Our society has embraced sustainability and, with it, has embarked on a search for a new authenticity. The increasingly digital and thus immaterial lifestyle demands conscious behavior and fosters a desire for permanence and genuineness.

While the pre-digital era was characterized by a longing for technological progress, which visually influenced design and living spaces, the tangible and “real” are now gaining importance. As sensitive and fragile beings in constant dialogue with our environment, we increasingly seek to surround ourselves with things that align with these new values. The vocabulary of objects in our surroundings is vast, their expressions diverse, and their influence on our well-being significant. When we perceive an object as good, beautiful, or practical, it reflects values we either hold or aspire to. Our own ideals seduce us, prompting us to acquire objects that satisfy our values and needs.

The allure of objects can be so strong that we create space in our lives for them. Sometimes, we even reshape our living spaces around them. Conversely, objects can also have the opposite effect, causing irritation, frustration, or discomfort—especially unused electronic household appliances. But why is this?

One possible reason is that while household appliances and furniture/accessories are used in the same space, they originate from different contexts. Electronic household appliances are primarily seen as engineering achievements designed for repetitive functionality. Their design is often inspired by analogies to sci-fi props, the automotive, aviation, and power tool industries, to visually convey their performance. This approach borrows from the design paradigms of industrial electronic goods, even though the appliances are intended for domestic settings.

In contrast, furniture and accessories aim to integrate function and context in a harmonious way. The differing perceptions of these objects’ roles within domestic contexts have created a communication gap, preventing “industrial design” and “furniture/product design” from being considered together, even though they serve the same context.

Caught in this conceptual divide, successful bridging is rare, leaving us with electronic household appliances that mimic premium materials but lack tactile quality, appearing aerodynamic without functional necessity. This design approach has led to widespread indifference toward such appliances, making consumers quick to replace them without hesitation. In light of emerging values, this mindset feels outdated. Consumers of my generation are increasingly politicized in their consumption choices, and injecting performance into context-irrelevant forms seems misplaced.