Hasta La Ideas

Reader Laura submitted the following to Ask Unclutterer:

While helping my sister unclutter for her move, I came across some dolls in dresses she’d worn as a baby and a huge (unfortunately not her style) afghan a great aunt had crocheted. We both agreed that if it were just up to us, we probably wouldn’t keep these items … but instead of our own voices in our heads saying, “You can’t get rid of that!” it was our mother’s. How do you unclutter when it’s not really sentiment, but more guilt, that stands in the way?

Guilt is such a complicated emotion. We feel it when we’ve actually done something wrong we’d like to correct, and we use it as a monitor and guide to keep us from committing bad acts in the present and future. Unfortunately, it also plagues us at times that have nothing to do with right or wrong. Choosing to keep or get rid of some dolls, baby clothes, and an afghan isn’t a question of morality, yet guilt can prevent us from making a clear-conscience decision. In this situation, guilt is even plaguing you after you decided not to get rid of something. You’re feeling guilt no matter what you choose.

The first thing to do is take a break and acknowledge that this isn’t a situation where you should be feeling guilt at all. No one’s life is on the line when making decisions about processing clutter, you haven’t broken any laws, and you’re not being asked to do anything unseemly. Put things in perspective — you’re trying to decide how to unclutter for your sister’s move, not decide if you should rob a bank.

Once you can see the larger picture, you can let go of the guilt and make a more rational decision. Ask yourself:

• Does this object have utility? Can it make my life easier/save me time/save me money/fulfill an essential need? (Would you use the afghan if you kept it? Could your child wear the baby clothes?)
• Do I already own something like it that has the same function or holds a similar sentimental meaning? (Do you have other objects from your childhood you treasure more? Do you have pictures or objects from your aunt already in your home?)
• If you keep the objects, where will these objects live in your home that reflects your respect for them? (Hint: Storing them in a cardboard box in the attic or basement isn’t respectful.)
• Does this item help me to develop the remarkable life I want to live? (Do I enjoy looking at and/or using these items? Do they reflect what I value most?)

Only you and your sister will be able to answer these questions, but hopefully you’ll be able to avoid feeling guilty about your decision. Often with sentimental objects, it’s emotionally easier to get rid of the items if we know the objects will be used and appreciated by their next owners. The dolls, baby clothes, and afghan (if they’re in good shape) would be great donations to make to a women’s shelter. Children in need could find comfort from the dolls, babies could use the clothes, and a woman and her family could benefit from the warmth of the blanket. If the items aren’t in good enough shape to be donated to charity, this might help you answer the four questions listed above.

I find great inspiration and joy in the sentimental items in my home, and I think this is because our house isn’t overwhelmed with them. We’ve chosen to keep only our favorite pieces that we really treasure. We found that we saw nothing and appreciated little when we kept every sentimental object in our lives — as the saying suggests, we couldn’t see the forest for the trees. If you and your sister treasure these dolls and the afghan, keep them! If you’re keeping them only because of misplaced guilt, it’s probably time to let them go.

Thank you, Laura, for submitting your question for our Ask Unclutterer column. I hope I was able to help! Check the comments for more suggestions on how to handle sentimental items from our readers.

Do you have a question relating to organizing, cleaning, home and office projects, productivity, or any problems you think the Unclutterer team could help you solve? To submit your questions to Ask Unclutterer, go to our contact page and type your question in the content field. Please list the subject of your e-mail as “Ask Unclutterer.” If you feel comfortable sharing images of the spaces that trouble you, let us know about them. The more information we have about your specific issue, the better.

Another bit of melancholic news from Architectural Record. Following our post two weeks ago about the American Institute of Architects taking their “official magazine” status away from them and over to Architect, the good folks at our sister blog Fishbowl NY broke the story that AR‘s longtime editor-in-chief, Paige Rense Noland, has decided to retire after a career of 35 years with the publication. According to their report, she’ll be leaving very early, in August. Here’s a bit:

“Paige’s devotion to Architectural Digest is extraordinary,” said Conde Nast chairman S.I. Newhouse in a statement “For years she has led her readers into a world of the finest architecture and design, inspiring both professions and pastimes. She has created a legendary magazine, and I am personally proud of the standards she has set.”

Rense Noland became editor in chief of Architectural Digest in 1975, when it was still a part of Knapp Communications. She was also a founding editor of a precursor to Bon Appetit. Conde bought Knapp in 1993. She has edited 12 books, won a lot of awards and generally is a powerhouse. She will stay on the magazine’s masthead as Editor Emeritus.

She will be leaving this August, with a replacement yet named. Taking the job on spec, the New York Observer has selected their picks for her successor. Some, like former Domino editor Deborah Needleman and the NY Times‘ Pilar Viladas, make a little sense, but choosing Paul Goldberger seems a bit far fetched. But now it’s all in Mr. Newhouse’s hands to prove us wrong.

New Career Opportunities Daily: The best jobs in media.

Nifty monster drawings on Post-It notes by John Kenn. You can find more of his work here, where he updates regularly with new monster drawings.

Here’s one of three stadiums designed by German studio GMP Architekten for the 2010 FIFA World Cup that begins in South Africa next week. (more…)

The past year or two haven’t been so kind to Thomas “The Painter of Light” Kinkade and it doesn’t seem to be getting any better. Following his being skewered by a batch of nogoodnik San Francisco artists and his much maligned licensing deal into pop-up Christmas trees (never mind that we were the chief maligners), the story from around this time last year, when Kinkade lost another appeal and was ordered by a judge, once again, to pay two gallery owners several million dollars for scamming them into buying his art, has returned full-force. Following continued battles in court, again with the artist losing, the LA Times reports that The Thomas Kinkade Company has filled for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, which immediately puts a hold on paying out anything the company owes, like say, funds owed to people who have won lawsuits against it. Convenient that the day before the protect was filed was when Kinkade was expected to pay the next $1 million installment to the former gallery owners. Huh. Wonder if the two things might be related?

“Kinkade is a…deadbeat,” said their lawyer, Norman Yatooma, who accused the artist and his Los Angeles attorney, Dana Levitt, of “breaching their agreement” to pay up. “Kinkade’s word is as worthless as his artwork. His lawyer is no better.”

New Career Opportunities Daily: The best jobs in media.