Design and Home

More design discussion at The Thinking Housewife.

My "Chicken or Egg" Question on Design Gets an Answer

From two traditional conservative writers

An example of an abstracted textile print,
often of unidentifiable flora and foliage,
popular at Kravitz, a NYDC showroom.

I had asked in my previous blog post "From MAD Designers to the Public's Desires" who sets contemporary design trends: the designer or the public?

Here is insightful commentary about the sorry state of design by Laura Wood of the Thinking Housewife, who posted some of my post at her blog:

Possibly when people get more instant gratification, especially in sex and popular culture, they don’t care as much about their surroundings. When desire is sublimated, it creates more beauty in life, more craftsmanship and studied effects. Women are highly sexualized today, but less sensual in their approach to home.

Her comment is later quoted by Lawrence Auster from the View From the Right, which he explains further in terms of liberalism:

The remark goes to the heart of the traditionalist critique of liberalism. Liberalism gives people what it thinks they want, which is unimpeded satisfaction of their desires and impulses. But in doing so, it closes them off from what they really want, which is beauty, truth, and goodness, and membership in an enduring human community that embodies those things.

I am seeing a trend where people are looking for some sort of "beauty, truth, and goodness, and membership in an enduring human community that embodies those things." I mean, how long is the Emperor not going to get called at for not having any clothes? How long are people going to live in dreary grey homes? Craftsmanship is still sitting on the sidelines, and designers for the most part are not willing to follow the public’s under-the-radar demands - it costs them too much in terms of their independence, having to acquire new skills, and having to learn whole new ways of looking at things.

But, I've always said "one step at a time." It is incredible the forces that are against beauty, goodness and truth. But each little repeat pattern that defies that monumental force is, in my humble opinion, one good step away from its bottomless pit.

Heather MacDonald's Secular Anger

And her vindictive quest to discredit Christianity

I was recently browsing through Secular Right, to which I was directed from Taki's Magazine, where I linked to from this article (it's not called a web for nothing). As I looked at the bottom of Taki's, the website's list of blogs and sites has been categorized into "Right," "Left," "Libertarian," "International" and "God." Looking under "God", I was surprised the atheist "conservative" Secular Right was not listed there. It is apparently more appropriate to put it under "Right." I disagree, but it's not my website.

Anyway, Heather MacDonald, who's a contributor at Secular Right, and whose strange discourse on morality set off my (mild) anger here, is now at it again.

She writes at this post:

Conservative pundits occasionally imply that other-directed human virtues, such as charity, compassion, and mercy, came on the scene only thanks to Christianity. No one has ever shown hospitality to a stranger or helped survivors of an earthquake in other cultures, it would seem.

This is a vindictive piece of writing. I have never seen conservative writers imply this. In fact, many write about zakat or charity, one of the five pillars of Islam, with respect.

But, never mind that. For an esteemed journalist, who is a contributing editor at City Journal and is also a Manhattan Institute felow, this is a shoddy piece of writing.

She is saying that the moral codes that Christians adhere to started at the inception of Christianity, which is a mere 2,000 ago. So according to Christianity, there was no charity before that at all, period. Of course this is absurd. It is the whole Bible that Christians look to for moral codes, and not just the New and much more recent Testament. And since we say that the Bible starts from the beginning of time, then that is when our moral codes started. So yes, there was no "other-directed human virtues" before that, because there was no world before that.

Either MacDonald is so negative about Christianity that she cannot think straight, or she is willing to say anything that comes to her head to discredit the Christians and Christianity that she apparently hates so much.

From MAD Designers to the Public's Desires

There is hope yet for design

An example of an abstracted textile print,
often of unidentifiable flora and foliage,
popular at Kravitz, a NYDC showroom.

I visited the New York Design Center's trade showrooms while in NYC. They are the places to find the latest trends in fabric and interior design. But the question, which becomes a chicken or egg one, is: "Who sets the trends these days, the designers, or the clients and public at large?"

Until the 1970s, interior design has always paid respect to beauty (or mere prettiness) and craftsmanship. I was struck by this when I did my tour of the newly renovated American Wing's Period Rooms at the Metropolitan Museum. Here is what I had to say about that visit:

* Design, and fabric design, have always been about aesthetics, at times mere prettiness, at other times overwhelming luxury and sometimes just pure beauty.

* I felt going throughout the Period Rooms, which showcased about twenty rooms dating from the late seventeenth century to the early twentieth century, that people then had the confidence to design strong, beautiful pieces. Unlike our own period, whose gloomy designs I think begin around the 1970s - but more on that later.

* Craftsmanship was very important, but for the sake of constructing a harmonious, coherent piece.

* Color, intricate designs, patterns and other ornamentations were always present. There was hardly ever a "plain" chair, and if it existed, it was embellished by careful caning and weaving or luxurious materials like velvet.

* Looking at these rooms, there was nothing repellent about them, nothing "edgy." They were meant to be lived in, to be admired, and to be sources of pride for their owners.

While in New York, I also visited the Museum of Art and Design, which at that time had an exhibition of selected works from its permanent collections. This exhibition was called Permanently MAD – which was meant to be a pun, or something, but ended up truer than expected.

Permanantly MAD's displayed works included clay, glass, wood, metal, and fiber pieces. Although MAD has works in its collections from 1895 on, this exhibition showed pieces mostly from 1980-2008. These works are for the most part of inferior craftsmanship, without concern for aesthetics, and often non-functional. The whole purpose of design for MAD’s fabric designers is: a) self-expression - they consider themselves more artists than designers/craftsmen; b) innovation, since they want to discover that next, magical composition for the ideal thread. Therefore the public is of less importance.

So, if artist/designers don’t really care about their public and the real world, and they are much more interested in experimentation and self-expression, what happens to the products? As I’ve discovered, they suffer a great deal.

How does this tie in with the NYDC? Well, textile and interior design is created by…textile and interior designers. If designers are more interested in expressing themselves, which often results with ugly, idiosyncratic pieces, and in trying to invent the next magical golden thread, when do they find the time to design things?

The answer is: they don’t. And this was dismally visible at the display of material I found at the NYDC.

* There were very few intricately designed works, such as I saw plenty of in the Period Rooms at the Met.

* Although natural floral and plant designs were prominent, most of them were abstracted or extremely simplified and silhouetted forms.

* It was hard to distinguish what these plant and animal forms were. Unless they were distinct shapes like palm trees or roses, it was difficult to identify specific plants or flowers.

* Colors were often unimaginative and monotonous. There were whole ranges of grey/blues or brown/tans. But the more vigorous colors such as I found in the Period Rooms were rare.

* Where there was strong color, it was used as a single splash in the midst of greys, blacks, navies and whites. Strong colors were rarely used on their own.

* The lack of intricate design was often compensated for by size. Large empty flowers and leaves, often with a smattering of color, dominated both furniture upholstery and wall coverings.

* There were traditional designs, but they were almost exact replicas of past masters.

* Luxury materials such as silk and velvet often tried to make up for the lack of design.

My conclusion is that it is the designers (or the lack thereof) that have guided the trends and tastes of the public so far. If there is nothing but greys and blacks to buy, well the public has no choice but to comply. And so much for innovation; creativity in design has nose-dived in the past four or five decades, and is incomparable to the turn of the century and even going back another four or five hundred years!

But, there is a positive note to all this. There is a creeping realization by some – I’m not sure if it is the public demanding so, or concerned designers – that beauty should indeed be part of home decor and design, and that good designs are worth the effort. There is a tendency to avoid chaotic, incomprehensible and disordered patterns. Floral and leaf designs are coming back. Old masterpieces (as in Toile de Jouy) are imitated with contemporary twists. And color is making a tentative reappearance. People cannot (will not) live in dark, ugly rooms for eternity.

The Sad Saga of the NYC Power Women

The true picture of Sex and the City

I admit that I saw the last Sex and the City movie. I even watched some of the TV show, although I did it after the show ended to see what all the hype was about.

I actually went to the movie to enjoy myself. There was a lot of talk about the costumes, and that the fashion designer had hundreds of shoes and dresses she had put together for the four actresses. Who doesn't want an hour or so of bright colors and fancy dresses?

But, the overall feeling I had during the movie was not of disappointment; there were some nice Manolo Blahnik shoes, and the designer didn't cut back on any extravagances. The feeling I had was of depression.

These women flaunt their clothes and supposedly fancy lives in one of the greatest cities in the world, yet they were all unhappy, or unhappily trying to make sense of their lives. One woman was almost ditched at her wedding by her fiancé, another had to deal with a distant husband while she's away at a full-time job, a third married too late to conceive her own child but got lucky thanks to modern technology, and the last was humiliated by her much younger boyfriend breaking up with her. I was surprised at the honesty of the writers. They wanted to infuse a bit of reality into the film, it seemed to me.

The "Sex and the City Part II" photo shoot

Here they are again, in part two of the movie. Their awkward and inelegant poses, their unattractive dresses exposing too much of themselves, their strange sense of color (blame it on the designer?) their listless hairstyles, and their forced smiles show the culmination of years of a TV show and a previous movie.

Their film lives also seems to spill over into their real ones.

Sarah Jessica Parker is undergoing tabloid-level scrutiny about the surrogate mother she and her husband (any longer?) decided to use. They already have a son, why not be happy with that?

Cynthia Dixon has become a lesbian, and is active in the California Proposition 8 scene.

Kim Cattrall, who is in her fifties, was dating a man decades younger than her, who also recently broke up with her.

Kristin Davies is perennially single, although she is pretty. But, her dark secret is that she is a recovering alcoholic.

So, needless to say, I won’t be watching Sex and the City Part II. I will probably buy a Vogue magazine if I want to look at pretty clothes and shoes.

"Fiesta Latina" in the Casa Blanca

And we all better learn Spanish

That was pretty much what the whole evening was like. Songs in Spanish, and hosts speaking English with Spanish added for effect. PBS replayed the "Fiesta Latina" that was hosted by the White House a few days ago in a special this evening.

Jennifer Lopez came out in a strange truncated dress to present her husband Mark Anthony. She talked in English, but added a few words in Spanish (with her Bronx Spanish accent), while Anthony sang in Spanish. Gloria Estefan sang "Mi Tierra," the song made famous when it was sent into space for the (Mexican) American crew member on the Discovery Shuttle. George Lopez made his customary jokes, which often deride his own ethnic group - the Mexicans. Obama danced with a gracious Latina star and Michelle was ungraciously miffed. Sotomayor was told she was loved, but no-one asked her to dance. And all this on PBS.

I watched the hour-long show to get a sense of this Hispanic presence in America. It is very large, and very deep. It really is a completely separate society. It was rather frightening.

If music and fiestas are the hallmark of Hispanics, then we're in for difficult times. I don't foresee any Frank Sinatras coming out of this group of Latino pop stars. But even Sinatra always sang in English, unlike the Bronx-born Anthony who, like his eccentric wife, would have us believe that he was born and raised in Puerto Rico. I bet Sinatra never gloated over his Italian roots, and if he did, he worked out a silent and dignified way to do it. Not so this group.

Job's Beauty

In Blake's watercolors

Job and His Family, William Blake

During my recent trip to New York City, I made a point of seeing William Blake's illustrations for The Book of Job at the Morgan Library. These are delicate, lovely watercolors which are nothing like the emptiness some would like to give that book. Perhaps that is the testament in Blake's watercolors, that Job's story is indeed one of beauty and redemption.

I have had many arguments about Job and his relationship to God. It is one of the most intriguing books in the Bible - more obscure and annoying (if I can say that of biblical stories) than the one about David's adultery and murder-by-proxy. Non-believers or quasi-believers, often rational and clever thinkers, will ultimately say that God was wrong. Of course, we as humans can question God's actions, and the hurt and anguish we suffer at times as His children. But, saying God is wrong is the easy way out. And that view ultimately helps these nominal/non Christians in their quest to distance themselves from God.

As I thought more about it, perhaps Job is the quintessential tale of our times. Every time I talk to a nominal (liberal?) Christian about some error I see in his approach to God's Word - not that I'm an expert, but there are a few times when I don't shirk criticizing - he is astonished at my criticism and says that he is a good person trying to do good things. Isn't that what Job was saying? But, of course being a biblical character, he seemed to understand this, and tried to correct whatever errors he thought he saw in his actions.

There are many phrases in the Bible that we can transform into our own self-serving sanctimonious interpretations: "love thy neighbour," "all things work together for good," "turn the other cheek." The piety can be endless. I think the final meaning in Job is to leave our relations with God in His hands, however obscure and paradoxical that may seem at times. Our freedom, and our ultimate joy, comes from this relinquishing. Even the too-holy can get condemned. That is the mystery of God.

Job found favor back with God. He accepted that favor. There are many these days whose disappointment and stubbornness alienate them further away God, who refuse to see the redemptive path in front of them, and who will forever say: "I was such a good person. Why has God forsaken me?"

Besides universalistic interpretations, there is as always a specific and historical context to all biblical stories, and surely with this story as well. I wonder what is the significance of having Job’s story at that particular time in the Bible. Was it then that men started to consider themselves on par with God and that they started taking themselves too seriously, thus undermining God? Is that the punishment God had to mete out in order for man (Job) to resume his reverence for God? What would (will) God do in our modern times? Just some points to ponder upon.