What was so wrong with the "Good Design" exhibitions that the M.O.M.A. discontinued in 1955? Was it just that they were a "Modernist aesthetic rampage against ornament and historicist styles" (as Peter Hall eloquently put it).
Or is there something wrong-headed about any attempt to consider the aesthetic quality of a design, exclusive of any other considerations ? (like sustainability, accessibility, functionality, ergonomics, affordability etc) As Peter Hall would explain it, a fork is an argument against touching food with your fingers -- but is it possible to ignore that argument, and just consider whether one fork looks better than another ? I think so. Just as I think the aesthetics of a F.L.W. prairie style house can be considered without concern for whether his roofs are always leaking and his doorways are often too short. And the same with automobiles. To choose a visual design that is "more suited to the fashion industry than to industrial manufacturing." is one decision. To "allow much wider specs for parts and materials" is another, and the one does not require the other. So, I would have no problem with M.O.M.A. reinstating its annual exhibitions of "Good Design" -- except, that first it needs to apply their standards of good visual design, whatever they might be, to the art works in their own collection. (and no, I don't want aesthetic decisions to be made by engineers - and I don't think that airplanes are anything more than fascinating eyesores) ____________________________________________________________ Come clean with a brand new shower. Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxSDIDQn8jC5riTYBCenlLFZU iSXkRsb8a2afTwtsbrac6GbhDykE4/
