it there, and if they go bad we get the M&M’s again. We make sure they are the orig­i­nal col­ors, because there’s been a lot of vari­a­tions in the col­ors. But one of the beau­ties about design objects is that some­thing done today, if it’s the same man­u­fac­tur­ing, it’s the same process, is an orig­i­nal, right? So we can keep on buy­ing M&M’s and jel­ly beans so long as they’re the right flavors.

So they are in the col­lec­tion of MoMA because they are great exam­ples of design, as are—well, actu­al­ly we don’t have bars yet in the col­lec­tion of MoMA. But when we did the sto­ry about hum­ble mas­ter­pieces, we had the Mars Bar because Mr. Forrest Mars was actu­al­ly also the one that intro­duced the M&M’s into the United States, hav­ing learned how to make that kind of coat­ed choco­late in Spain dur­ing the Civil War. So, real­ly inter­est­ing sto­ries about them all.

Then foods on a stick, kind of com­po­si­tions of foods that are still quite con­nect­ed to design, all the way to just a few designed foods. 

Food and design­ers is a lit­tle bit of a dif­fi­cult top­ic, because very often design­ers don’t know how to pre­pare food. Sometimes they’re good at col­lab­o­rat­ing with chefs. And in this case Martí Guixé is a good exam­ple. He’s from Barcelona. And actu­al­ly he stopped design­ing food quite some­time ago. But he became well-known in the 90s for his techno-tapas. They were not very tech­no, they were just ways to dis­trib­ute tapas so that they could be han­dled with­out hav­ing a whole dish and a whole preparation.

But I think I would stop there with the degree of design, because I believe that tru­ly in order to explain design to a wide audi­ence it’s bet­ter to stick to what every­body knows, so that they can under­stand design because they can also eat it. And ulti­mate­ly, what we’re all look­ing for is what we said before: tra­di­tion and inno­va­tion. Something that comes from an antiq­ui­ty that is in affin­i­ty with us as human beings, but is com­plete­ly live­ly today. Something that is func­tion­al and at the same time sub­lime. Something that gives us at the same time nour­ish­ment, func­tion, but also delight and sur­prise. Thank you very much.

Further Reference

Shortly after the acqui­si­tion of the @ sym­bol, Paola also pub­lished “@ in Context: Criteria for an Acquisition” as a follow-up to reactions.

Overview page for the MAD 4 / What is Cooking? event.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.