Design and Ego
Text: Vincent Ahn
Function is passé. The discourse on the rationality and functionalism of design has been repeated ad nauseam, creating the illusion that these are the only useful and valuable aspects of design. Particularly when discussing furniture, the habit of inflating any practical design element as stemming from some great altruism toward the user needs to be abandoned. After all, consideration for function is a basic and obvious requirement of the designer’s profession. A more interesting and urgent subject to discuss would be something that has been heretofore denied in design — the “ego”.
Design has always been a field that prioritizes rationality, denying the designer any opportunity for self-expression. Design has always been evaluated based on its capacity for solving problems efficiently, and even in the case of famous and influential figures, the expression of the self has always been a secondary or hidden agenda. (The only exception being fashion.) Recently, however, there has been a noticeable shift towards design reflecting the personal identities and worldviews of the individual designer. Design is expanding beyond mere function to become an important medium through which the author’s inner self is revealed and communicated, demonstrating that the intense desire for self-expression in today’s designers is an inevitable driving force for creation. Some might dismiss this self-expression as mere vanity, but its importance in creation cannot be wholly denied. George Orwell, in his essay Why I Write, claims “sheer egoism” as one of the strongest motivations for creative work, and has criticized the attempt to hide the author’s desire to “seem intelligent, to be talked about, to be remembered after death”. Thus, we must now question what this expression of the ego means in design and how it can be understood in combination with function.
Ledongil’s solo exhibition On what must be is a result of the tension between his rational obsession as a designer and his instinct for self-expression. The exhibition title reflects a dual meaning: on one hand, an attitude that accepts the absolute tenets of design, functionality and rationality; on the other, an acknowledgment that the author’s ego will inevitably intervene in the work. Ledongil’s furniture-based work does not separate the two. The concept of “fragile structure”, his primary subject of investigation, while fundamentally representing his basic sentiments and worldview, ultimately integrates into a logical structure that fully serves the function as a piece of furniture. The meticulous details, such as the curved connections of the bookshelf, the twisting formal expressions in the lighting structure, and the subtle surface finish, all showcase the work’s practical capacity, while also exploring where the designer can privilege self-expression over functional rationality. This demonstrates that design is not just about solving problems, but also a medium to voice the designer’s self-expression and perspective on the world. (However, Ledongil’s work should not be simply classified as “art furniture”. Art furniture typically prioritizes the author's expression and relegates functionality to a secondary position, but Ledongil’s work remains stubbornly functional.)
Another interesting aspect of Ledongil’s work is his acceptance of functional demands and his simultaneous resistance against rationality. The delicate details, such as the cutting angles of metal parts, the minute curvature on the head of the lamp, and the subtle differences in surface finish, all refuse the logic of capitalistic production and privilege the individual’s aesthetic sensibility and subjectivity. His work is not judged based on metrics of productivity or economic efficiency but instead presents the possibility that design can move beyond the logic of industry to focus on personal exploration of aesthetic values. In a reality where designers face an existential crisis of being denied their individuality and subjectivity, their resistance may take on a more subtle form of rebellion, by persistently asserting and protecting their personal vision and internal expression, instead of taking a revolutionary stance against industry and capitalism. This demonstrates that design is not simply a tool for pursuing efficiency, but an act that embodies the author’s self, a vehicle for creating new standards. This is related to what George Orwell broadly defined as the “political purpose” of creation, the desire to “push the world in a particular direction, to change others’ thoughts about what society should strive for.”
The obsession with rationality in design cannot be easily excised. It has been the core value of design for its entire history, and the expectation for function is still deeply rooted in the designer’s creative process. To free oneself from this obsession, a personal exploration beyond the client’s demands is necessary. However, this does not mean that the designer should start working like an artist. Rather, it means that the designer must seek to balance the obsession with rationality and the desire for self-expression to achieve a sense of equilibrium. American critic Irving Babbitt once said that “to satisfy the standards of poetry without offending the standards of prose” is a miracle that only the greatest authors have achieved. Design should also seek new possibilities through a balance between rationality and self-expression. Ledongil’s work in On what must be experiments with the boundary between rationality and free expression in design, and acts as an important step towards exploring where the designer’s personal exploration and formal language intersect.
Text: Vincent Ahn
Function is passé. The discourse on the rationality and functionalism of design has been repeated ad nauseam, creating the illusion that these are the only useful and valuable aspects of design. Particularly when discussing furniture, the habit of inflating any practical design element as stemming from some great altruism toward the user needs to be abandoned. After all, consideration for function is a basic and obvious requirement of the designer’s profession. A more interesting and urgent subject to discuss would be something that has been heretofore denied in design — the “ego”.
Design has always been a field that prioritizes rationality, denying the designer any opportunity for self-expression. Design has always been evaluated based on its capacity for solving problems efficiently, and even in the case of famous and influential figures, the expression of the self has always been a secondary or hidden agenda. (The only exception being fashion.) Recently, however, there has been a noticeable shift towards design reflecting the personal identities and worldviews of the individual designer. Design is expanding beyond mere function to become an important medium through which the author’s inner self is revealed and communicated, demonstrating that the intense desire for self-expression in today’s designers is an inevitable driving force for creation. Some might dismiss this self-expression as mere vanity, but its importance in creation cannot be wholly denied. George Orwell, in his essay Why I Write, claims “sheer egoism” as one of the strongest motivations for creative work, and has criticized the attempt to hide the author’s desire to “seem intelligent, to be talked about, to be remembered after death”. Thus, we must now question what this expression of the ego means in design and how it can be understood in combination with function.
Ledongil’s solo exhibition On what must be is a result of the tension between his rational obsession as a designer and his instinct for self-expression. The exhibition title reflects a dual meaning: on one hand, an attitude that accepts the absolute tenets of design, functionality and rationality; on the other, an acknowledgment that the author’s ego will inevitably intervene in the work. Ledongil’s furniture-based work does not separate the two. The concept of “fragile structure”, his primary subject of investigation, while fundamentally representing his basic sentiments and worldview, ultimately integrates into a logical structure that fully serves the function as a piece of furniture. The meticulous details, such as the curved connections of the bookshelf, the twisting formal expressions in the lighting structure, and the subtle surface finish, all showcase the work’s practical capacity, while also exploring where the designer can privilege self-expression over functional rationality. This demonstrates that design is not just about solving problems, but also a medium to voice the designer’s self-expression and perspective on the world. (However, Ledongil’s work should not be simply classified as “art furniture”. Art furniture typically prioritizes the author's expression and relegates functionality to a secondary position, but Ledongil’s work remains stubbornly functional.)
Another interesting aspect of Ledongil’s work is his acceptance of functional demands and his simultaneous resistance against rationality. The delicate details, such as the cutting angles of metal parts, the minute curvature on the head of the lamp, and the subtle differences in surface finish, all refuse the logic of capitalistic production and privilege the individual’s aesthetic sensibility and subjectivity. His work is not judged based on metrics of productivity or economic efficiency but instead presents the possibility that design can move beyond the logic of industry to focus on personal exploration of aesthetic values. In a reality where designers face an existential crisis of being denied their individuality and subjectivity, their resistance may take on a more subtle form of rebellion, by persistently asserting and protecting their personal vision and internal expression, instead of taking a revolutionary stance against industry and capitalism. This demonstrates that design is not simply a tool for pursuing efficiency, but an act that embodies the author’s self, a vehicle for creating new standards. This is related to what George Orwell broadly defined as the “political purpose” of creation, the desire to “push the world in a particular direction, to change others’ thoughts about what society should strive for.”
The obsession with rationality in design cannot be easily excised. It has been the core value of design for its entire history, and the expectation for function is still deeply rooted in the designer’s creative process. To free oneself from this obsession, a personal exploration beyond the client’s demands is necessary. However, this does not mean that the designer should start working like an artist. Rather, it means that the designer must seek to balance the obsession with rationality and the desire for self-expression to achieve a sense of equilibrium. American critic Irving Babbitt once said that “to satisfy the standards of poetry without offending the standards of prose” is a miracle that only the greatest authors have achieved. Design should also seek new possibilities through a balance between rationality and self-expression. Ledongil’s work in On what must be experiments with the boundary between rationality and free expression in design, and acts as an important step towards exploring where the designer’s personal exploration and formal language intersect.
기능은 너무나 진부한 주제다. 디자인의 합리성과 기능주의에 관한 논지는 끝없이 반복된 탓에 마치 그것들이 디자인 분야의 유일한 쓸모와 가치인 듯한 착각과 강박을 유발한다. 특히 가구에 대해 말할 때 어떤 실용적인 디자인 요소를 사용자를 향한 대단한 이타심과 섬세함에서 비롯된 것으로 부풀리려는 습관은 그만둬야 한다. 디자이너가 기능을 고려하는 것은 그들 직능의 당연한 소양이 아닌가. 오히려 얘기해볼 만한 주제는 디자인 분야에서 금기시된 ‘자아’라는 것이다.
디자인은 언제나 합리를 추구해야 하는 분야로서 디자이너의 자기표현을 허용하지 않았다. 디자인은 늘 효율성과 객관적인 문제 해결의 도구로서 평가받았고, 유명하고 영향력 있는 인물의 경우에도 자아의 표현은 항상 부차적이거나 숨겨진 목표일 뿐이었다. (유일한 예외는 패션인 듯하다.) 그러나 최근 들어 개인의 정체성과 세계관이 디자인에 투영되는 현상이 두드러지고 있다. 디자인은 단순한 기능적 영역을 넘어 창작자의 내면을 드러내는 중요한 매체로 확장되고 있으며, 이는 오늘날 디자이너의 강렬한 자기표현 욕구가 창작의 필연적인 동력임을 드러낸다. 누군가는 이러한 자기표현을 단순히 허영심으로 치부할 수도 있겠다만, 그것이 창작의 본질적 요소임을 부정할 수는 없을 것이다. 조지 오웰은 그의 에세이 「나는 왜 쓰는가」에서 창작의 강력한 동기 중 하나로 “순전한 이기심”을 언급하며, “똑똑해 보이고 싶은, 회자되고 싶은, 사후에 기억되고 싶은” 창작자의 허영심과 욕구를 숨기는 것은 허위라고 비판한 바 있다. 따라서 우리는 이 자아적 표현이 디자인에서 어떤 의미를 가지는지, 그리고 그것이 어떤 방식으로 기능과 결합될 수 있는지를 질문해야 한다.
르동일의 개인전 《On what must be》는 디자이너로서 그가 가진 합리적 강박과 자아적 표현의 본능 사이에서 빚어진 결과물이다. 전시 제목을 직역하자면 ‘반드시 그래야만 하는 것에 대하여’라는 필연성을 암시하는 다소 경직된 표현인데, 이는 중의적인 의미를 담고 있다. 한편으로는 기능과 합리성이라는 디자인의 대전제를 수용하는 태도를, 다른 한편으로는 창작자의 자아가 작업에 개입될 수밖에 없음을 인정하는 태도를 드러낸다. 가구의 형식을 띠는 르동일의 작업물은 그 둘을 분리하지 않는다. 그의 주된 탐구 주제인 ‘연약한 구조’라는 개념은 그의 기본 정서와 세계관을 대변하지만 궁극적으로는 가구의 기능을 온전히 수행하기 위한 논리로써 통합된다. 책장의 구부러진 연결부, 조명 구조의 꺾임 표현과 표면의 마감 같은 정교한 디테일은 실용 사물로서의 완성도를 보여주는 동시에 기능적 요구를 넘어선 실험적 창작으로써 디자이너가 어디까지 기능적 합리성을 추구하고 어디에서 자아적 표현을 허용할 수 있는지를 탐구하는 과정으로 읽힌다. 이는 디자인이라는 행위가 단순한 문제 해결을 넘어 디자이너 자신과 세상에 대한 발언임을 나타낸다. (그러나 르동일의 작업을 단순히 ‘아트퍼니처’로 간주할 수는 없다. 아트퍼니처는 대체로 작가의 표현을 최우선으로 하여 기능성을 부차적인 요소로 전락시키지만, 르동일의 작업물은 집요하게 기능적이기 때문이다.)
르동일의 작업이 흥미로운 또 다른 이유는 기능적 요구는 전적으로 수용하면서도 합리성에는 저항하고자 하기 때문이다. 금속 파츠의 절단각, 조명 헤드 앞면의 세밀한 곡률, 표면 마감의 미세한 차이와 같은 식별하기 어려울 정도로 정교한 디테일은 자본주의적 생산 논리를 거부하며 개인의 미감과 주관을 중심에 둔다. 그의 작업은 생산성과 경제성을 기준으로 판단되지 않으며, 오히려 디자인이 산업의 논리를 벗어나 개인적 탐구와 미적 가치에 집중할 수 있다는 가능성을 제시한다. 디자이너를 비롯한 창작자들이 주체성을 상실한 채 자아와 개인성을 부정당하는 실존적 위기를 겪는 현실에서, 창작자의 저항은 산업과 자본주의를 전면 부정하는 혁명적인 태도보다 오히려 개인적이고 내면적인 표현들을 고집스럽게 내세우는 것으로 시작될 수 있다는 것이다. 이는
디자인이 단순히 효율을 추구하는 도구가 아니라, 창작자의 자아를 담아내며 새로운 기준을 만들어가는 행위로 확장될 수 있음을 보여준다. 조지 오웰이 창작의 “정치적 목적”이라고 광범위하게 표현한, “세상을 특정 방향으로 밀고 가려는, 어떤 사회를 지향하며 분투해야 하는지에 대한 남들의 생각을 바꾸려는 욕구”와 관련이 있는 것이다.
디자이너의 합리성에 대한 강박은 쉽게 제거될 수 없다. 이는 오랜 시간 디자인의 핵심 가치였고, 기능적 완결성에 대한 기대는 여전히 디자이너의 창작 활동 전반에 깊이 뿌리내리고 있다. 이러한 강박에서 조금이나마 자유로워지기 위해서는 클라이언트의 요구를 넘어선 개인적 탐구가 필요하다. 그러나 이는 디자이너가 예술가처럼 활동하기 시작해야 한다는 뜻이 아니다. 오히려 합리에 대한 강박과 자기표현의 욕구를 적절히 조율하여 평정을 이뤄내야 한다는 의미에 가깝다. 미국의 평론가 어빙 배빗은 “산문의 기준을 위반하지 않으면서 시의 기준을 충족하는 것”이야말로 위대한 창작자의 기적이라고 말했다. 디자인 또한 합리성과 자아적 표현 사이의 균형을 통해 새로운 가능성을 모색해야 할 것이다. 《On what must be》에서 보여진 르동일의 작업은 합리와 자유로운 표현의 경계에서 디자인의 미래를 실험하며, 디자이너의 자아적 탐구와 조형 언어가 교차하는 지점을 탐색하는 중요한 발걸음이 된다.
Design and Ego
Text: Vincent Ahn
Function is passé. The discourse on the rationality and functionalism of design has been repeated ad nauseam, creating the illusion that these are the only useful and valuable aspects of design. Particularly when discussing furniture, the habit of inflating any practical design element as stemming from some great altruism toward the user needs to be abandoned. After all, consideration for function is a basic and obvious requirement of the designer’s profession. A more interesting and urgent subject to discuss would be something that has been heretofore denied in design — the “ego”.
Design has always been a field that prioritizes rationality, denying the designer any opportunity for self-expression. Design has always been evaluated based on its capacity for solving problems efficiently, and even in the case of famous and influential figures, the expression of the self has always been a secondary or hidden agenda. (The only exception being fashion.) Recently, however, there has been a noticeable shift towards design reflecting the personal identities and worldviews of the individual designer. Design is expanding beyond mere function to become an important medium through which the author’s inner self is revealed and communicated, demonstrating that the intense desire for self-expression in today’s designers is an inevitable driving force for creation. Some might dismiss this self-expression as mere vanity, but its importance in creation cannot be wholly denied. George Orwell, in his essay Why I Write, claims “sheer egoism” as one of the strongest motivations for creative work, and has criticized the attempt to hide the author’s desire to “seem intelligent, to be talked about, to be remembered after death”. Thus, we must now question what this expression of the ego means in design and how it can be understood in combination with function.
Ledongil’s solo exhibition On what must be is a result of the tension between his rational obsession as a designer and his instinct for self-expression. The exhibition title reflects a dual meaning: on one hand, an attitude that accepts the absolute tenets of design, functionality and rationality; on the other, an acknowledgment that the author’s ego will inevitably intervene in the work. Ledongil’s furniture-based work does not separate the two. The concept of “fragile structure”, his primary subject of investigation, while fundamentally representing his basic sentiments and worldview, ultimately integrates into a logical structure that fully serves the function as a piece of furniture. The meticulous details, such as the curved connections of the bookshelf, the twisting formal expressions in the lighting structure, and the subtle surface finish, all showcase the work’s practical capacity, while also exploring where the designer can privilege self-expression over functional rationality. This demonstrates that design is not just about solving problems, but also a medium to voice the designer’s self-expression and perspective on the world. (However, Ledongil’s work should not be simply classified as “art furniture”. Art furniture typically prioritizes the author's expression and relegates functionality to a secondary position, but Ledongil’s work remains stubbornly functional.)
Another interesting aspect of Ledongil’s work is his acceptance of functional demands and his simultaneous resistance against rationality. The delicate details, such as the cutting angles of metal parts, the minute curvature on the head of the lamp, and the subtle differences in surface finish, all refuse the logic of capitalistic production and privilege the individual’s aesthetic sensibility and subjectivity. His work is not judged based on metrics of productivity or economic efficiency but instead presents the possibility that design can move beyond the logic of industry to focus on personal exploration of aesthetic values. In a reality where designers face an existential crisis of being denied their individuality and subjectivity, their resistance may take on a more subtle form of rebellion, by persistently asserting and protecting their personal vision and internal expression, instead of taking a revolutionary stance against industry and capitalism. This demonstrates that design is not simply a tool for pursuing efficiency, but an act that embodies the author’s self, a vehicle for creating new standards. This is related to what George Orwell broadly defined as the “political purpose” of creation, the desire to “push the world in a particular direction, to change others’ thoughts about what society should strive for.”
The obsession with rationality in design cannot be easily excised. It has been the core value of design for its entire history, and the expectation for function is still deeply rooted in the designer’s creative process. To free oneself from this obsession, a personal exploration beyond the client’s demands is necessary. However, this does not mean that the designer should start working like an artist. Rather, it means that the designer must seek to balance the obsession with rationality and the desire for self-expression to achieve a sense of equilibrium. American critic Irving Babbitt once said that “to satisfy the standards of poetry without offending the standards of prose” is a miracle that only the greatest authors have achieved. Design should also seek new possibilities through a balance between rationality and self-expression. Ledongil’s work in On what must be experiments with the boundary between rationality and free expression in design, and acts as an important step towards exploring where the designer’s personal exploration and formal language intersect.
Text: Vincent Ahn
Function is passé. The discourse on the rationality and functionalism of design has been repeated ad nauseam, creating the illusion that these are the only useful and valuable aspects of design. Particularly when discussing furniture, the habit of inflating any practical design element as stemming from some great altruism toward the user needs to be abandoned. After all, consideration for function is a basic and obvious requirement of the designer’s profession. A more interesting and urgent subject to discuss would be something that has been heretofore denied in design — the “ego”.
Design has always been a field that prioritizes rationality, denying the designer any opportunity for self-expression. Design has always been evaluated based on its capacity for solving problems efficiently, and even in the case of famous and influential figures, the expression of the self has always been a secondary or hidden agenda. (The only exception being fashion.) Recently, however, there has been a noticeable shift towards design reflecting the personal identities and worldviews of the individual designer. Design is expanding beyond mere function to become an important medium through which the author’s inner self is revealed and communicated, demonstrating that the intense desire for self-expression in today’s designers is an inevitable driving force for creation. Some might dismiss this self-expression as mere vanity, but its importance in creation cannot be wholly denied. George Orwell, in his essay Why I Write, claims “sheer egoism” as one of the strongest motivations for creative work, and has criticized the attempt to hide the author’s desire to “seem intelligent, to be talked about, to be remembered after death”. Thus, we must now question what this expression of the ego means in design and how it can be understood in combination with function.
Ledongil’s solo exhibition On what must be is a result of the tension between his rational obsession as a designer and his instinct for self-expression. The exhibition title reflects a dual meaning: on one hand, an attitude that accepts the absolute tenets of design, functionality and rationality; on the other, an acknowledgment that the author’s ego will inevitably intervene in the work. Ledongil’s furniture-based work does not separate the two. The concept of “fragile structure”, his primary subject of investigation, while fundamentally representing his basic sentiments and worldview, ultimately integrates into a logical structure that fully serves the function as a piece of furniture. The meticulous details, such as the curved connections of the bookshelf, the twisting formal expressions in the lighting structure, and the subtle surface finish, all showcase the work’s practical capacity, while also exploring where the designer can privilege self-expression over functional rationality. This demonstrates that design is not just about solving problems, but also a medium to voice the designer’s self-expression and perspective on the world. (However, Ledongil’s work should not be simply classified as “art furniture”. Art furniture typically prioritizes the author's expression and relegates functionality to a secondary position, but Ledongil’s work remains stubbornly functional.)
Another interesting aspect of Ledongil’s work is his acceptance of functional demands and his simultaneous resistance against rationality. The delicate details, such as the cutting angles of metal parts, the minute curvature on the head of the lamp, and the subtle differences in surface finish, all refuse the logic of capitalistic production and privilege the individual’s aesthetic sensibility and subjectivity. His work is not judged based on metrics of productivity or economic efficiency but instead presents the possibility that design can move beyond the logic of industry to focus on personal exploration of aesthetic values. In a reality where designers face an existential crisis of being denied their individuality and subjectivity, their resistance may take on a more subtle form of rebellion, by persistently asserting and protecting their personal vision and internal expression, instead of taking a revolutionary stance against industry and capitalism. This demonstrates that design is not simply a tool for pursuing efficiency, but an act that embodies the author’s self, a vehicle for creating new standards. This is related to what George Orwell broadly defined as the “political purpose” of creation, the desire to “push the world in a particular direction, to change others’ thoughts about what society should strive for.”
The obsession with rationality in design cannot be easily excised. It has been the core value of design for its entire history, and the expectation for function is still deeply rooted in the designer’s creative process. To free oneself from this obsession, a personal exploration beyond the client’s demands is necessary. However, this does not mean that the designer should start working like an artist. Rather, it means that the designer must seek to balance the obsession with rationality and the desire for self-expression to achieve a sense of equilibrium. American critic Irving Babbitt once said that “to satisfy the standards of poetry without offending the standards of prose” is a miracle that only the greatest authors have achieved. Design should also seek new possibilities through a balance between rationality and self-expression. Ledongil’s work in On what must be experiments with the boundary between rationality and free expression in design, and acts as an important step towards exploring where the designer’s personal exploration and formal language intersect.
기능은 너무나 진부한 주제다. 디자인의 합리성과 기능주의에 관한 논지는 끝없이 반복된 탓에 마치 그것들이 디자인 분야의 유일한 쓸모와 가치인 듯한 착각과 강박을 유발한다. 특히 가구에 대해 말할 때 어떤 실용적인 디자인 요소를 사용자를 향한 대단한 이타심과 섬세함에서 비롯된 것으로 부풀리려는 습관은 그만둬야 한다. 디자이너가 기능을 고려하는 것은 그들 직능의 당연한 소양이 아닌가. 오히려 얘기해볼 만한 주제는 디자인 분야에서 금기시된 ‘자아’라는 것이다.
디자인은 언제나 합리를 추구해야 하는 분야로서 디자이너의 자기표현을 허용하지 않았다. 디자인은 늘 효율성과 객관적인 문제 해결의 도구로서 평가받았고, 유명하고 영향력 있는 인물의 경우에도 자아의 표현은 항상 부차적이거나 숨겨진 목표일 뿐이었다. (유일한 예외는 패션인 듯하다.) 그러나 최근 들어 개인의 정체성과 세계관이 디자인에 투영되는 현상이 두드러지고 있다. 디자인은 단순한 기능적 영역을 넘어 창작자의 내면을 드러내는 중요한 매체로 확장되고 있으며, 이는 오늘날 디자이너의 강렬한 자기표현 욕구가 창작의 필연적인 동력임을 드러낸다. 누군가는 이러한 자기표현을 단순히 허영심으로 치부할 수도 있겠다만, 그것이 창작의 본질적 요소임을 부정할 수는 없을 것이다. 조지 오웰은 그의 에세이 「나는 왜 쓰는가」에서 창작의 강력한 동기 중 하나로 “순전한 이기심”을 언급하며, “똑똑해 보이고 싶은, 회자되고 싶은, 사후에 기억되고 싶은” 창작자의 허영심과 욕구를 숨기는 것은 허위라고 비판한 바 있다. 따라서 우리는 이 자아적 표현이 디자인에서 어떤 의미를 가지는지, 그리고 그것이 어떤 방식으로 기능과 결합될 수 있는지를 질문해야 한다.
르동일의 개인전 《On what must be》는 디자이너로서 그가 가진 합리적 강박과 자아적 표현의 본능 사이에서 빚어진 결과물이다. 전시 제목을 직역하자면 ‘반드시 그래야만 하는 것에 대하여’라는 필연성을 암시하는 다소 경직된 표현인데, 이는 중의적인 의미를 담고 있다. 한편으로는 기능과 합리성이라는 디자인의 대전제를 수용하는 태도를, 다른 한편으로는 창작자의 자아가 작업에 개입될 수밖에 없음을 인정하는 태도를 드러낸다. 가구의 형식을 띠는 르동일의 작업물은 그 둘을 분리하지 않는다. 그의 주된 탐구 주제인 ‘연약한 구조’라는 개념은 그의 기본 정서와 세계관을 대변하지만 궁극적으로는 가구의 기능을 온전히 수행하기 위한 논리로써 통합된다. 책장의 구부러진 연결부, 조명 구조의 꺾임 표현과 표면의 마감 같은 정교한 디테일은 실용 사물로서의 완성도를 보여주는 동시에 기능적 요구를 넘어선 실험적 창작으로써 디자이너가 어디까지 기능적 합리성을 추구하고 어디에서 자아적 표현을 허용할 수 있는지를 탐구하는 과정으로 읽힌다. 이는 디자인이라는 행위가 단순한 문제 해결을 넘어 디자이너 자신과 세상에 대한 발언임을 나타낸다. (그러나 르동일의 작업을 단순히 ‘아트퍼니처’로 간주할 수는 없다. 아트퍼니처는 대체로 작가의 표현을 최우선으로 하여 기능성을 부차적인 요소로 전락시키지만, 르동일의 작업물은 집요하게 기능적이기 때문이다.)
르동일의 작업이 흥미로운 또 다른 이유는 기능적 요구는 전적으로 수용하면서도 합리성에는 저항하고자 하기 때문이다. 금속 파츠의 절단각, 조명 헤드 앞면의 세밀한 곡률, 표면 마감의 미세한 차이와 같은 식별하기 어려울 정도로 정교한 디테일은 자본주의적 생산 논리를 거부하며 개인의 미감과 주관을 중심에 둔다. 그의 작업은 생산성과 경제성을 기준으로 판단되지 않으며, 오히려 디자인이 산업의 논리를 벗어나 개인적 탐구와 미적 가치에 집중할 수 있다는 가능성을 제시한다. 디자이너를 비롯한 창작자들이 주체성을 상실한 채 자아와 개인성을 부정당하는 실존적 위기를 겪는 현실에서, 창작자의 저항은 산업과 자본주의를 전면 부정하는 혁명적인 태도보다 오히려 개인적이고 내면적인 표현들을 고집스럽게 내세우는 것으로 시작될 수 있다는 것이다. 이는
디자인이 단순히 효율을 추구하는 도구가 아니라, 창작자의 자아를 담아내며 새로운 기준을 만들어가는 행위로 확장될 수 있음을 보여준다. 조지 오웰이 창작의 “정치적 목적”이라고 광범위하게 표현한, “세상을 특정 방향으로 밀고 가려는, 어떤 사회를 지향하며 분투해야 하는지에 대한 남들의 생각을 바꾸려는 욕구”와 관련이 있는 것이다.
디자이너의 합리성에 대한 강박은 쉽게 제거될 수 없다. 이는 오랜 시간 디자인의 핵심 가치였고, 기능적 완결성에 대한 기대는 여전히 디자이너의 창작 활동 전반에 깊이 뿌리내리고 있다. 이러한 강박에서 조금이나마 자유로워지기 위해서는 클라이언트의 요구를 넘어선 개인적 탐구가 필요하다. 그러나 이는 디자이너가 예술가처럼 활동하기 시작해야 한다는 뜻이 아니다. 오히려 합리에 대한 강박과 자기표현의 욕구를 적절히 조율하여 평정을 이뤄내야 한다는 의미에 가깝다. 미국의 평론가 어빙 배빗은 “산문의 기준을 위반하지 않으면서 시의 기준을 충족하는 것”이야말로 위대한 창작자의 기적이라고 말했다. 디자인 또한 합리성과 자아적 표현 사이의 균형을 통해 새로운 가능성을 모색해야 할 것이다. 《On what must be》에서 보여진 르동일의 작업은 합리와 자유로운 표현의 경계에서 디자인의 미래를 실험하며, 디자이너의 자아적 탐구와 조형 언어가 교차하는 지점을 탐색하는 중요한 발걸음이 된다.
