Over consumption to over donation
How Dan Browns Da Vinci Code reveals a global problem of giving away the crap in your wardrobe.
I was struck this week about benevolence turning to burden. A BBC article talked about the work of artist David Shrigley.1 Who was inspired by a note at an Oxfam charity shop in Swansea, displayed amongst copies of The Da Vinci Code book by Dan Brown – “You could give us another Da Vinci code, but we would rather have your vinyl”.
From the BBC article.
The Oxfam charity shop manager at the time (2017) Phil Broadhurst said “Around that time there was one particular donation that we were getting a little more than we could use, which was The Da Vinci Code, because it was such a massive best seller and then a few years after, everyone is clearing their shelves."2
Shrigley sourced 6000 copies of the book from the WRAP distribution depot in Oxfordshire, a climate action NGO. Where according to the article it was a ‘boneyard for best sellers’, where they had an unlimited supply of copies of the unwanted secondhand book. He then pulped them and turned them into versions George Orwells 1984 book. The artist framed the exercise as a sort of secret collaborative work with Dan Brown and George Orwell. With the 70th anniversary of Orwells death it marks a point where his copyright becomes public in the UK, so anyone can publish his work.
Invisible donation destinations
While consumers benevolently carry bags of cloths, books and toys to secondhand shops, they are often unaware of the onward journey of some of the items – spoiler alert, David Shrigley does not make art out of them. What is portrayed as a welcomed donation of a cool fashion T-shirt to someone in need, it is often of such poor quality material it is unsellable and therefore gets shipped to the global south, where they have little use of such terrible quality goods. It then gets burnt or dumped.
A recent investigation by Greenpeace, reveals the scale of the problem. “Only a small amount of used clothes are resold in the country where they were collected: about 10–30% in the UK and similar proportions in the US and Canada, says the report.“3
The report describes how the language around these issues often obscure the negative impact. Where “textile waste is often “disguised” as second-hand clothing. The trade has been called “charity”, “recycling”, “diversion” and now many people call it “circular”, but none of these labels is accurate.”4
In an ironic twist on textiles, circularity and the benevolence of well meaning people, Shrigley announced “A portion of the profits will be donated to Oxfam, who have also been paid for the hire of the venue and will receive the proceeds of specially designed tote bags merchandise.”
Seriously, tote bags? Like everyone doesn’t have loads of them in their houses and just take them to the charity shop anyway. Oh, wait. I get it. It’s “circular”.
As a consumer ending experience, charity has often been considered a good option for consumers to pass on what seems valuable. Other options seem merely disposal. But charity felt good, honourable and helpful. People felt like they had agency at the end. Now it seems this has eroded any perception of that. It further exposes what little options there are at the end in the shadow of such potent, easy consumption.
1 https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-67218454
