I still ask...
what philosophy of neo-modern design keeps it superior to Neo Post Modern, or other approaches to design, in a world imploding economically and entering human suffering and teetering on the brink of violent social convulsions on a large scale?
Are we just going to say, "let them eat forms"?
Are we going to say, "let them eat green"?
Or are we going to advocate a new social functionalism of design that actually aims to design solutions to the acute problems afflicting people in G8 nations now...increasingly the same problems that have been afflicting the exploited peoples of developing nations in the last few waves of colonialism and imperialism.
Sorry to say, dc...
But I think you're hoping for a ship which simply will not sail. As far as design goes, I'm of a pretty straight forward mind... MCM is the only movement which consistently moved forward in both creating solutions and meeting aesthetic standards(obliterating them to be fair). The reason there are those of us who look back to it now as well as those of us who never looked away is its inherent quality. It's just simply great design. And as for design solving social issues, society will simply not let it happen. However cliched it might sound, money is king.
Lunchbox...
Your assessment is certainly a safe bet, but it begs two questions then:
1) how probable is it that modernist design actually marks not only the best of design, but by your suggestino also the terminus of design's progress? and
2) how is it that modernist design actively strived to solve social problems in the first three quarters of the 20th Century through design, but is impotent to do so now?
Money has always been king, so long as there has been money. I do not think that is the definitive weight in the balance.
I think early modernist design was propelled by a formidable philosophy.
I think Neo Modern Revival design has not bothered to either revive, or advance the philosophy behind Modernist design.
Fair questions those, dc...
1. Regrettably, my answer is yes. And yes, it is the philosophy of modern design that sets it apart. But in terms of philosophy, it was progression by regression. MCM went back to the basics... the simplest of forms, the most practical of applications. An honest and pure approach to design. And henceforth, solutions came at an overwhelming clip. From Plato to Socrates to Kierkegaard, progress to be sure. But are we to believe that if man exists for ten more centuries there will always be progress to be made in the realm of design or art or even thought processes in general?
2. Progress has stalled because men of conviction are no longer in control. And we must remember that great technological strides were being made whilst the MCM movement was being cultivated. You may call that design, but I don't. Maybe I'm off base, but most technological advances I deem discovery. But yes, MCM did look to solve many issues facing us today. And a decent amount of progress was made. My point is simply that our social issues are finite. And many of them have been social issues for a very long time. Neither design, discovery nor sound philosophy will ever solve these issues. It will come down to good will and choice. And on such a grand scale, never.
Nice to see how DA-family meets around a circle, sharing the warm of this chair's bonfire.
Couldn't be more awful, couldn't be so bad.
Agree with Lucifersum and Koen, let me repeat: "This would be successful if it had been pushed WAY further: gilding the bars, turning the legs out of mahogany, and having LRF apply a traditional damask pattern onto the shell. With gold fringe. And make 10 of them and be done with it. " and "A very ugly way of looking for attention."
It's true that's very awfully.
So I'd love to try to substitute this one for some of the great examples of the laughably crap replicas thread.
With the risk of being me on the center of the bonfire now.
And then, WHC (from Freedonia) understands very well, and read this as an introduction to an eighties revival.
Good to detect that revival/neo-post modernism.
But now don't be so angry with this 'new' revival: for those that didn't realize the MCM with Eames at the top is as well in the center of this movement.
And then DCWilson catch the ball now, So he guide us to this point: Where are we now? We need a design philosophy to guides us which direction must we follow?
There are TWO opinions on where are we now:
ONE, we are still in a post-modern period, that moves from neo-modernism, neo-clasicism neo-neo and minimalism and again other and other neo, but always under the shadow of the modernism (20's modernism) and seen on perspective always around a circular movement but in the same place again and again.
TWO, more optimistic, is that we don't have anymore only-one true. And could co-exist peacefully various small trends.
We could have at the same time minimalism and neo-pop-barroquism (!), and it's not justice not to mention so many variation on green , social if you want, etc etc. Is it that one of this in the future will be strong enough to emerge as the only new movement?. Or as happens in markets, and multipolar-world we'll begin to live, will coexist many different trends, bigger for the masses and many smaller and different for those that doesn't feel that fits in those? (niche trends)
Wasn't artificial the idea of perfection world of modernism, that couldn't accept greys (just black and withe), and that idea of not accept the defect or the mistake? Only one perfect world for every body, (those that doesn't fit are imperfects to be fixed in the modern-mould)
cont. bonfire
If you want me to talk about social-design I bet a coin, but not to comment it here, there will be misunderstandings on Saxon-American culture. ie: if it's mention the G-8 as non-social issue, it's an American mistake, count the name of them and you realize that most of the their design is much more involved in this issues. And if you want we could go on counting with the G-20. Check what's going on in Dutch, German, french, Italian, Spanish, many Scandinavians, and of course in South America too. You'll see that "society will simply not let it happen" is an American way of see things.
I'd just love to see that in other place, not to off topping this so much (and not attaching my-self to the little-social fighter tag more, in this american forum hehehe:-) )
Yes of course a design philosophy would help us a lot to know in which direction must go, instead of following Dr.Circular.
That's for a Mmmmmmmm part2, why so little persuasiveness to mobilize ourselves in this small community? Because most are collectors and is more a designer issue/problem?. Or is that DCWilson/he/we are not so conscious on how huge is the challenge?, washing the hands saying 'I'm an amateur and not up to the challenge.' saying this after parts-6 posts :-). Is that we are not ready to this challenge?
Here, in Argentina, the BKF butterfly chair, by Bonet Kurchan Ferrari, is like the national chair. And then, there are many, many re-interpretations, as a bag, as an exterior version for parks in concrete, etc, etc, some had won prizes, but most of the times have bad critics by newspapers and others that don't approve them much. Similar to what we see here. Or perhaps different, big respect,as many designers working on this.
Do American DAers have some examples of accepted/well done reinterpretations of the Eames chair?
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com