On Jan 4, 2004, at 10:26 AM, Lubomir S. Popov wrote:
> At this point of time, it is more than obvious that the physical
> design community is preoccupied with aesthetic pursuits. This is their
> own choice. We should not expect from them that they themselves will
> go against their own interests and make a change in favor of society
> at large.
Lubomir,
I suspect that any designer solely interested in aesthetics would claim
that beauty is, in fact, a societal benefit. I would argue that that is
true but beauty is not sufficient. You seem to be indicating that
physical designers interested in non-aesthetic societal benefits and
not in aesthetics would be acceptable and sufficient. Am I
misunderstanding?
If you agree with me and are just claiming that vapid aestheticism is
insufficient, how is serving society at large (and aesthetics) against
said designers' interests (or are you just saying that non-aesthetic
issues are beyond their interests rather than counter to them)?
Care to cite specific examples or these preoccupied designers?
Gunnar
----
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
536 South Catalina Street
Ventura, California 93001-3625 USA
+1 805 667 2200
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
|