Between Use and Reflection
An interview with Jane Worthington
How would you describe your practice today?
I work in two parallel directions. One produces objects for daily use, designed with care and for longevity.
The other produces sculptural objects of reflection, where that same intelligence is freed from function. Both come from the same way of thinking.
You often speak about working
“through objects.” What does that mean
in practical terms?
The object is not the outcome. It’s the medium. I use it to test proportion, weight, and tension, how something sits in the world and how it is read over time.
Your work questions design and reflects through art. Why is that position important to you?
Because design no longer needs to solve problems. Most problems are already solved. What remains is how objects carry meaning. That requires a different position.
At what point does a design become a sculpture in your process?
When function is no longer necessary to justify the object. What remains is form, material, and its psychological effect.
Do these two directions start differently, or do they diverge later?
They don’t start differently. I approach both as compressed architectures. In one, the object carries function. In the other, that function is removed. What remains is the same structure, only read differently.
Your work involves many specialists and processes. How do you maintain authorship within that?
Authorship is not about making everything yourself. It’s about holding the line, proportion, surface, and tension, through every stage. The process is distributed.
The decisions are not.
What does a project look like from first idea to final object?
It usually begins with a physical intuition, often in clay, form without precision, something I don’t fully understand yet. Then it moves through translation: CAD, model, machining, mould, finish. Each step sharpens the intention rather than diluting it.
You describe your process as post-industrial. What changes compared to traditional industrial design?
Post-industrial design is not a rejection of industry, but a recalibration of it. I work with design-conscious manufacturers who produce with care rather than scale. The focus shifts from quantity to precision, from efficiency to attention.
Alongside that, in my sculptural work, what I call Art After Industry, I use the same tools of industry outside of function to construct objects of reflection. The tools remain the same. The intention changes.
You’ve also been teaching design for many years. How does that relate
to your practice?
It comes from the same way of thinking. I was trained in a context where design was understood as a form of thought, something to be questioned, not just produced. Teaching allows that to continue. Not as instruction, but as a way of maintaining precision, in how work is positioned and why it exists.
You’ve described your work as a response to the age of excess. What do you mean by that?
We’ve produced more objects than we can meaningfully relate to. I’ve been part of that system. So the question shifts from “what do we need?” to “what is worth keeping?”
My work sits in that shift.
How has your thinking about design changed over the years?
It has become more focused. Earlier in my career, I worked closer to industry, within its logic of production. Now I’m more selective. Less interested in producing more, more interested in making something that remains.
Do you think design has globalised through major design brands?
Yes. Design has become globally consistent. The question now is how to remain specific within that.
What do you think design has lost, and what can it regain?
It lost attention. It can regain depth, through fewer, more considered objects.
Do you agree with the idea that
design is “dead”?
No. It’s just no longer where it used to be.
Can you explain what
you mean by that?
Design moved away from authorship and into production, branding, and speed. That made it visible everywhere, but thinner. What has receded is not design itself, but its depth.
Your work often feels architectural. What is your relationship to architecture?
I see objects as compressed architectures. They organise space, even at a smaller scale.
Why are materials like chrome,
glass, lacquer, or soft upholstery important in your work?
They allow contrast. Hard with soft. Precision with tactility. That tension is where the work sits.
Colour also plays a role in your work.
How do you approach it?
Colour allows a piece to extend across a palette, to exist in different readings without changing its structure. But it’s never essential. Each object is designed to hold in its pure form, in wood, stone, or a more nuanced finish. Colour is an addition, not a dependency.
Is that the same for your
sculptural work?
No. There, colour is integrated into the object. It operates through light and reflection, not as a separate layer.
There is often a tension between precision and softness, is this intentional
Yes. Without that tension, the object becomes either too technical or too passive.
Can you describe the thinking behind your large wall sculpture, Vestibule I?
It’s a threshold. A controlled form that draws you in, without explaining why.
What does removing function reveal in that piece?
It reveals how much of design is already psychological. Function often hides that.
Do you consider yourself a designer, an artist, or something else?
I work across both. As a designer, I develop authored objects for use. As a sculptor, I use the same design intelligence to make non-functional work.
How does your work differ from others working between art and design?
For me, it’s not about moving between the two. It’s one way of thinking applied in two conditions, with function and without. That consistency is what defines the work.
How should galleries or collectors understand your work?
As sculpture made with design intelligence.
My design work remains a parallel practice, rooted in use, but developed with the same level of control and authorship.
Where do you see your work developing in the coming years?
Further into sculpture, larger, more spatial works.
At the same time, I want to deepen my work with manufacturers who share a way of thinking and making, where production is approached with craftmanship not scale. Both directions are part of the same trajectory.
What kind of objects do you think will matter in the future?
The ones people don’t want to replace.
What is design, to you, now?
For me it is a way of thinking made visible.