It was very interesting that no one in recent thread was willing to grapple with the issue of revising the form language of modernist design so that it provides the visual excitement that even the lowliest designers of crap can achieve and excite persons with.
It never would have occurred to me that enormously imaginative designers would refuse even to talk about enlivening the current neomodern trend in design, as it drifts helplessly from the recent abysmal heavy modern into engineered modern.
It seems that as long as neomodernist design refuses to replough the earth Charles Eames broke half a century before ; that is, so long as it refuses to put the delight and fun back in neomodernist design; that is, so long as it continues to surrender the realm of fun and excitement to cynical postmodernists, that neomodernist design is apt to be an even shorter cul de sac than post modern was.
Post modern showed a path to returning bling to design with its philosophically and psychologically disconnected ornamentation.
But it still seems that just because post modernism failed to breath life back into modernist form language that modernist form language does not, in deed, need new life blown back into it.
FLW showed a path to retain ornamentatal bling in his arts-and-crafts cum modernist form language and idioms of ornamental bling. Good lord, his preColumbian stuff is saturated with ornamental bling.
And Louis Sullivan foreshadowed the need for it in his ornamented funtionalism.
How then will the bling be returned, or are we doomed to a long, deep detour into bling-less engineering?
.
Bling-bling (or simply bling) is a slang term in hip hop culture that refers to elaborate jewelry and other accoutrements, according to the Wikipedia entry for the term. The only architectural ornament which, in my experience, even vaguely merits the use of this term occurs in the work of Bruce Goff. (Some of his houses appear, to me, to have been adorned with used-car-lot eye-catchers.)
Frank Lloyd Wright would be shocked to learn that his buildings are dressed with "bling". . .
Dear dcwilson
Yes we are living in interesting times. So many questions, so few answers?.and yet, I am surprised by your question. The most recent Milano Fair was packed with ornament and decorations on every single product from the classics (Fritz Hansen showed 50 decorated Arne Jacobsen Egg chairs) to lamps to accessories?you name it. So before getting into this important and interesting matter, would you mind clarifying the question?
http://www.fritzhansen.dk/#
NO NO NO YES NO YES
(I was just writing this to put it on the bling thread)
NO NO NO YES NO YES
Substance OR Bling
May be you are not using the right words...
And it also depends on our own definition (each definition for each one of us) of:
Substance . n . Bling
At a point, It,s like water and oil.
I think that the blinger it is an object, the less substance it will have.
women models comparison
,,inteligent models,,
The more a man look at the body of the model, the less will listen what she says. : - )
Maybe that,s it, maybe sexy but not pornography.
May be attractive design but not bling!
Do we need bling?
----
On the other hand
Now, I understand that there are people that need bling.
Substance and style is new?
Dc Wilson said ,, I do not think substance and bling is a new idea. Far from it. I think it is an old idea. ,,
Which are the examples of the past are you talking about?
Or are you talking about luxury? The Italians are teachers on this.
Or may be this is something new..
Any good example of substance AND bling?
Perhaps a Rolex?
Other thing, one basic rule is: ,,first do, and then think,,, it,s sounds strange, but it works!, designers must do, and critics think if they want. I mean if you think/you fell it,s time to bling, let,s bling the world and see what happens!
Edra, Diamond collection by Edra with Swarovski crystals.
Yes there are people that need it.
This is a new concept! This is new! And I don,t think it is wrong, I admire the people that need it.
Is it new, or is it another wave of barroquism after minimalism/modernisim and borroquism/ again? Always into postmodernism yet.
Diamond collection by Edra with Swarovski crystals.
,,,,,
In 2001 edra presented Diamond sofa, a Flap sofa studded with Swarovski crystals. In order to make this sinuous sofa with mobile parts sparkling, more than 750.000 crystals were used . Edra was the first company to let design to speak luxury language, giving the sparkling crystal sensual charm to a piece having innovatory characteristics and special comfort.
In 2005 the co-operation with Swarovski goes on. Some more crystallised items join Diamond sofa. A special Diamond collection born: Damier, Getsuen, Tatlin, Sushi and On The Rocks backrest shine of thousand of crystals. For getting this magic, a special high resistant fabric containing Kevlar is cut and then Swarovski covers it with crystals.
Swarowski set up the decoration constituted by small crystals prearranged by Hot Fix technology, patented for hot application on fabric. A special glue sensitive to high temperature fixes the self-adhesive crystals on the fabric permanently, granting their adherence for ages. Shining of crystals, the fabric is sewed on the products by the skilful hands of edra couture dept.
Each crystallised piece has a special metallic numbered tag , where both company brands are stamped on, edra and Swarovski : not only an authenticity guarantee, but also a sign of this special association that makes design a desire object.
,,,,
http://www.edra.com/album.php?a=12
.
DCwilson, naughty boy
,,, I chose the word bling, because I knew it would jolt readers.,,,
Wait wait, DCwilson, are you provoking us? : - )
I suspect that you spy me, you spy my drawer, yes the one in which I left the manifesto draft.
Are you intentionally saying these things just to opposite to it? : - )
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com