continued...
That Neo Post Modern is wretched in what it has delivered recently and in what it promises is to deliver increasingly, is, unfortunately, beside the point, when the Neo Modern Revival cannot find and articulate sufficiently strong philosophy, either in words, or artifacts, to keep itself focused, energized and capable of holding the attentions of producers, consumers, and educators.
Some of us have talked about this before--about a risk of this being a problem with the Neo Modern Revival. Some of us have tried to articulate a guiding philosophy, but apparently with out sufficient persuasiveness even to mobilize ourselves in this small community. I even tried, but I'm an amateur and not up to the challenge. Koen laid out a philosophy of neofunctionalism with an ethic of building on what has come before and a surrender of the auteurist fetish. Gustavo manifestoed the idea of an eclectic evolutionary, bottom-up design, and the absense of auteurship. But these little stones thrown here have not rippled far, nor even catalyzed those into a shared vision here. And beyond this little pond, the Neo Modern Revivalists and the producers, consumers and educators, have not been able to surrender their focus on Modernism 1.0, on iconic formalism, and on the cult of the auteur, sufficiently to prevent an inevitable vacuum from forming.
Clearly, the design and architecture schools are NOT filling the philosophical vacuum either. They appear, rather, as usual, to be waiting for the marketers to sniff out the next set of feelings among consumers that can be statistically isolated, marketed to and exploited, before waiting to redirect the orthodoxy of their teachings to cautiously, calculatedly approve of yet another revival capable of stimulating enough employment to keep next year's graduates off food stamps, and to ensure the professors meet their quota of publications in peer reviewed journals. Perhaps we should expect no more from the academy. Training technicians is the job its bureaucracy has sought out for as long as one can remember in most fields. It is easier to teach ideologies and histories of than it is to work out philosophies of action that can inform a discipline to progress. Why should design and architecture schools to anything but perpetuate a status quo of endlessly successive revivals?
But the above begs a question: from where and from whom will a philosophy spring that will extricate design, architecture, producers, consumers, and educators, from this increasingly regressive dialectic between mildly constructive revivals [Neo Modern]and grossly destructive revivals [Neo Post Modern]--this uncreative destruction not of decay within progress, but of progress itself?
Don't worry, Jeremiah:
he's done it to me too.
Not only will he make an inappropriately mean comment about disliking something, but he attacks the person, as well.
I'm surprised that Patrick and Alix haven't asked him to bring it down a notch or two.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but being viscious just the heck of it is really quite bad.
Lunchbox:
"I detest what...
Lunchbox:
"I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."
Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)
Jeremiah and Lunchbox:
You are on Design Addict since a while now so you must know that insults are not welcome on our website. So please calm down.
Perhaps a testament
to how bad this chair is.
Hug it out men, hug it out.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hug%20it%20out
Jokes are only jokes
when they're written so the intended person takes it as a joke.
Perhaps Lunchbox's humor is too dry, but I've found some of his comments snotty too.
So at least two of us have thought that he's gone over the line more than once....and it's obvious that Patrick and Alix seem to agree.
"It's intended as a comment on Prince Charles' well-known antipathy to most modern architecture"
...... are you kidding ??!!?
do you actually think that they put that much thought into the the name ? or even have enough random and inane knowledge of the royal families quirks to intellectualize the name??
by naming it the 'prince charles' they are obviously trying to make a naming connection to the neo-baroque-modernist trend so well executed by starck with his louis ghost, victoria ghost, charles ghost, francois ghost etc designs and laviani's bourgie lamp.
yuck !
As Marchal Mcluhan said or wrote...
somewhere: There is only communication when the one that receives the message understands the one that send the message. In this case the "designer" might have all kind of intentions but it is obvious that they were not understood...even that does not seem to work for Peter!!
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com