http://nathanielstern.com/blog/2006/06/20/a-posed-question-for-contempo-magazine/ implications since february two thousand and three Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:54:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://nathanielstern.com/blog/2006/06/20/a-posed-question-for-contempo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-19051 André SC’s PixelPLEXUS » Blog Archive » Contempo about design, art and society Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:54:27 +0000 http://nathanielstern.com/blog/2006/06/20/a-posed-question-for-contempo-magazine/#comment-19051 [...] Contempo, (nice site styling, but all flash is a bit last century in my book, especially for a purveyor of things contemporary) the new and refreshingly convergent publication presenting homegrown creative style and cultural sophistication is posing an open question around the relationship of art and design. Imposing a 200 word limit is me thinks a good thing. So my unedited initial response to the question goes: Isn’t design and art simply sides of the same coin. Is there really any interesting or important differences beyond the superficial parameters of selective subjection to either mass-marketeering or mega-ego-mania cults monopolising culture? Being a tad airy-fairy-ical, but its late. Are there distinguishable attributes to the roles they play in society, when accepting the general notion of design as commerce oriented, technology biased, mediations on- interventions in- and inventions of production for consumption. In other words taking design as avatar, or temple of the great expansive ‘consumpteriate’. That in contrast with art as exponent of adoration fixated pursuit of showing, of adoring, of owning some idealised noble splendour? [...] [...] Contempo, (nice site styling, but all flash is a bit last century in my book, especially for a purveyor of things contemporary) the new and refreshingly convergent publication presenting homegrown creative style and cultural sophistication is posing an open question around the relationship of art and design. Imposing a 200 word limit is me thinks a good thing. So my unedited initial response to the question goes: Isn’t design and art simply sides of the same coin. Is there really any interesting or important differences beyond the superficial parameters of selective subjection to either mass-marketeering or mega-ego-mania cults monopolising culture? Being a tad airy-fairy-ical, but its late. Are there distinguishable attributes to the roles they play in society, when accepting the general notion of design as commerce oriented, technology biased, mediations on- interventions in- and inventions of production for consumption. In other words taking design as avatar, or temple of the great expansive ‘consumpteriate’. That in contrast with art as exponent of adoration fixated pursuit of showing, of adoring, of owning some idealised noble splendour? [...]

]]>