The Indifferent Design

No matter how indefinable the definition of ‘art’ is, there can be no sensible counterargument to the claim that any music that makes it on the top 40s charts are molded by marketers and businessmen to a great amount. There is no doubt Warner Brothers and Columbia Records are constantly studying the unspoken demands of their target market to either fund or abolish artistic production. Similar but taken as given is the world of industrial design where design is for the people – no dial locks for the arthritic. From what’s given, then, can we build a conclusion that the world of art and the world of design cannot coexist on the same canvas? Is Joseph Kahn, the director of Britney Spears’ new music video a designer and not an artist? Can the dial lock at least have frills around the dial?

'Voice of Fire' by Barnett Newman and the iTouch

In the era of functionalism, George Marcus has defined functionalism as “the notion that objects made to be used should be simple, honest, and direct; well adapted to their purpose; bare of ornament; standardized; machine-made, and reasonably priced …” (Functionalism, 1995, p.9.) Approximately parallel in time was the birth of the term minimalism in the world of fine arts. The idea of minimalism was that art should be stripped down to its bare elements. The results: visitors to the Moma admiring a giant canvas painted in navy and red stripes and people scratching their heads at a black slab with an apple engraved on the back.

If art and design are what represents our generation, what do stripes of navy and red on a canvas and a black slab say about our era? Many arguments surrounding the iPhone and the Voice of Fire is brought up in various discussions. Some arguments including whether or not the iPhone was a successful design or whether or not Barnett Newman is an attention wanting lazy artist had risen. But in between all the arguments, where went – prepare for a sickly cheesy line – our emotions and feelings? The quest for our mental stability and/or stimulant? Despite my admiration for those who can construct substantiated criticisms based on historically logical contexts of the stripes and the black slab, my interest on an instinctive level tends to lean towards the slightly more detailed side of the fence.

From left to right: Tokyo, Seoul, Chicago

The problem the design world is facing, in my opinion, is internationalization. A synonym of internationalization, for me, is generalization. Besides the post modern architects of Brazil putting their efforts to differentiate their modern architecture from others, I have not seen much other effort. Walking down the streets of Tokyo, Seoul, or Chicago, the only thing indicating to me that I am in another country seems to be the street signs in according languages. Mercedes in Korea, Samsung in New York, glass paneled buildings. Have we all, internationally, come to the decision that if your yearly income is $100,000+, you are a Mercedes and if your income is $10,000+, you are a Mitsubishi? What about our race, nationality, sex, and age? Are we too scared to be different because we do not want to risk being racist, sexist, or ageist?