Francesca Picchi: Super Normal has been received as a kind of manifesto of what design should be according to you. Today there is a certain ambiguity about the term design (about its meaning); generally it is perceived as something to "make nicer things." Can Super Normal be considered as a sort of theory? Or an attempt at theorizing what good design is or should be?
Naoto Fukasawa: Super Normal is not a theory, I believe it's re-realizing something that you already knew, re-acknowledging what you naturally thought was good in something. It's true that design is all about improving what already exists, but there's also the danger that things that were already good get changed. Design is expected to provide something "new" or "beautiful" or "special." When we look at the things around us with such
Jasper Morrison: I don't mind the definition to "make nicer things." If design achieved this occasionally, it would be fine! I agree Super Normal isn't a theory, it's more of a "noticing". Super Normal has been around for a long time, probably since the first pots were made. It's an aspect of how we live with and relate to objects rather than a system for designing better things, although I think there's a lot to be learnt from that. Objects become Super Normal through use rather than design, although their design is a key factor. You might not know something was Super Normal simply by looking at it, nor would you know it by using it once. It's more of a long-term discovery of the quality of an object, which goes beyond the initial visual judgment and basic assessment that we make of things when we first notice them. Super Normal may belong more to everyday life than it does to design.