Makers, Their Intentions, Pros and Cons

History, Traditional Makers, Contemporary Makers, Their Intentions, Pros and Cons

Figure 4 Day of the dead shrine

Shrines have existed since the beginning of time, historically being associated with religions, ancestors, martyrs, and figures of respect. With the first notation being in classic tests such as the Bible, these document the continuity and prevalence of shrines in monotheistic cultures such as Judaism and Christianity. The first unearthed temple and shrine was found in Turkey and dated back to around 10,000 BC (Oliver, 2018), with a more recent example being in 1600AD, where Japanese Buddhist culture created the Butsudan to protect and house their religious icons (Nelson, 2008). These areas of worship and countless others have been documented throughout history and are prevalent in almost every religion.

Day of the dead shrine, by Mexican Folk Art Guide, 2018, (https:// www.mexican-folk-art-guide.com/day-of-the-dead-altars.html#. Xsnr3GgzY5s)

As time has gone on, shrines have evolved away from the communal setting, allowing for humans to create or personalise them. This manipulation began when Latin and American cultures integrated in the 1800’s. The Spanish arrived in America and introduced many aspects of their culture to American’s, which included the importance of “honouring family relationships and connecting the living with the dead” (Malcolm, 2003) through the use of inhome altars. With the flood of Hispanic immigrants to America, home shrines were increasingly recognised and utilised, leading to other cultures to adopt this tradition and move away from the traditional religious home altars, towards incorporating the idea to pay respect to family members, memories or non-religious traditions (Malcolm, 2003).

As the world continues to develop, so has the consensus on what’s important, and while home shrines are still commonly used for religious purposes, less traditional objects have continued to enter this space of worship, redefining the shrine. A recent study conducted for this research paper, surveying 33 Melbournians aged 17 to 56 found that 60% of recipients identified phones, changers, and social media and the modern-day version of a shrine.

Key designers for shines in the past have been Grayson Perry, an eccentric British designer who has spent most of his career recreating his version of shrines, aiming to encapsulate and provoke the emotions he deems important. His most recognized work is an interactive shrine to his childhood, where he encased his former teddy bear in glass and attached this to the back of a motorbike, which Greyson described as a “popemobile” (KickassTrips, n.d.). Perry and his bear drove around Europe on a 10-day voyage, to restore the relationships of those they villainized as children (KickassTrips, n.d.). Grayson spent the rest of his career designing different adaptations of shrines, each created to evoke different emotions for the user. His attempt at allowing the user to manipulate his designs was a series of make it yourself shrines labelled: create a shrine of your own at home, convert an everyday object to a historical object through aesthetics and convert the mundane into a commemorative souvenir.

Figure 5 Grayson Perry riding his ‘pope mobile’

Grayson Perry riding his ‘pope mobile’, by KickassTrips, 2016, (https://kickasstrips.com/2016/03/grayson-perryspink-motorbike-pilgrimage-with-his-teddybear-in-a-shrine-on-the-back/)`

This project links in much of Marc Hassenzahl’s Framework and specifically the idea of manipulation, identification, and evocation. Manipulation involves the user altering the object in some way, linked to the idea of goal achievement, while identification and evocation rely more on the users’ memories. Contrastingly, identification is linked to the idea of self-expression and interaction with others, whereas evocation is linked to self-maintenance and memories (2004). Carrying these ideas forward to social media, in particular, Instagram has also allowed the user to become the designer and create an online space to pay homage to whatever they choose. The abovementioned survey found that 30% of participants use Instagram to memorialise religion, family members, or friends, and 100% of participants know someone who uses social media in this way.

Grayson Perry riding his ‘pope mobile’, by KickassTrips, 2016, (https://kickasstrips.com/2016/03/grayson-perryspink-motorbike-pilgrimage-with-his-teddybear-in-a-shrine-on-the-back/)`

Figure 6 Shrine to the Demigod Siri

Shrine to the Demigod Siri, by Broadsheet, 2014, (https://www.broadsheet.com. au/melbourne/art-and-design/article/phone-shrine-pay-homage-siri-demigodtelecommunications)

Similarly, Renae Shadler and Arie Rain Glorie explored “the notion of the mobile phone serving … as a shrine to its owners’ identity” (Mitchelson, 2014). While many are often too quick to dismiss the idea they worship phones, Shadler and Glorie embrace this idea and have questioned “If we don’t have that religious connection in our everyday lives, what are the substitutes? If we were to have a modern-day religion, what would it be and what does contemporary lifestyle offer us?” (Mitchelson, 2014). Their installation was an interactive piece where participants would text a message and a version of Siri in a power suit would appear, texters were also given a gem (something of universally perceived value) to be attached to their phone, aka their shrine. This concept aimed to link a cheerful feeling between users and their phones as shrines, therefore creating a positive connotation with the idea that phones can be worshiped and be considered a shrine, as worshiping technology is often looked down on. The survey mentioned above of 33 Melbournians found that 40% of participants spend 8 or more hours daily on their technology and 65% of responses show that participants are unwilling to give up their phones even if it would not impact work or schooling, only 33% of these participants would identify as worshipping their phones. This survey supports the negative association regarding the worship of technology which has been deeply ingrained into individuals throughout time, as terms like “the idiot box” have been thrown around constantly and this has limited the acceptance of technology as a shrine.

Despite the many advantages to this technological shift, it has also greatly altered the traditional definition of a shrine and the typical emotions evoked for worshippers). Chapman in Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy, Attachment to Objects describes the stages in the inevitable decline in the connection between humans and their possession, beginning with initial love at first sight in the “honeymoon stage” where the object is viewed as exciting and interesting, however, this slowly transitions to the difficult and often disappoint daily grind, where the excitement and the connection to the object have faded. Unfortunately, this quick and unfulfilling human-object relationship can be seen in many of their technology or modern-day shrines. While initially many may feel fulfilled, the constant flood of new and improved versions of their technology through advertisement is often too quickly followed by a repetitive cycle of dissatisfaction and longing for something newer. Although technology is not solely responsible, this has taken away part of the deeper emotional connection many have traditionally felt, replacing it with disconnect and a constant sense of longing as opposed to appreciation.

Figure 7 Advertising

Advertising, by Emmersion, 2017, (https://www.emmersion.com.au/ advertising101/)