Critical horology is the study of clocks as instruments shaped by power, convention, and design choices, and the argument that they can be reshaped to reflect other values.
The term was introduced in 2017 by Michelle Bastian at the University of Edinburgh, in a paper titled “Liberating Clocks.” The Present, an analog clock with a single hand that completes one revolution every 365.24 days, appears in that paper as one of its examples. It is a clock that makes the year, not the hour, the subject of attention.
Most academic critique lives on the page. A thinker identifies a problem, lays out the terms, proposes what a better alternative might look like. Then the essay ends.
The object in question stays exactly as it was.
Bastian’s paper is different because it looks for cases where the critique has already been built. Her argument is that clocks, like maps, have been shaped by politics and power, and that just as cartographers reworked maps to reveal what dominant maps obscure, horologists can rework clocks. To say so, examples have to exist. Otherwise it is all theory.
The Present is one of the examples.
That would be a small thing if the clock only existed inside the paper. But the clock was not made for a journal. It was made in 2011, prototyped and re-prototyped over seven generations. More than 10,000 have shipped to 44 countries. Most of the people who own one have never heard the phrase critical horology. They just saw the object, understood what it was, and wanted it in their home.
That is the part that matters.
An argument that stays on the page can be brilliant and still change nothing. An object that gets made but says nothing is just decoration. The Present is neither. It is an argument you can point at. It is also a thing people enjoy owning.
That combination is rarer than it sounds. Usually critique and pleasure sit on opposite sides of a wall. The people who write about what is wrong with clocks tend not to make clocks. The people who make clocks tend not to write about what clocks mean. The Present sits on both sides of that wall at once.
The argument is not against the clock. It is not that we should abandon the hour or tear down the calendar. The argument is that a single way of seeing time has come to occupy the whole field, and that a second way of seeing, slower and wider, belongs next to it. The year has always been there. We just have not had an instrument that shows it.
Some critiques arrive as books. Some arrive as papers. Some arrive as a circle on a wall that moves once around every 365.24 days, barely perceptible in an afternoon, unmistakable over the course of a season.
The argument is the object. The object is the argument. You can read it. You can also live with it.
Leave a comment: