At TED back in 2004, Joseph Pine talked about what consumers really want is “authenticity” in the experience economy. Yet, even now at the tail end of 2009, we’ve barely moved beyond the basic goods industry. We only have to walk into any shop to realise we’re still suffering from the hangover of the industrial economy that has never really gone away: the cheap supply of goods in order to have things available to the masses. What may have changed are shops for highly branded goods like the Apple Store. However, these are edge cases, not the majority.
Something that has fascinated me for awhile is how merchants choose to display or sell their goods. Talking about a recent trip to Melaka, I was wondering why our shops always have to look chock-a-full of stuff. When in our history did it happen that our shops need to be full of things? Was it meant to convey a successful business? Wouldn’t it have just shown many things remained unsold? Was there a point in the psyche of selling and buying where we realised no one would ever walk into an empty shop?
Pick a shopping district in your town or city, and you’ll see what I mean. This need to fill a shop means we had to get the goods from somewhere, the cheaper the better, for a fatter profit margin. But rather than waxing about economics, I’m probably much better placed to talk about craft, or maybe just about jewellery.
In my travels, it has become obvious to me there’s no longer such a thing as “ethnic jewellery”. If you’re looking for something locally handmade, firstly, be prepared to be lied to about the origin of what’s in the shop, Secondly, expect to only be able to find things similar to what you’ve already seen elsewhere. Most jewellery on the market seem to come from around Tibet, India, Pakistan, China and South America, and on rare occasions, Eastern Europe. Note that this doesn’t necessarily dictate the quality of what you can buy — I’ve seen stuff that has obviously been made cheaply, but also very high quality work. Looking carefully though, it’s not easy to tell the origin of the piece by its design. What then, is authentic, if “authentic” local handmade craft is apparently imported? Is tourism to be blamed for the market for “authentic” souvenirs to bring home?
The real consequence in this is not just whether we find value in authentic experience or not, but in our bid to seem authentic but commercially competitive, we have sacrificed regional identities and uniqueness through giving in to cheaper production costs of goods.
No Trackbacks
You can leave a trackback using this URL: http://robotic-rodents.com/2009/12/30/faking-it-real/trackback/
2 Comments
Material Culture has always been some kind of measure to identity of past peoples and societies. As a student in Anthropology it became evident that some markers were in fact not products of “true regional identiy” but borrowed goods as well as methods . That may be used to trace origins or interactions at times….. however.. Looking at the Now, one wonders for sure… how our relationship to our enviroment as well as our Unique Identity has become blurred by the Fakeness- or the sacrifices as you mention. This is true ,sad to say, for music, literature, and even the concept of self at times. hope that made sense?
Hey Ray, it’s true that we used to borrow methods and techniques in antiquity, but today, we’re no longer re-using the knowledge of craft, we are essentially importing only the goods. In this way, there is a lot less room for the development of a local craft.
In studying the use and makes of jewellery in history, it struck me that patterns take a long time to evolve. It may also be true that because we are seeing things in the spans of decades, and not thousands of years, it’s not possible to identify the current trend of things relative to other patterns in history. Hope *that* makes sense :D