Michael Cannell's recent New York Times article titled "Design Loves a Depression" — which Maxwell covered here earlier today — has inspired a heated rebuttal by the founder of Moss, Murray Moss, titled "Design Hates a Depression" on DesignObserver. So who's right and what should we really expect from this downturn? We think the whole thing is a tad more complex than either statement allows for but the core debate is one that transpires right here on AT nearly every week (or at least every time a Moss piece is posted): what constitutes "real" design...
Cannell's argument is that economic hard times drive designers to be more inventive problem solvers and refine their skill and focus. However he also takes a few shots at celebrity designers and those who produce furniture as art rather than production pieces. He says design would be better off if it is brought down "a notch or two." Enter Murray Moss.
Moss argues that without designers willing to pioneer new directions, real innovation cannot take place. The Campana Brothers' $80,000 stuffed animal chair might seem crazy but the core concept is that a chair can be made of found objects and not manufactured in a factory. Just maybe someone will see that chair and be inspired by the materials around him in a new way, leading to the creation of something original for himself. This is not that far from one of AT's own beliefs: Creating (this) home doesn’t require large amounts of money or space. It requires inspiration, connection to resources and motivation to do something about it.
Ultimately, design is a huge spectrum of people working passionately at different capacities. Some design $10,000 chairs, some design $10 chairs. Some consider themselves artists and some engineers. Is either wrong if both have an audience? Are function and innovation mutually exclusive?
Read both articles and let us know how you feel...
Design Loves a Depression via The New York Times
Design Hates a Depression via DesignObserver
I think the disagreement here is over what 'better' means. Canell wants a more comfortable, functional chair. Moss wants an artistic chair.
The part Moss misses is that innovation doesn't require throwing a ton of money at a person. The wacky stuffed animal chair could just as easily have been invented by someone who's out of work and covered their dingy old chair with their kids' old stuffed animals to hide the holes. (Yes, I'm stretching it a bit, but bear with me here.) If this chair had been designed by an ordinary person, you can bet it wouldn't draw the attention it does. The only difference is that the Campana Brothers can't sell their creation for $80,000 anymore. Boo-effing-hoo.
Personally I suspect that much of this high-end design (just as in fashion) isn't to make statements but to keep lower-end retailers from copying it. The pieces are fugly on purpose, and the people who buy them are more interested in flaunting their money than in aesthetics or comfort.
I can appreciate both points of view, but ultimately I care more about how my furniture functions than how it looks or what kind of statement it makes. A bad economy may mean an artist makes less money. But it doesn't stop an artist from making great art.
view whytephoenix's profile
I found Cannell's article an interesting read and thought-provoking, though with a few hundred (or thousand) more words, he might have been able to make his argument more subtle. (That's the problem with newspapers and magazines to a large degree—space.) Moss's articulate response, however, came off as knee-jerk petulance, when he actually had some good ideas and observations; the aggrieved and defensive tone put me off.
view readingglasses's profile
Actually during a bad economy excellent artists producing excellent pieces usually don't see a big drop in prices. In a bad economy a lot of the middle of the road mediocracy drops in price and cheap stuff tends to do well.
view kristian's profile
I tend to side with Cannell. The component that distinguishes design from art for me is functionality. Impractical, arty furniture simply doesn't fall under the realm of "good design" in my mind.
If a chair made of stuffed animals is so very inspirational, what's stopping the Campana brothers from developing that pile of plush with legs into the magnificent and innovative piece of furniture that it supposedly alludes to?
If economic strife requires that they actually flesh out the idea into something that is truly well-designed and truly improves the lives of those who own it in both an aesthetic AND functional way, then Cannell is right and depression has motivated innovation.
view ChristopherB's profile