Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Savage Clone
I like "retro" design because the aesthetic that was in vogue in "modern" circles in the middle of the 20th century looks the best to me. That's it.
|
This is where we sort of differ, I think, with an emphasis on 'think'. Through what has given my thinking shape to date, I can't think of an expression (i.e. making a piece of furniture) without thinking of a context (i.e. time) it was made in. That has me thinking of what circumstances in a period of time
make an expression. What conditions were at hand when the expression was given a shape. A shape that could only be what it was when created at that time. Change the context (i.e. the invention and practice of the green screen in film making) and the aesthetic changes, and through the aesthetic the expression changes. In short, aesthetic to me is in no way coincidential at hand (this does not exclude the concept of chance from being a possible and valuable part in a process of creation), to our liking, a posteriori, for that I've become too aware of the process that brings to creation. Thus aesthetic can't be looked upon/enjoyed as a closed entity. This is not a fact, there are no facts, I just can't think of it in any other way. It's what I dislike in 'retro': there's the judgement of a certain expression at an 'a posteriori aesthetic' level of the final product, mixed with how that product has been perceived through time, there's grown a cloud of perception around the original expression that was made. And an expression, that which someone felt the need to say to, for me is the only thing that can carry
meaning.
I'd like to insert this statement by Lawrence Weiner here: 'Taken from here to where it came from, and taken to a place, and used in such a manner that it can only remain as a representation of what it was and where it came from.' Old objects are representations of what they were, and though we can enjoy representations, that what it
is can only be revealed in things that
are, today. Old objects are here today as well, ofcourse, and therefore can
be as well, but never as that what it
was, but only of what it
could be today. I'm pointing out that the concept of an object changes continually, and that it should be measured by present demand at all time. To me, 'retro' is the exact opposite of this measurement: the old object is liked for what it
was and not what it
could be/would be today. It's similar to loving/having objects for what they have been: 'I have this guitar because Thurston Moore played it once', 'I have this copy of this book because it was signed by the author', 'I bought this jar full of Britney Spears (or Kim Gordon for that matter) breath'. This is also why I have no desire to 'diss' things that are old BECAUSE they are old; because they can still be very valuable expressions to be made/heard.
Therefore, I'm not stating that you have to know all the circumstances, the context in which a certain expression was made to be able to enjoy it, quite the opposite really; that would come off as elitist, which I'm not in the popular sense of the word (re: arrogant). I'm just saying products to me are residu of a process that lead to their creation and that the real question in liking/enjoying a product is asking whether any process could be thinked of today that would lead to the same product, for the product will never be as that what it
was when it was created, but merely as a representation of that what it
was, a relic that belongs in a museum.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Savage Clone
I don't think anyone who replied to this thread likes old things simply because they are old. That's just stupid. Just because it's old doesn't make it cool by default. To suggest that anyone here was talking in that way is way off base to my way of reading this thread.
|
The way I used the phrase 'old BECAUSE it's old' did not imply liking all old things, that's reversing the statement. I had one fictive, though specific piece in mind when I wrote that down. A piece that someone likes, but might only like because of what it's become through time – not realising that it's quite possible to make an object today that would look totally different at first sight, but has in effect the very same impulse to its creation – and, furthermore, might not have liked it had he/she lived in the time it was made.