ChapterPDF Available

System and Design – A conversation between René Spitz and Peter Friedrich Stephan


Abstract and Figures

What challenges do designers face when working on digital systems? Who is to design the cultural effects of digital systems? Can designers do responsible work apart from hardware and interface design? Will designers invent alternative systems to those of the internet monopolists? Will designers find new allies in social activists and hackers?
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Conversation between René Spitz
and Peter Friedrich Stephan
150106_Essayteil.indd 130 08.01.15 11:26
RS: Is system design a distinctive design discipline or do
designers always think in systems?
PFS: Defining a system to be designed is already design
and, to this extent, design always thinks in terms of
systems. Sensible system boundaries often appear to be
obvious. However, in most cases, they are derived from
a subconscious pre-knowledge that has to be revised by
taking into account new knowledge arising during the de-
sign process. The dynamic combination of understanding
and acting, of describing and intervening is a central part
of design. A frequent change of perspective is crucial in
this process in order to highlight as many facets as pos-
sible. The point is to look at systems from both the inside
and the outside.
Who defines the perspective of observation and thus the
system’s boundaries?
System boundaries are essentially subjective, yet justi-
fiable, definitions. For instance, the design task may be
to design an office chair. In its narrowest definition, this
chair is a technical system comprising a seat, a backrest
and castors. That‘s how an engineer would describe it.
A designer, however, also takes into account the user,
considering the human body and its movements in terms
of ergonomics, as well as psychological and social factors
such as communication and representation. This also in-
cludes the chair‘s relationship to the table, to the lamp or
the monitor. This system is again embedded in a context
of employment contracts, hierarchies and communication
rules, in what Lucius Burckhardt refers to as »invisible
design«. Often more important than the objects them-
selves, these aspects are not necessarily seen as being
part of the designer‘s task. Therefore, it is important for
designers to be able to co-define the task instead of me-
rely working to requirements that might exclude important
opportunities for innovative design. This is the starting
point for independent design research.
Does design try to use what you have just described for
developing a holistic perspective?
The term »holistic perspective« may be a bit overused but
it‘s going in the right direction: don‘t just focus on indivi-
dual elements, but take into account the context and do
not rule out anything. Buckminster Fuller‘s method was
described as «exploring the world like an ancient child«.
In other words: look at everything with the unprejudiced
mind of a child and ask the simplest questions. Fuller
was self-educated and hence did not have the option of
adopting the narrow perspective of an expert. Therefore,
he was able to question why classic geometry had been
developed from the shape of a cube and not from that of
a sphere or a tetrahedron. Naivety in the best sense of
the word, which can lead to radically new insight, like the
»beginner‘s mind« in Zen.
Designers tend to state that they work horizontally in
relation to the established disciplines. But don’t desig-
ners also follow systemic principles?
Designers endeavour to see and design connections that
individual expert groups do not see. Hence designers
are specialists in generalisation. However, generalised
perspectives can also be framed methodically. In this
context, a central idea is »to lead from the future«. The
point is to develop scenarios that, as »disruptive innovati-
on«, are new and independent instead of merely proposing
incremental improvements to an existing situation. This
»moonshot thinking« defines big objectives in a far-ahead
future and uses these as the basis from which to develop
backwards for the present. Just like the moon landing
really, that seemed to be a utopian goal but was eventu-
ally pulled off within the space of just a few years. Science
fiction can be a great source of inspiration. One hundred,
or even fifty, years ago, our current reality would have
been considered utterly utopian. But the worlds that were
created by writers and film makers already came quite
close to what we have now. In the same way, »design fic-
tion« starts with a leap in imagination and then develops
this approach in a systematic manner.
Are there any current examples of such an approach?
Europe has become a little tired and has good reasons
to view such an optimistic and revolutionary stance with
scepticism. In the modern era, many grand visions have
led to catastrophes and it is not unjustified to assu-
me that such an approach would create a gateway for
pushing techno-liberal ideas. However, the solution is
not to think small because things look very different in
the emergent economic powerhouses of the BRIC states
(Brazil, Russia, India and China). The »Design for a Billion«
conference was recently held in India: design for a billion
people. These kinds of tasks pretty much describe the
150106_Essayteil.indd 131 08.01.15 11:26
scale on which design has to work and function. The point
is to have a realistic attitude in relation to this kind of
scale. Fuller‘s programme of an »Anticipatory Comprehen-
sive Design Revolution« is as topical as ever.
And who is to pay for that?
Joseph Beuys has already provided the answer to this
question when he said: »Who, if not those that have the
money, will bankroll the revolution?« But, of course, we
are not only talking about a technological revolution, we
are primarily talking about a revolution in consciousness.
And, in this regard, it will be interesting to see how the
intellectual and monied elites will respond. The people I‘m
referring to here are those who are not trapped by factual
constraints but have worked to be in a position where they
have freedom of choice. Will these privileged individuals
continue to exclusively focus on profit or will they develop
more far-reaching ideas as has, for example, Götz Werner,
founder of the German drugstore chain dm, who advoca-
tes the introduction of an unconditional basic income.
The entrepreneur Elon Musk wants to build a super fast
transport tube in California. With »PayPal« and the »Tesla«
electric car, he has already shown himself to be a source
of good ideas. Inventive talent, willingness to take risks
and entrepreneurial spirit tend to be attributes of indivi-
dual people but those individuals stand on the shoulders
of many. Therefore, the gigantic wealth owned by a few
families of entrepreneurs must flow back into education
and infrastructure to a greater degree than has been the
case so far. Today, many people are smarter than the sys-
tems in which they have to work. It is therefore important
to bring this knowledge and the will to participate onto
the level of operations.
How can such a programme be implemented?
The idea of the »post growth society« means abandoning
the fetish of economic growth. What needs to grow, how-
ever, is awareness and methods of implementation. The
notions of work and capital derive from the era of mecha-
nisation and scarcity. Today, work has become something
different and needs to be re-evaluated in economic terms.
Taxes can also be turned into a donation for the common
good instead of being a compulsory levy, as Peter Slot-
erdijk has suggested. Instead of an authoritarian state
and party system having a monopoly on decision-making,
the right of having your say could be extended. This is the
political function of »participatory design«.
This will probably be mainly a question of education.
Exactly. And in education, especially, we are currently
experiencing a profound reorganisation. New organisati-
onal forms are emerging and the concept of knowledge is
changing. There are those who regard knowledge as the
creation of private assets that can be recapitalised and
there are others for whom knowledge is a public good that
can only be created collectively. On the one hand, know-
ledge is created through ever-finer differentiations and on
the other hand through ever-broader references. The no-
tions of form and pattern are central in this respect. That‘s
why we coined the term »cognitive design« ten years
ago. Cognitive design denotes research that studies the
functions of design in generating orientation, meaning,
preference and decision-making. This kind of research
is urgently needed today, both in companies and for new
knowledge platforms like »iversity«.
Today we live with all-embracing digital systems. How can
we design them?
A central concept in digital technologies is »resolution«.
High-resolution photos show more detail and are thus of
higher quality. But resolution is also related to dissolution
and decomposition. In the digital world, we tend to find
excessive detail, but it‘s detail that lacks context. Digital
technologies and networks create a hypertrophy of detail
and a loss of sense-making units. The signature feature of
our time is the network consisting of nodes and connec-
tions. But at a higher resolution each node reveals further
connections, resulting in incalculable options of combi-
nation and re-combination. However, only a few of these
options make sense and we cannot possibly test them all.
Hence, decisions for or against particular combinations
will either be random or will follow factual constraints, or
will respond to stimuli as do, for example, visual rhetorics
and the social dynamics of what we refer to as »social
media«. Cognitive design offers an alternative by visua-
lising potential connections while simultaneously pro-
moting specific preferences. In terms of systems, this is
called re-entry: introducing differentiation into that which
is differentiated.
150106_Essayteil.indd 132 08.01.15 11:26
But isn’t that the classic criticism levelled against design:
that design is manipulative and disassociates people from
their actual goals?
Designers pass value judgements by introducing both
differentiations and ordering systems, and, by so doing,
designers promote new opportunities for action. Desig-
ners do not argue conceptually, they use manifestations
and these manifestations are always superficial. What
is underneath the surface is not depth but even more
surfaces, like in an onion. Nietzsche has already descri-
bed the Greek ideal as »superficiality out of profundity«.
Design works on staging things and the success criterion
is impact, the power to direct attention and preferences
in a certain direction. Whether this is used in product
advertising or in a campaign for some noble social goal is
first of all irrelevant.
Is there a »beyond« in staging things?
In theatre, the spectator sees actors and sets, which he
accepts as the reality of the play. Designers also create
settings: they entertain, seduce, confuse or educate their
audience. As a partner in this, they need the informed
consumer who is no less a creator of culture than is the
theatre-goer, as Wolfgang Ullrich has beautifully shown in
his studies on consumer culture. Searching for a »beyond«
of staging will not get us anywhere. Even final statements
such as »truth« or »authenticity« have to be staged to
be credible. There is no direct communication. Communi-
cation is always mediated by a third agent like language,
signs or sounds, all of which contribute to creating me-
aning, and this is the domain of design.
Fig. 1: The »product as such«, conceptualised as a mere fact, can only be
conceived of as abstract but cannot be implemented.
Fig. 2: Contextualisation guides appropriation and use. The product can only
be understood by gestalt and outline.
Fig. 3: The audience sees and discusses products in the context of their
staging. Designers, as directors, remain in the background unless they
appear as authors of products and become themselves part of the
staging. (Illustrations: PFS)
150106_Essayteil.indd 133 08.01.15 11:26
But isn’t there a difference between designing superflu-
ous and bad products and trying to meet quality criteria?
It seems to make sense to divide design into two opposite
functions: on the one hand, a conservative function that
supports affirmation, consumerism and manipulation and,
on the other hand, a progressive function that promotes
criticism, participation and authenticity. The latter,
»critical design«, works with interventions and provo-
cation and seems to thus create an antipode to the
market-conforming mainstream. The point is, however,
that critical design also stages itself and hence sells
itself as a label to, for instance, the academic public and
in museums. Similarly, even the most provocative anti-art
eventually serves the art business and hence, for design
too, there is no outsider position from which to overturn
the logic of publicity and the market.
And what are the implications?
Design is subject to market mechanisms that feed off the
extraordinary. Magazines and trade exhibitions are looking
for sensational one-off pieces, for signature furniture and
signature lines. This, however, is typical of arts and crafts
from which design should differentiate itself. Designers
should not design for exceptional cases but for the normal
case. What‘s important is good quality in everyday life, not
in the design museum. The point is to enforce a minimum
level of design quality, against ignorance, vanity, narrow-
mindedness and greed. Supreme design ability is not
creating an exceptional one-off masterpiece but, quite
the contrary, creating good quality in everyday things.
Therefore, we are working on providing basic courses in
very different areas. This approach is the foundation for a
»Low End Academy« to be established soon. This academy
will focus on intercultural exchange related to the ques-
tion: »How can we achieve more with less?« The overde-
veloped western countries can learn a lot in this respect
from other cultures.
Isn’t that a position we know from design history?
Sure, this approach is in the best of traditions. Charles
and Ray Eames have always emphasised the importance
of connections, in a quite practical sense: How can I
connect this metal part with that wooden part? Eventu-
ally, this is what defines good quality: connections must
be thoroughly developed and thought through. Even in a
high-rise building, good quality is in the detail, as is the
case with Norman Foster‘s buildings. Designers can scale
qualities from the smallest to the largest and from the
concrete to the abstract and vice versa. In other words:
from the detail of a screw to the overall systemic concept,
from a teaspoon to a city, as we used to say.
Haven’t the most essential products been finally desig-
ned? Especially since many years of development have
gone into those concepts?
Today, there are many good solutions for chairs, tables,
lamps, tableware and cutlery. There isn‘t much left to im-
prove, unless new materials create new conditions. There-
fore, it is all the more astounding that these products still
feature on the curricula of design schools. This should be
prohibited for a few years. The products are often more
perfect than the relationships they create.
Haven’t aesthetic standards also established themselves
via the concept of »good form«?
The concept of good form has to be changed into the
requirement for creating good relationships. If that was
done, it would hopefully have the same impact. The power
of design has been generally acknowledged and is used
extensively in business strategies. However, the power of
design is not the power of designers. Jonathan Ive, head
of design at Apple, is rightly lauded for his product design
but have you ever heard him say anything about the
relationships from which his products are generated or
about the consequences created by his products? In large
companies, these questions are dealt with by experts but
there is no identifiable contribution by designers.
Are there any criteria at all according to which a product
like a smartphone can be designed today?
Products don‘t end with their physicality: they are embed-
ded in complex systems. Each smartphone, for instance,
is connected to the coltan mines in the Congo. Another
connection links them to working conditions in China. A
systemic design approach will try to at least highlight
these connections, or better even, to design them. The
current iPhone features an app called »Health« that ana-
lyses each distance walked and each step climbed. Users
may find this useful and use it in methods of »quantified
self«. One health insurance company is already offering a
special rate for those who transmit these data. A service
is offered, but the price is surveillance and control. If you
don‘t want that, you will find that the app cannot be dele-
ted. That‘s clearly going too far and for me, this is
150106_Essayteil.indd 134 08.01.15 11:26
a reason why I would not want such a smartphone and
would rather look for alternatives. The same is true for
cars and buildings. Telekom‘s claim used in adverts for
smart home technology perfectly drives home the point:
»Your home in your hand at all times«. Well, yes, in the
hand of large corporations!
What can designers do in this situation?
Designers still predominantly design beautiful devices
and interfaces instead of opting for a systemic approach
and understanding the design of safety and privacy as
the most urgent design tasks. In Italian, there is the term
»habitat», meaning »that in which I live«. The concept of
home implies trust, safety, privacy and self-determina-
tion. Today, designers face the challenge of creating a
»habitat« that will support these values from both physi-
cal and media components. In the 1960s, the design group
Superstudio had already realised that we would live in a
matrix. Using drawings and collage, they had already po-
sed the crucial questions. The UK-based archigram group
featured the same subjects in their work from that time.
There is no reason why aesthetic design should not be
combined with ethical judgement. However, »habitat«
is also related to »habit« and it seems that concepts
like privacy are undergoing a change in meaning and will
hence mean something different to future generations
than to those who grew up before the digital age.
How can designers tackle such comprehensive tasks?
Designers are specialists in making things visible and
the visualisation of data traces can be a good start. This
subject has already been treated at the Cologne Academy
of Media Arts in 1997 and the work can still be accessed at Furthermore, the tasks‘ complexity
should motivate designers to create intelligent allian-
ces with computer experts, engineers, anthropologists,
sociologists and start-ups. There are many politically
up-to-speed initiatives, partly funded by foundations,
that develop alternative forms of digital culture. Simulta-
neously, new organisational forms of knowledge transfer
are tested in fablabs, coworking spaces or at conferences
like »retune« and »knowable«.
What is the position of design in relation to questions of
general technology criticism?
Technology is too powerful to leave it to engineers and
philosophers of technology. Designers claim to design
technology. There was once a slogan against the dan-
ger of »Big Brother«: »The computer for the rest of us.«
Ironically, its creator, Apple, is today itself one of the
dangerous giants. But there are initiatives developing
alternative computers like the Raspberry Pi and networks
for critical users like Diaspora. Designers should collabo-
rate to support these alternatives instead of only serving
established players. This, too, is a subject for independent
design research.
Can such a design be human-centred?
Human-centred design is a nice but unfortunately senti-
mental idea, a sop. Complex socio-technical systems are
developing towards forms where the human being is no
longer the focus and can no longer be the focus because
humans are a potential source of interference. But the
power of these systems lies exactly in the fact that there
isn‘t anything else at the centre that could be critically
questioned, or at least be addressed, because power
essentially means being unreachable. I am only human-
centred when I log out of the networks and am offline.
But aren’t there objective human needs that should be
focused on?
The scale of needs is open towards the top and the bot-
tom. What is of central importance to some, goes totally
unnoticed by others. You can‘t regulate that in a norma-
tive way. Nor can it be about playing so-called »human«
criteria off against technical ones. Technology belongs to
humans, it‘s one of our qualities. However, technological
procedures and devices are both beyond and below any
human scale. Hence, with technology, we carry a monster
within us that must be designed. And the criteria of such a
design must become the subject of a debate. We have de-
bates about nuclear power and genetic engineering but,
so far, designers haven‘t participated in these debates.
Small wonder then that in the public mind designers are
being underestimated.
150106_Essayteil.indd 135 08.01.15 11:26
It has been said we live in the »Anthropocene«, an age
where humans effect the crucial transformations. What
does that mean for design?
The enormous impact of technology and science has
led to a situation where the world can – and must – be
designed, from the smallest to the largest scale. All areas
of expertise involved in this could be termed design in the
sense of Herbert Simon‘s »Sciences of the Artificial«. It
seems to me that areas such as molecular biology, nano
technology and computer science are closer to these
tasks than traditional design disciplines. Hence, the kind
of design necessary in the future will probably not come
from today‘s designers. They still think far too much in
terms of arts and crafts. In the digital realm, this might
still seem current but, in biology and nano technology,
there are already totally new dimensions to be designed.
They go beyond signs and symbols and are directly opera-
Can anybody be a designer?
Designing is a fundamental ability, which each of us can
discover and develop. Professional refinement, however,
means developing a repertoire of methods, to consi-
der more than just personal ability and interest. Design
processes often require managing different groups of
participants, which, in turn, requires a meta design of
debates and processes. In this sense, Bruno Latour has
established a project that maps controversies. Controver-
sies, however, are based on concerns, on issues that are
important to people. The reasons for those concerns are
often irrational and not understood, but this makes them
all the more powerful, for example: tradition, nationalism,
honour, religion and erotic encounters.
Didn’t design, as a modern discipline, want to leave all
this behind?
It‘s not enough to brush aside these driving forces with
a gesture of modern enlightenment. This only leaves a
vacuum, and the dark ghosts of the past will create new
chaos. Future design should instead strive to understand
both the reasons for and the construction of concerns.
How can we think about the ideas and feelings related to
nature, religion, trust, health, family, tradition and so on
with a view to the future? Great design tasks, all of them!
Finally, a look ahead please: What is the future of design?
For design, the fields of application are growing, but
its foundations are not defined clearly enough. Design
must be more strongly underpinned by theory and it must
develop its connections to other disciplines. Only as a
strong discipline can design become an attractive partner
in future research. Design uniquely combines analysis
and synthesis, reflection and action. This methodological
skill contradicts the cognitive ideal of the sciences, the
aesthetical ideal of the arts and the pragmatic ideal of
technology, as Gui Bonsiepe has stated. Design could,
thus, become the centre of an education system that
urgently needs to be reformed. The goal is to develop the
potential to master the future as both an individual and
societal ability.
150106_Essayteil.indd 136 08.01.15 11:26
Über 100 Jahre Chaos im Alltag / Over 100 Years of Chaos in Everyday Life
herausgegeben von / edited by Petra Hesse, René Spitz
150106_Essayteil.indd 1 08.01.15 11:24
Petra Hesse Vorwort ...................................................................... 4
Preface ...................................................................... 8
Gerda Breuer Systemdesign für Klein- und Kleinstwohnungen
Möbelentwürfe von Ferdinand Kramer und Franz Schuster
für das Neue Frankfurt (1925-1930) ............................................. 12
System Design for Small and Tiny Flats
Furniture Designs by Ferdinand Kramer and Franz Schuster
for the New Frankfurt Project (1925-1930) .......................................22
Georg Vrachliotis »Halleluja! Die Möbel sind da! Und sie sind wunderschön!«
Konrad Wachsmann, Fritz Haller, USM ........................................... 32
»Hallelujah! The furniture has arrived! And it‘s beautiful!«
Konrad Wachsmann, Fritz Haller, USM ........................................... 42
Thomas Edelmann Entdecken, verwerfen, transformieren
Die Bedeutung des Systems in den italienischen und
skandinavischen Gestaltungsuniversen .........................................50
Discovering, Discarding, Transforming
The Significance of Systems in Italian and
Scandinavian Design ..........................................................60
Anna Maga Zwischen Utopie und erfüllten Träumen
Ausgewählte Systemprojekte in Polen (1929-2013) ................................ 70
Between Utopia and Dreams Fulfilled
Selected System Projects in Poland (1929-2013) ..................................78
Julia Meer Strukturierte Kreativität statt gerasterte Langeweile
Die variable Ordnung hinter den Arbeiten von Christian Chruxin,
Wolfgang Schmidt und Helmut Schmidt-Rhen .................................... 86
Structured Creativity versus Gridded Boredom
The Variable Order behind the Works of Christian Chruxin,
Wolfgang Schmidt and Helmut Schmidt-Rhen .................................... 96
Christopher Dell Unbestimmtheit und Grid
Mies van der Rohe, John Cage und George Brecht: Ein Raster in 24 (von 44) takes .....106
Indeterminacy and Grid
Mies van der Rohe, John Cage and George Brecht: A grid in 24 (of 44) takes ..........114
René Spitz Gespräch mit Peter Friedrich Stephan
System und Design .......................................................... 122
Conversation with Peter Friedrich Stephan
System and Design .......................................................... 130
René Spitz Das relative Chaos im Universum der Dinge .....................................138
The Relative Chaos in the Universe of Things ....................................144
Exponate / Exhibits ........................................................................... 152
Impressum ...........................................................................210
150106_Essayteil.indd 3 08.01.15 11:24
Diese Publikation erscheint anlässlich der Ausstellung
SYSTEM DESIGN. Über 100 Jahre Chaos im Alltag
Museum für Angewandte Kunst Köln, 20. Januar – 07. Juni 2015
This publication accompanies the exhibition
SYSTEM DESIGN. Over 100 Years of Chaos in Everyday Life
Museum of Applied Arts Cologne, January 20 – June 7, 2015
Copyright © 2015,
Museum für Angewandte Kunst Köln / Museum of Applied Arts Cologne
und die Autoren / and the authors
Herausgeber / Editors
Petra Hesse, René Spitz
Koordination / Coordination
René Spitz
Autoren / Authors
Gerda Breuer, Christopher Dell, Thomas Edelmann,
Petra Hesse, Anna Maga, Julia Meer, René Spitz,
Peter Friedrich Stephan, Georg Vrachliotis
Lektorat / Copyediting
Romana Breuer, Christine Drabe, Petra Hesse,
René Spitz, Tobias Wüstenbecker
Übersetzung / Translation
Susanne Dickel, Gérard Goodrow, Bernhard Hartmann
Grafische Gestaltung + Layout / Graphic design + layout
Sara Gerstmann, Petra Hollenbach (Konzept), Sarah Kruth
Bildbearbeitung / Picture editing
Regina Arentz, Thomas Hilliges, Druckverlag Kettler
Titelbild / Cover painting
Oliver Scheibler
Fotografie / Photography
Leon Hofacker, Uli Mattes, Gabriel Richter,
Jonas Schneider
Gesamtherstellung / Production
Druckverlag Kettler, Bönen
150106_Essayteil.indd 211 08.01.15 11:26
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
12 System Design for Small and Tiny Flats Furniture Designs by Ferdinand Kramer and Franz Schuster for the New Frankfurt Project
  • Gerda Breuer Systemdesign Für Klein-Und Kleinstwohnungen Möbelentwürfe Von
  • Ferdinand Kramer
  • Franz Schuster Für Das Neue Frankfurt
Gerda Breuer Systemdesign für Klein-und Kleinstwohnungen Möbelentwürfe von Ferdinand Kramer und Franz Schuster für das Neue Frankfurt (1925-1930)............................................. 12 System Design for Small and Tiny Flats Furniture Designs by Ferdinand Kramer and Franz Schuster for the New Frankfurt Project (1925-1930)....................................... 22
86 Structured Creativity versus Gridded Boredom The Variable Order behind the Works of Christian Chruxin
  • Wolfgang Schmidt Und Helmut Schmidt-Rhen
  • ................................... Helmut Schmidt-Rhen
Julia Meer Strukturierte Kreativität statt gerasterte Langeweile Die variable Ordnung hinter den Arbeiten von Christian Chruxin, Wolfgang Schmidt und Helmut Schmidt-Rhen.................................... 86 Structured Creativity versus Gridded Boredom The Variable Order behind the Works of Christian Chruxin, Wolfgang Schmidt and Helmut Schmidt-Rhen.................................... 96
Ein Raster in 24 (von 44) takes . . . . . 106 Indeterminacy and Grid Mies van der Rohe, John Cage and George Brecht: A grid in 24
  • Christopher Dell Unbestimmtheit Und Grid Mies Van Der Rohe
  • John Cage Und George Brecht
Christopher Dell Unbestimmtheit und Grid Mies van der Rohe, John Cage und George Brecht: Ein Raster in 24 (von 44) takes..... 106 Indeterminacy and Grid Mies van der Rohe, John Cage and George Brecht: A grid in 24 (of 44) takes.......... 114