Dan Phillips: Creative houses from reclaimed stuff | Video on TED.com

I came across this entertaining and insightful TED talk today: Dan Phillips Creative Houses from Reclaimed stuff:

Dan Phillips: Creative houses from reclaimed stuff | Video on TED.com

The images of Dans work as a builder are of some very beautiful, creative and very inspiring homes made from around 70% - 80% of reclaimed materials.

The talk is not so much about using reclaimed materials in quirky one off homes but the underlying reasons as to why we don’t and why we have a sterile mono-cultural mass produced homes that we can no longer afford and that produce vast amounts of waste in production and running.

Through apperceptive mass, Neitchze, Satre, Plato, status and Maslovs hierarchy his central theme is that of the Apollonian Dionysian conflict. Premeditated perfection reason versus spontaneous organic emotion. The mainstream follows the Apollonian model. Standardised materials create a false perception of perfection which is intern demanded by consumers in a self reinforcing circle which creates enormous levels of waste.

Instead of catering to this expectation of perfection Dan argues that we need to embrace a more dionysian perspective and learn to love those kinks, bulges, cracks, sags, knots, warps inherent in most materials and make them feature. And to do this we need to accept that failure is ok.

More on light

I'm still thinking a lot about lighting, technology, efficiencies and the rebound effect so this is going to be a bit of a ramble going nowhere.

I checked out the data on lighting for the UK, it turns out that yes, the energy consumption of lighting has indeed risen despite increases in efficiencies. For households alone, over the past 30 years the total amount of electricity consumed for household lighting increased by 63% between 1970 and 2000. This increase has been attributed mainly to the shift away from single ceiling bulbs towards multi-sourced lighting (i.e. wall mounted and table lamps, multi-ceiling fixtures) as designers, architects, interior designers and homeowners have run away with the possibilities that new lighting technologies and cheap power have given them.

If, as argued by Tsao et al, each iteration of more efficient lighting leads to an increase in total energy consumption (the rebound effect) what will it take to realise the efficiencies offered and so desperately needed? Don't we need to have a deeper understanding of what it is that specific services (in this case lighting) mean to us? Questions such as what is it that lighting gives us? Is is purely functional, extending our productive hours? Or is there a deeper psychological thing going on. What is it that designers are doing when they pepper a ceiling with a squillion lights and render a space as well lit as a hospital surgery theatre and eradicate the shadows? Is it simply as superficial as fashion?

I think its beyond doubt that artificial lighting has had far reaching influence on the development of human civilization and human progress has been inextricably and intimately linked with the evolution of artificial light.


For most of our history the pattern of daily life was determined largely by the sun and the availability of natural light. Artificial light has influenced our efficiency, productivity, happiness, health and safety. From the first fire, to simple oil lamps, rush lights, to the gas lamp and the incandescent bulb to the fluorescent lights of today and onwards to solid state lights and who knows whatever technologies that are beyond our current imaginings. Each iteration progressively lengthening the day, eradicating the shadows and the monsters that lurk within them and eating into the dark so that human civilization is now truly a 24 hour society.

Perhaps, when we understand what it is that we desire of a service and those that design the world around us are taught to deliver that in the most efficient way possible then perhaps we can realise the efficiencies that new technologies offer without the, so far, concomitant increase in demand. Maybe.

This clips a bit cheesy but I think you'll get the point.