Crafting Cradle to Cradle: Upcycled Vocabulary

Posted on June 29, 2009 by Becky Striepe in News+Opinion

I know, I’m about seven years late to the party here, but I’m just now reading Cradle to Cradle. As I made my way through the book, a terrible realization slowly dawned on me, and this one line from The Princess Bride has been running through my head since then:

I am the Vizzini in this scenario, and I am not alone.

Just like with “green,” “natural,” and “sustainability,” the concept of upcycling has been misused and watered down since William McDonough and Michael Braungart coined it in their 2002 book. The term was meant to describe a truly closed system where products are made not to be consumed but used and then either become something else or be easily broken down into useful materials. Think unraveling an ugly thrift store sweater and knitting it into something new or packing material that becomes a TV stand rather than trash when it arrives at its destination.

Instead, it’s now often used interchangeably with recycling or reusing. While I think there is definitely an environmental benefit to using salvaged or recycled rather than virgin materials, when you do that you’re not necessarily upcycling.

Real upcycling is an elegant design concept that has a much deeper meaning. It takes into account not only sourcing materials but the finished product’s entire lifecycle. It’s taking your materials and turning them into something of high quality and of greater value than what you started with. When we use it to mean something else, it waters down the original meaning.

I think that part of the reason it’s misused is that it’s sort of a tricky concept. For example, if I take a vintage pillowcase or salvaged linens and turn them into a tote bag or a skirt, is that upcycling? Or is that reusing? I’m struggling with the answer to this question.

What about plastic bottles turned into light fixtures? It’s awesome that folks are finding crafty uses for things that would have gone straight to the landfill, I’m just not sure it’s always upcycling. What happens to that chandelier when the home owner decides it’s time for some new decor? And what happened to the parts that had to be cut off of the bottle to construct the fixture?

Please don’t think that I’m knocking reuse and recycling here at all. In real life, we’re surrounded by products that weren’t designed with the Cradle to Cradle concept in mind. Finding crafty ways to reuse them is better than sending them off to the landfill. I certainly don’t plan to stop hunting down vintage linens and salvaged buttons, and I still applaud crafty reuse.

The thing I do want to stop doing is using upcycling to mean something that it doesn’t.

So what do you guys think? Am I just getting bogged down in semantics, or have you noticed folks calling things upcycling where it doesn’t really apply?

Tags:

cradle to cradle, crafting, crafts, production loop, sustainability, upcycling

6 Responses to “ Crafting Cradle to Cradle: Upcycled Vocabulary ”

Matt Embrey

29. Jun, 2009

Great point Becky. I know I’ve been guilty of slaughtering the meaning of that word on occasion. It’s actually starting to drive me nuts when I hear it used to describe something that amounts to “downcycling” like the Bic pen chandelier. Sure if all those Bic pens were rescued from the landfill it could be considered upcycling, but most likely they are perfectly good, new pens. So they are taking something novel and useful and turning them into something of lesser value and not reducing consumption.

This also touches on the debate over the inherent value of art. The term upcycle is often used in the context of craft/art. Many would argue that making art from plastic bottles is giving them greater value, but the other side would argue that it’s not a greater value… to the environment then recycling those bottles into a useful raw material.

Reply to this comment
- Becky Striepe
  
  29. Jun, 2009
  
  That’s an interesting point! I almost feel like that’s sort of a case-by-case situation. Or maybe material-by-material?
  
  Since plastics especially end up of lower quality after recycling, maybe keeping those out of the waste stream all together is more valuable than the plastic itself? But if you’re talking about something like copper, which has a pretty high inherent value just as a metal, maybe that’s better off recycled.
  
  But there’s also the question of that piece of art’s life cycle…what happens to it when the customer decides it’s time to change her decor?
  
  The whole thing is really tricky! It’s giving me a lot to think about.
  
  Reply to this comment
Autumn Wiggins

29. Jun, 2009

I would consider reuse to apply to items that can be used over and over again for the same or similar purpose without any major modification or deconstruction.

Pretty much any post-consumer object a crafter or artist might use in their work I think can be considered upcycling. If you upcycle something that is recyclable, as long as it can be deconstructed with the recyclable components intact, I don’t see any reason to discourage it.

The book Cradle to Cradle is heavy on utopian concepts. Yes, there are practical examples, but also very large gaps in explaining how we get there… the authors’ expertise is limited.

That’s why I think much more attention should be paid to how creative individuals are utilizing waste, as imperfect as it is right now. Companies that produce consumable goods might find a market in acknowledging upcycling as part of the product life-cycle, and make design considerations to improve and expand those possibilities.

Leave the technological issues of infinitely recyclable and biodegradable substrates to the chemical engineers. Crafters are playing a very early role in developing “industrial nutrients”.

What happens when styles change? Well, there is something of a cycle, 30 years or so till you hit vintage status. Artisan objects are especially coveted…I doubt mass produced items (of today’s standards) will ever be.

Reply to this comment
- Becky Striepe
  
  30. Jun, 2009
  
  So you sort of consider reuse and upcycling interchangeable? I guess that’s the thing I’m stuck on. It feels like upcycling means more than just reusing.
  
  I think you’re totally right….they are utopian concepts, especially from an art/craft perspective. Where large companies have the budget to do R&D and develop Cradle to Cradle products, it’s trickier for someone with limited means.
  
  Thanks, Autumn! I like your optimistic outlook. I think this book is putting me in that dark place a little bit, and it’s nice to be reminded that crafters are doing something extraordinary.
  
  Reply to this comment
Liz

01. Jul, 2009

First I should say that I’ve never read the book, so consider this personal opinion rather than informed discourse, but I think something can go from upcycled to trash during any phase of it’s life cycle depending on what the user does with it. Just because something *can* be useful doesn’t mean it always is useful - I hate the idea that recycling or reusing something might get second class status just because it’s not as overarching as the concept of upcycling. That reusable packing material tv stand can be thrown away just as easily as the plastic bottle light fixture when decor is changed.

If you take that pillow case and make it in to a skirt and then make that skirt into an apron and then make that apron a dishtowel and then make that dishtowel a pot holder (as each iteration of the item maybe wears down enough that it has to be changed), isn’t the recycling and reusing just as low impact as taking that packing material and turning it in to a tv stand?

Reply to this comment
Patrick

02. Jul, 2009

It seems very difficult to differentiate the difference between upcycling and reuse and recycle. I think all three are important in our lives. Sometimes when we get caught up too much in the meanings of particular words, we can lose the whole point of what we are trying to accomplish. We want less waste in landfills and to get more use out of items. Regardless of what it is called, it will help us live more sustainable lifestyles.

Reply to this comment