Citizen:Citizen makes some of our very favorite design objects. They somehow manage to marry utter luxury with biting social criticism. Philip told us how Citizen became the brand it is today, and delved into the company's philosophy. www.citizen-citizen.com



How did Citizen:Citizen begin?

When we started, the idea was to bring British design over to America. I was working with two business partners. The thinking behind it was that America was a bit backward. We felt that they were 10 years behind what was going on in Europe, as far as the advancement of design and object culture.

It probably still is.

It's certainly not where Europe is. That's a whole bigger conversation, though. But the general premise was that we could bring what we saw in Europe, particularly what was going on in London, and cross-pollinate it. One of the ideas was to hopefully open a gallery in Brooklyn, and bring what was going on in the eastern part of London over to New York. And then conversely, take what was going on in Brooklyn and cross-pollinate it back to Europe.

That was the initial notion. So we set up a gallery in New York and brought over some Frederickson Stallard pieces. About a year later, my business partners decided that they wanted to get day jobs. It was really left to me to understand whether I wanted to keep Citizen or walk away from it. And if I did keep it, what would it be?



I realized that I was most passionate about the objects in the collection which were more conceptual. They were really commenting on themselves, or the history of the material, or their context within the culture. From that moment, it was very apparent where I wanted the company to go. I started working with Tobias Wong, and we brought in Cory Ingram, who did the Crude perfume. We collaborated with Jimmy Jane. There was a whole raft of new designers and artists.

Where are you positioning Citizen:Citizen?

I think we're very consciously commercial. We're not ashamed of that. I think a lot of art galleries pretend they're not commercial, but in my mind Wal-Mart and Gagosian are not that dissimilar. On one level, they're really not.

We've landed, curiously, in-between these two worlds. We're not quite a manufacturing agent. We're not just coming in with a lot of money and a lot of expertise in making and selling, although there is expertise in making and selling. And we're not the artist. But then, we are.

You're not not the artist.

We are living in a middle ground, between artist and producer. We do both. And maybe that's a good thing. I have been both an artist and a maker, so I understand the problems on both sides.



What stores have been doing well for you?

Well, you have to work with what's in the market. There's a huge difference between the stores that we sell to and the store that we will build. At the moment, the stores which we've built have been pop-up stores. Whether it be the pharmacy space that we built down in Los Angeles, or the mini-market that we collaborated on here in San Francisco.

If you think about a store, it is a context for the objects. Citizen's about these objects, and you're providing them with a context. A store is also about selling, and there's all kinds of psychology behind that. Wal-Mart has store psychologists determining the whole layout, determining where the bread counter goes, etc. They do whole scientific studies on spending patterns.

Of course, none of us smaller stores are that sophisticated. And yet, we do have an understanding that the aesthetic, the interior, and the way people go around it will probably affect their decision to buy. It's affecting their belief in you, and therefore their belief in the objects.

For us, one of the things that is really challenging is finding the right context to sell the objects. On one level, we're commenting on consumption, overconsumption, and global capital. But we're not just deriding it, we're also participating in it.



Wholesaling your objects poses an interesting challenge, because you're handing your objects off to someone else and hoping that they carry your brand message on correctly to the customer.

Yeah, it has to translate, doesn't it? We're doing something so fucking difficult, in many ways. We're very commercial, but in some respects it's not overt. We're walking a very confusing line. I've always thought of us more as a fashion brand than anything else. We're definitely not a giftware supplier, like Areaware or Charles & Marie. I'm not dismissing what they do, but that's not our intention. I could go and do that, but I don't want to. We're trying to do something cultural.

The whole point of Citizen:Citizen is that you could take our object and put it in one of those giftware companies. It could exist there. But then it would be a really different object. I've provided a different lens through which you look at it. When you place the Citizen:Citizen lens over something, it hopefully illuminates new ways of seeing the ordinary.

There's nothing more poetic than when you see the ordinary afresh. Whether it be through a wonderful teacher at school, or through your own personal development. Or through art, maybe something moves you. Or through culture. You go to another country and suddenly you realize a lot more about your own country when you come home. You have these moments of mild enlightenment.

What we're trying to do with our objects is to create that paradigm shift.

Can you tell us about any new objects that will be coming out?

I've just been speaking to a guy called Tomas Kral. He's taking these very standard glass objects, such as ketchup bottles and jam jars, and re-valuing them through manipulations like etching and cutting. He's taking the ordinary and making it extraordinary. It's also very interesting from a recycling standpoint.



Going back to the conversation of American vs. European design, what do you think is going on there?

There's a huge gap. And it is not being filled and it is not being supported and it is not being sponsored. With all the will in the world, 100 underpaid creatives in Brooklyn are not necessarily going to change that. Change has got to be systemic and it has got to come from within the institutions. The concept of design has to be broadened and the whole discourse about design has to open up.

In many ways, there's been a lot more design going on here in the US. It's just very commercial. It's going on within Apple and Gap and Williams Sonoma and Pottery Barn. And the Genentechs of this area, all the genetic engineering companies are incredibly design-heavy. All the Silicon Valley companies are incredibly design-heavy.

If you look to the last revolution, which was the industrial revolution in Northern Europe circa 1800, then a comporably-scaled revolution is taking place 20 miles south of here [San Francisco]. Design is often linked with huge cultural shifts. If you look at design in Victorian times, it was because of new technologies: steam power, the smelting of steel, new materials which became available, new distribution systems...

Design does not sit like a kind of crust on top of culture. It's deeply embedded. When we get these huge shifts, then we'll get huge shifts in design. The next huge shift is an understanding of what sustainability is. That's a great opportunity. But government needs to fund it. They can give tax breaks, or they can institutionalize it, or they can put it out to private contract. If they can invent the atomic bomb, then they can do new power systems. I look at design in this much bigger place.