Glassartist
Your CD analogy, whilst clever, is not entirely transferable here in my opinion. As objects, the CD and the modernist lamp are incomparable.
One is a physical object which SOLELY communicates ANOTHER work of art and is ENTIRELY comprised of ideas external to its physical form (and indeed in a non-physical medium), whereas a modernist design object, whilst possibly alluding to external ideas, is far more self contained because its aesthetic value is overwhelmingly contained in its own physical form. And because it is self-contained, one can more easily justify a cursory evaluation of its value from the physical form, whereas with a CD, or concert ticket, that would be ridiculous.
I'm not saying that the lamp doesn't represent any aesthetic standards, values or even symbols outside of its physical form. I'm saying that as a physical object, it is not merely a conduit to something totally different, which is what a plastic CD is. Therefore it is far easier as I say, to estimate a financial value from the lamp's physical form.
On another note entirely, in retrospect perhaps i should not have singled robert out here - his comment coming in close proximity to that of niceguy troll's 'cheapskate' - but i think the implications and sentiment is the same, and a common one on this forum.
Anyway, this thread is getting old - in the absence of a close function, no less
Lit Up...
You failed to grasp a basic principle here.
If someone (in this case me) says elitism and snobbery exists in design it does not neccessarliy mean a) I condone it, or b) that I am an exponent of it; that would be like blaming wars on historians.
Likewise if I comment in favour of an item, a product, or even a person, it does not mean a) that I own that object, b) that I would like to (but can't afford it) or, c) that I even particularly like the thing I am talking about.
It's called objectivity, and is valuable in my profession; whereby what I teach cannot, and should not, be about my personal taste, and whereby ideas can be exchanged without personal comments, specualation or assumption.
Oh, and if that was an apology, thank you.
You are
either not able to grasp my point, or more likely are in the throes of needing to be right. I made no attempt to say a CD and a lamp are the same thing, so your rebuttal is changing the subject and without merit for this discussion. I only said that if your complaint about value is strictly based on the "it's just bits of wire and plastic" view, that you are not giving weight to other value considerations. And I laid out the other considerations. For your complaint the CD analogy fits perfectly. "It's just 2 cents worth of spinny plastic", and I take no consideration of any other value it has. What obviously bugs you is that a good analogy reveals the absurdity of your original complaint.
On another point, the big price culprit seems to be the added cost when shipped overseas and retailed in a place where the cost of living in general is high. Your retailer's questionable sympathies aside, I imagine he is thrilled that they are so pricey. Otherwise, he might not want to bother with them.
Stylish modern design should NOT be elitist, and it was never supposed to be in the first place.
As I understand it, a huge point of modernist design in the mid-century period was that functional, stylish home objects could be quickly and inexpensively produced, and then obtained affordably by the general populace. That's why everybody and their brother was able to have this stuff!
Nelson bubble/saucer lamps by Howard Miller were sold to dealers at $15 to $35 in 1970, depending on size and shape. That's the buying power of $90 to $211 in today's money. Even after dealer markup, that's undoubtedly a lower general range than the current STARTING price of $270 just for the smallest size, all the way up to $1,395 for the extra large lamp.
If you are in the US, then here is an alternative that is easily obtainable at only $70, if you don't mind having a floor lamp instead of a hanging lamp (and you could probably very easily adapt the shade to use for a hanging lamp): http://www.destinationlighting.com/item/contemporary-floor-lamp-oval-sha...
In person the shade has alittle bit flatter shape than the one in the picture, so it is very close in appearance to the George Nelson hanging bubble/saucer lampshade. I would also argue that the materials and quality are just as good, at a price range which is much more in line with the decidedly NON-elitist point of the original modernist movement! And 99.9% of the people who come over to your house won't know the difference, anyway.
Please don't cringe and look down your nose at the very idea of "the unwashed masses" having access to stylish design.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com