Abstract:

We all know that a lamp belongs to the category of objects. Sometimes, however, our perception of a lamp does not resist the feeling that we owe something to it. Our perception does not resist the conclusion that we and the lamp share the same category of beings with mind and feelings. [1] The successful, award-winning commercial called “Lamp”, launched in 2002 by IKEA, produces just that effect on viewers. The advertisement (ad) tells the story of a red lamp desk that, after being replaced by a new one, is discarded in the sidewalk as a trash. It is a rainy night and shots from the red lamp’s perspective show the new lamp in a warm and safe room. For advertisers, the genius of the ad rests on how quickly it is able to establish an emotional connection between the viewer and the lamp … until actor Jonas Fornander drops in the scene and brings reality back like a bomb: “Many of you feel bad for this lamp. This is because you’re crazy. This lamp has no feelings. And the new one is much better.” Although we are not deluded about the reality of the lamp, our pleasure of imagining the lamp’s journey is abruptly interrupted. The marketing strategy works. IKEA reports an increase in sales in her furniture shops during the weeks following the ad. However, from the point of view of the story, we intimately stay wondering about a sequel for the red lamp destiny. Fast-forwarding to 2018, we are contemplated with a new Lamp by IKEA Canadian, now with a modern twist. Starting from the abandoned scene of Lamp 1, Lamp 2 shows a young girl finding the red lamp, taking it home, installing a new light bulb and discovering that it works. In company of her red friend, the girl plays games, does her homework and reads stories. Dropping now in the new final scene, actor Fornander changes the message: “Many of you feel happy for this lamp. That is not crazy. Reusing things is much better.” The red lamp story is now framed in a go-green responsible world in which you are allowed to have feelings for objects. Instead of discard, the new frame values reuse. It is the same red lamp but two stories framed in two different historical times. Kurt Vonnegut [2] would say that each story has a different shape. Starting from the shape “From bad to worse” (Lamp 1), Lamp 2 retells and extends Lamp 1 in the shape of “Man in hole”. [3] In this paper we discuss these two stories in terms of frame-break and frame-shifting. We argue that, when analysed in terms of frames, the integration of story shapes provides a useful analogy for storytelling pedagogy in times of necessary sustainability.

Keywords:

The shapes of stories, frame-break, frame-shifting, storytelling pedagogy, times of environmental sensitivity.