eduardo on Fri, 12 Jul 2002 06:28:02 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> Learning from Prada?

>-- Original Message --
>Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:01:26 +0100
>Subject: Re: <nettime> Learning from Prada?
>From: Helen Evans <helen@HEHE.ORG>
>Reply-To: Helen Evans <helen@HEHE.ORG>
>We should be asking, why are people still defending dubious borders between
>art and design?  Don't people in the art world realise that the impact
>new technologies has impacted on all disciplines: art, design and craft.
>Creative practictioners of all diciplines are collaborating to explore
>creative potential of these technologies - and in this process are expanding
>and overlapping the traditional demarkations between disciplines.


Interesting frictions between art and design are being exposed in the
recent posting about "Learning from Prada."

The relationship between art and design, as I have come to terms with it,
is based on how we relate to commercialism.  That is what kind of model is
being used to understand the roles of design and art?  Is it a pluralistic
model (a la Lyotard), or a neo-enlightment project model (a la Habermas).

 Keeping in mind these two ideological platforms which are often mixed up
in many critical dialogues without realizing it, can make art and design
seem in constant contradiction. And indeed they may often be, but partly
because design is not necessarily concerned with its history (at least in
terms of grandnarratives -- though some design critics are pushing for
this to happen), its main aim is to produce for the moment in which it
functions; while art is concerned with its historization, thus coming into
conflict with the paradoxical role of meaning in a high state of
production.  It is because art is still trying to grapple with meaning in
terms of metanarratives (either through pluralism or progessivism), why it
finds itself learning a lot from design. We should also note that design
as we know it today, at least in Western history, is heavily influenced by
the fine arts.  So, perhaps we are moving in full circle -- approaching a
moment of great hybridity.

 Similar to the current role of 3-D animation in blockbuster Films -- as
Manovich said in his book The Language of New Media.  The differences are
becoming harder to define.  Ironically, definitions are necessary for us
to function in our high state of production.  Interesting times we live...

Eduardo Navas

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: contact: