Setting the Table is an illustrated reflection by architects Florencia Köncke and Paula Olea Fonti. In the following paragraphs, the authors develop a first approach to the study of the table as "the centre of our notion of domesticity"(1). In the relationship between space, objects and people and as a social catalyst for gathering and exchange.
In the medieval house, the table could be dismantled and rested on trestles. This gave rise to the terms table-laying and table-clearing. The table was in constant use and different functions were performed on it by changing the furniture as needed. "There was no dining table, only a table that was used for preparing food, eating, counting money and, if necessary, for sleeping"(2).
In a similar way, domesticity is generated today through the appropriation of the object - the table - in the development of various activities: eating, studying and working, among others. We reclaim it in adverse conditions and we invent it or remember it when it does not exist. The table as a concept allows us to place the table as an object in relation to the table of the social imaginary; to such an extent that the absence of a real table can sometimes also be read as a table.
The approach, from there, attempts to reclaim the table as an object and as a concept, placing value on its capacity to be a little more than a table. The table is normally seen as an infra-ordinary (3) object. In its everydayness, it has ceased to surprise us, but it nevertheless remains an essential piece of everyday use. This reasoning interrogates the table, a usual and banal object, in order to demonstrate the possibility of the infra-ordinary becoming extraordinary. And it does so in the same way as authors such as Bruno Munari. In "Searching for comfort in an uncomfortable chair"(4) he shows, through physical and dynamic experimentation with a sofa, the reflections of the daily use of the same ordinary object.
The illustrations, conceived specifically for this purpose, recognise, in five different circumstances, the object table in relation to the concept table: projected, decontextualised, confined, as ritual and symbolic support. For this purpose, it is based on the choice of an ordinary table(5). Generic, both for its physical and material characteristics, and for the absence of emotional meaning it generates; accessible to almost everyone: the IKEA table(6). A table designed for a typical house, where a typical family lives, to, give it a typical use? This text is an invitation to critically rethink the idea of the table in the face of the preconceived ideas about the spaces where there should be a table, the actions that are carried out in it and the frequent need to recreate it in its absence.
The projected table
Through its catalogue, IKEA projects an invented domesticity, in which it shows the sphere of everyday life in an ideal space. In this context, the ordinary table is designed by the company as a generic piece, of standard dimensions, but special in terms of advertising. The object is promoted by means of an exemplary scenography set up in a shop and seeks to convey the idea that it was designed to complete a singular space. In contrast to this, various architectural projects are conceived on the basis of the table object and the space it generates. In these cases, the table is designed as a peculiar artefact, of special dimensions and inseparable from the space that contains it.
The ritual table
The table is present as a unifying element in countless popular celebrations. Christmas, Easter or birthdays are events for which the table is prepared with anticipation and enthusiasm. The table object is dressed up for the special event. When we gather as a family or in society, the idea of the table as a space for relationships is reinforced. In Western culture, domesticity takes place around a table surrounded by chairs; in some places in the East, it is a low table that brings people together seated on the floor. In more extreme cases, like in some celebrations in Muslim culture, they take place on a specific carpet. The carpet supports both the food and the diners. Whatever the surface, it is the act of eating that brings people together.
The decontextualised table
Domesticity goes out into the street through the object. It finds the table outside its usual sphere. One can see in the street an innumerable series of actions that take place in the act of eating: some eat standing at temporary counters, others do so seated on benches or stairs, some at tables placed on the terraces of bars, others take the furniture from inside the house out onto the pavement. In all cases, the table travels outside and exposes itself and its inhabitants to the gaze of others.
The table as symbolic support
The symbolic support appears in situations where, in the absence of the table object, domesticity is generated through an analogy to it. Laying a blanket on the grass or looking for a log to sit on in nature are examples of spatial appropriation. "With the table - or only with its representation - a space, a place, is given meaning"(7). The search lies in extending the domestic activity par excellence, from the house to another place, taking the cultural concepts we have incorporated into this act.
The confined table
Confinement has vindicated the role of the table in our homes. "A long table can be many things: a place where two people can eat, a surface where books can be stacked or a tray where keys and mail can be left: a port of arrival that confirms that we are at home. At other times, it becomes the perfect surface for a banquet"(8). The table object has shown itself capable of mutating throughout the day, as did those of the Middle Ages, where multiple daily activities were carried out on the same surface. The contemporary home table takes up this place and replaces the specialised ones we used to use in the past: from the dining room, the kitchen, the university or the bar. It houses, in one and the same, all the tables.
This reflection on the table explores the complex condition of different degrees of domesticity, through the bodily relationship with furniture and space. Just as Georges Perec presents interior space as a serialisation of objects, movements and operations, we understand that the activities that take place in it condition and transform it, altering its initial characteristics. The relationship between the body and the object is the result of social and cultural behaviour, which sometimes develops in a singular way.
As Stephen Bates states, "the table (...) has evolved over time: it has gone from a merely practical artefact that provides a work surface and support for household utensils, to an object that characterises space, and serves to strengthen social and emotional bonds"(9). The table, from the object and from the concept, enhances companionship, provides a space for socialising and is a catalyst in family gatherings and domestic activities.
Although the drawings that accompany this text are no more than the graphic representation of banal and useless moments, it is through them that we succeed in highlighting the role of the table in everyday situations. Through the representation of the infra-ordinary, trivial moments are taken and made substantial. The five points raised construct daily scenes based on the generic table, where the setting changes not only because of the background but also because of the superimposition between it, the characters and the activity that takes place on it. The table proves to be more than a table, it allows for other functions for which it was not preconceived. It is not limited by the space that contains it. It is, in other words, when the ordinary becomes extraordinary.
Bibliography
- 1, 8, 9. BATES, Stephen. «Sobre la taula» Revista Quaderns d'arquitectura i urbanisme, 271, 2018.
- 2. RYBCZYNSKI, Witold. La casa historia de una idea. Editorial NEREA, 2009.
- 3. PEREC, Georges. Especies de espacios. Madrid. Editorial Intervención Cultural, 2001.
- 4. MUNARI, Bruno. «Búsqueda de la comodidad en una silla incómoda» Revista Domus 202, 1944.
- 5. WALKER, Enrique. Lo ordinario. Barcelona. Editorial Gustavo Gili, 2010. “Define lo ordinario como aquellos objetos que la disciplina de la arquitectura proclama fuera de su territorio y contra los que define sus límites. Lo ordinario, es lo cotidiano, lo hallado, lo popular, lo banal.”
- 6. COLLINS, Lauren. A Reporter At Large, «House Perfect.Is e Ikea». Editorial New yorker. Nueva York, 2011. “IKEA es actualmente el mayor operador de venta de muebles y objetos del mundo «Abrió su primera tienda en Tokio, y con ella inició una expansión global que ha hecho que en 2012 su catálogo tuviese tiradas mayores a las de la Biblia y en un número mayor de idioma.”
- 7. MONTEYS, Xavier. «La arquitectura de la comida». Revista Quaderns d'arquitectura i urbanisme, 271, 2018.
- _JAQUE, Andrés. Entrevista «el hogar como arena política» Revista MONU Domestic Urbanism,2016
- _PEREC, Georges. Lo infraordinario. Madrid. Editorial Impedimenta,2008
- _STEEGMANN, David. «Ciudad, casa, comida». Tesis doctoral departamento de proyectos arquitectónicos, ETSAB, UPC, 2017.
