So what is a reproduction? (was Drop front secretary)
Ronnie McKinley
In rec.antiques Robert Klein wrote:
>I hope this helps answer your question , I didn't mean to ramble but
>this is something I think about a bit. Especially when at auctions or
>shops where things are called Sheraton or Chippendale or Empire, when
>more accurately they should be called reproductions or revival pieces.
>
You are always a breath of fresh air Bob and I have missed your posts. ;)
I think some people here tend to forget that the vast amount of stuff made
during the Victorian era and much of the first half of this century was
pure and simple, reproduction and much of that stuff was mass-produced to
very low standards. Course, because it's "Victorian" or "turn of the
century" that seems to excuse much of this ill made furniture.
I agree there have been many so called "revivals" and not only in the 19th
century but periods before. However, I think that a true "revival" is much
more than just "reproducing" a piece in a previous style or period. Wm
Morris is an example of a "revival" but his movement just wasn't
reproducing Gothic style furniture for mass-market consumption, the
movement had a direction and a philosophy which interpreted itself into
what we now call the Arts and Craft. But the Arts and Crafts Movement just
didn't relate to "furniture making" but affected the whole social and
fashion scene, as well as the way designers began to think and in turn the
whole Arts movement during the period, in all media, not only in 19th
century England but most of the western world, this in turn had major
influence on what followed and evolved up to the late 1930s. I'm well aware
that the Arts and Crafts isn't a "Period" in the true sense, although with
the passing of time perhaps that will not always be the case. Were as the
Chippendale or Sherton revival of the late 1880s had no such influence, it
merely reproduced objects for mass-market use. Likewise in the 40s but
maybe more so in the US, the taste was for the "great" cabinetmakers
(Chippendale and all the rest) and again, in America, for periods that
never before existed there, and without known examples, unfortunately most
of this furniture (as in Britain) was ill made, employing cheap woods and
veneers and by and large all machine made, resulting in nothing more than
store bought goods with some wild notion, that this represented "style."
It does sometimes annoy to hear "ah they don't make furniture like they did
in the good old days" and the "old days?" ... usually means somewhere
between WWI and the 1950s but at the same time forget about what was really
taking place in design and fashion brought on by the influence of the Arts
and Crafts and post-movements. Attitudes today are the same, we tend to
ignore that good design and craftsmanship hasn't just disappeared, gone
away and been replaced with "antique reproductions." There are modern
designers, artists and architects working today turning out stunning work,
with craftsmanship, but alas this will only become apparent with the
passing of time.
Good to see you posting again ...... stop lurking :)
Ronnie
mcki...@netcomuk.co.uk
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/index.htm
==============================================
Cast a cold eye
On life, on death.
Horseman, pass by!
==============================================
rec.antiques FAQs at the following URL
http://lonestar.texas.net/~clough/rafaq.html
Gerald Clough
Ronnie McKinley wrote:
>
> In rec.antiques Robert Klein wrote:
>
> >I hope this helps answer your question , I didn't mean to ramble but
> >this is something I think about a bit. Especially when at auctions or
> >shops where things are called Sheraton or Chippendale or Empire, when
> >more accurately they should be called reproductions or revival pieces.
> >
>
> You are always a breath of fresh air Bob and I have missed your posts. ;)
>
> I think some people here tend to forget that the vast amount of stuff made
> during the Victorian era and much of the first half of this century was
> pure and simple, reproduction and much of that stuff was mass-produced to
> very low standards. Course, because it's "Victorian" or "turn of the
> century" that seems to excuse much of this ill made furniture.
>
Good point, like "Everyone gets respectable if they live long enough."
Aren't we in a "period" right now that has no real style of its own and
might, in effect, be called the "Reproduction Period"? By that, I mean
that consumers are urged to pick a period or style and decorate to that,
there being no "Late 20th Century" style that I can detect.
> I agree there have been many so called "revivals" and not only in the 19th
> century but periods before. However, I think that a true "revival" is much
> more than just "reproducing" a piece in a previous style or period. Wm
> Morris is an example of a "revival" but his movement just wasn't
> reproducing Gothic style furniture for mass-market consumption, the
> movement had a direction and a philosophy which interpreted itself into
> what we now call the Arts and Craft. But the Arts and Crafts Movement just
> didn't relate to "furniture making" but affected the whole social and
> fashion scene, as well as the way designers began to think and in turn the
> whole Arts movement during the period, in all media, not only in 19th
> century England but most of the western world, this in turn had major
> influence on what followed and evolved up to the late 1930s. I'm well aware
> that the Arts and Crafts isn't a "Period" in the true sense, although with
> the passing of time perhaps that will not always be the case.
Agreed. Arts and Crafts was as much about an approach to living as a
definable set of specifications or design traits, except that the
designs were to satisfy the goals of the life style being urged. In
that respect, I tend to think of Arts and Crafts as being more timeless,
not so much of a period, even though it is (for now) associated with a
range of years. I don't think I would even talk about Arts and Crafts
"reproductions", provided they are quality, although we would certainly
differentiate between a vintage piece and a newly produced one.
>Were as the
> Chippendale or Sherton revival of the late 1880s had no such influence, it
> merely reproduced objects for mass-market use. Likewise in the 40s but
> maybe more so in the US, the taste was for the "great" cabinetmakers
> (Chippendale and all the rest) and again, in America, for periods that
> never before existed there, and without known examples, unfortunately most
> of this furniture (as in Britain) was ill made, employing cheap woods and
> veneers and by and large all machine made, resulting in nothing more than
> store bought goods with some wild notion, that this represented "style."
>
That's the difference, and therein lies the "word trap" of "style" as
being "stylish", and style as a life-style. I consider the classic
1950's designs as a life-style style, in that it represented an
awareness of being on the edge of the technological avalanche that was
the beginning of the "space age" and a freedom from the "old", but it
was also promoted into "stylishness".
> It does sometimes annoy to hear "ah they don't make furniture like they did
> in the good old days" and the "old days?" ... usually means somewhere
> between WWI and the 1950s but at the same time forget about what was really
> taking place in design and fashion brought on by the influence of the Arts
> and Crafts and post-movements. Attitudes today are the same, we tend to
> ignore that good design and craftsmanship hasn't just disappeared, gone
> away and been replaced with "antique reproductions." There are modern
> designers, artists and architects working today turning out stunning work,
> with craftsmanship, but alas this will only become apparent with the
> passing of time.
It's unfortunate that it is no longer possible for a crafter or designer
with a lot to "say", a lot of content, to move a large segment of the
consuming popluation with his/her ideas through mass production. The
market is dominated by corporate strategies and judgements of what
people will "buy", rather than confidence in the content of a design
movement - little risk-taking when the money's on the table. Also, a
"movement" reguires time to mature, and we no longer give anything more
time than the current "model year".
This harkens back to an earlier thread we ran (or was it just email?)
where we talked about what "antiques" would represent the late 20th
century 50-100 years from now and the proposal that this would be
thought of as the "collectibles period", and the junk produced and
labeled as collectible would actually be valued as typical of today.
>
> Good to see you posting again ...... stop lurking :)
>
> Ronnie
> mcki...@netcomuk.co.uk
> http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/index.htm
> ==============================================
> Cast a cold eye
> On life, on death.
> Horseman, pass by!
> ==============================================
> rec.antiques FAQs at the following URL
> http://lonestar.texas.net/~clough/rafaq.html
--
Gerald Clough clo...@texas.net
"Nothing has any value unless you know you can give it up."
moll...@epix.net
Gerald Clough <clough...@texas.net> wrote:
<much snipped, around and about...>
>Good point, like "Everyone gets respectable if they live long enough."
>Aren't we in a "period" right now that has no real style of its own and
>might, in effect, be called the "Reproduction Period"? By that, I mean
>that consumers are urged to pick a period or style and decorate to that,
>there being no "Late 20th Century" style that I can detect.
>--
> Gerald Clough clo...@texas.net
> "Nothing has any value unless you know you can give it up."
Are you saying that there are no new furniture styles that in a
hundred years could accurately be called "period"? If so, I have
to disagree. In fact I own three pieces of late 20th century
(future period) pieces. They are: my entertainment center, my
microwave stand, and my mirrored headboard waterbed.
Unfortunately, the bed will likely be the only valuable piece in
a hundred years, and only if it still holds water. Unless
particle board becomes collectable. However, there are well
built examples of these new styles available.
If you were talking of an overall decorating scheme, I'm out of
my depth. My "style" is dictated by my pocketbook, or lack of
cash therein.
mcat
I am: mcat at epix dot net
Ronnie McKinley
In rec.antiques Gerald Clough wrote:
>Good point, like "Everyone gets respectable if they live long enough."
>Aren't we in a "period" right now that has no real style of its own and
>might, in effect, be called the "Reproduction Period"? By that, I mean
>that consumers are urged to pick a period or style and decorate to that,
>there being no "Late 20th Century" style that I can detect.
Oh I think there's certainly a "Late 20th Century" style, just as there
is/was a 1950s style a 1960s/70s style (or more correctly a 'revival') and
a 1980s style. The style is collectively "modernism" or post-modernsim from
the late 60s/1970s onwards, so may sniff and turn thier nose up.
Modernism so dominated the teaching of architecture and design from the
1940's onwards that when the inevitable reaction came, generally known as
Post-Modernism, it was at first a rebellion of scattered underground
resistants rather than a unified revolution. Expressionists, who had always
refused to toe the Modern line, unregenerate historicists and old-fashioned
Arts & Crafts men were thrown into the limelight. A crude Neo-Classicism
with strong Art Deco overtones, a " vernacular" Arts & Crafts revival and a
refined and mannered revival of Modernism itself were among the styles
favoured by a new generation in the 1970s. The regin of Modernism as a
fundamentally new and completely dominant aesthetic was over.
>Agreed. Arts and Crafts was as much about an approach to living as a
>definable set of specifications or design traits, except that the
>designs were to satisfy the goals of the life style being urged. In
>that respect, I tend to think of Arts and Crafts as being more timeless,
>not so much of a period, even though it is (for now) associated with a
>range of years. I don't think I would even talk about Arts and Crafts
>"reproductions", provided they are quality, although we would certainly
>differentiate between a vintage piece and a newly produced one.
>
The Arts and Craft movement, the one driven by Wm.Morris, Ruskin and the
rest of the dedicated followers was IMHO "unique" - therefore being
'unique' that must define it as a "Period" just as Chippendale or Sherton
were "unique." Anything merely "reproduced" in later times of an "unique"
period that's setting out just to merely copy without added "abstraction"
or "development" can be nothing else other than a "reproduction."
>
>That's the difference, and therein lies the "word trap" of "style" as
>being "stylish", and style as a life-style. I consider the classic
>1950's designs as a life-style style, in that it represented an
>awareness of being on the edge of the technological avalanche that was
>the beginning of the "space age" and a freedom from the "old", but it
>was also promoted into "stylishness".
Yes, I don't think I disagree with that, but the classic 1950s design
wasn't just reproductions of Chippendale etc, well not in Britain. In many
ways the 1950s was a unique era and that was reflected in the times, in the
people and in design.
>It's unfortunate that it is no longer possible for a crafter or designer
>with a lot to "say", a lot of content, to move a large segment of the
>consuming popluation with his/her ideas through mass production. The
>market is dominated by corporate strategies and judgements of what
>people will "buy", rather than confidence in the content of a design
>movement
That's no different to any pervious time or period. It has always been the
few that develop or set a new "style" You don't think in Wm Morris' time
that the masses thought he was a 9 to 5 guy, he was a weirdo, and all the
rest of his followers were classed the same. His ideas and motivation were
taken and bastardized "by corporate strategies and judgements of what
people will buy" converted into sentimental craptrap and this is what was
so ironic about the Arts and Craft Movement and Wm Morris in particular.
Design is never fixed and stable, but always changing. One phase merges
into the next, creating new forms which often surprise and delight. To
define these as a new style we must wait for the perspective of experience.
Steve and Terri
Gerald Clough (clough...@texas.net) wrote:
: Aren't we in a "period" right now that has no real style of its own and
: might, in effect, be called the "Reproduction Period"? By that, I mean
: that consumers are urged to pick a period or style and decorate to that,
: there being no "Late 20th Century" style that I can detect.
Oh, I don't know... I was in a shop here in Houston not too long ago, and
heard an interior designer advising a client that instead of having to
choose between Victorian and Art Nouveau, she could choose the Eclectic
Style, which *everyone* (who is *anyone*) is using now...
I wonder what period that would be? :-D
Terri (still ROTFLMAO)
--
Terri Carl
ter...@neosoft.com
Ronnie McKinley
In rec.antiques Steve and Terri wrote:
>Oh, I don't know... I was in a shop here in Houston not too long ago, and
>heard an interior designer advising a client that instead of having to
>choose between Victorian and Art Nouveau, she could choose the Eclectic
>Style, which *everyone* (who is *anyone*) is using now...
>
>I wonder what period that would be? :-D
>
I may have missed the humour or meaning in your post, so please excuse me
;)
The style sometimes called "Eclectic" was a vital influence that tempered
the appeal of Gothic just as the Arts and Crafts movement gathered pace but
was more commonly called the "Aesthetic Movement" which brought a lighter,
more whimsical, touch to the new style. The Aesthetic Movement combined the
growing cult for all things Japanese with the developing interest in a
revival of the so-called 'Queen Anne' style of architecture, and added an
element of wit, of cultivated artificiality and of decadence. The influence
of the Aesthetic Movement prevented the Arts and Crafts from losing
themselves in medieval nostalgia.
Rich Maxson
Ronnie McKinley wrote ...
The Aesthetic Movement combined the growing cult for all things Japanese
--
ah -- Oscar Wilde, daisies and ridiculous English women dressed as "three
little maids." ;>)
--
Rich Maxson
Misery Bay Antiques
Dallas, TX & Muncy, PA
=========================
my philosophy, like color TV, is all
there in black & white - Neil Innes
=========================
ami...@gte.net
Kris Baker
mcat wrote:
>Are you saying that there are no new furniture styles that in a
>hundred years could accurately be called "period"? If so, I have
>to disagree. In fact I own three pieces of late 20th century
>(future period) pieces. They are: my entertainment center, my
>microwave stand, and my mirrored headboard waterbed.
>Unfortunately, the bed will likely be the only valuable piece in
>a hundred years, and only if it still holds water. Unless
>particle board becomes collectable. However, there are well
>built examples of these new styles available.
Actually, mcat - I vote for the microwave stand and
"entertainment center" as being the pieces of late
20th century decor that may become exemplars in
the future. And if you own a Salad Shooter, all the
better.
Kris ;)
Ronnie McKinley
In rec.antiques Kris Baker wrote:
> Actually, mcat - I vote for the microwave stand and
> "entertainment center" as being the pieces of late
> 20th century decor that may become exemplars in
> the future. And if you own a Salad Shooter, all the
> better.
>
This is not modern design, this is equipment.
Modern design is concerned with essential form. This form may emphasize
structural or sculptural qualities, but it is always abstract. It is never
copied from nature, and it is neither symbolic nor ornamented. The
insistence on forms which had no reference to past styles marked the
beginning of the modern movement before the turn of the century and has
remained one of its principle aims. But a more compelling reason today for
newness in design is that our age of technology has a unique character
which should be reflected in our environment. To many designers and
critics, newness represents, therefore a probing search for form at once
removed from the past and adjusted to the technological and social
realities of today. One phenomenon should be mentioned in discussing modern
design and modern furniture and that is its disappearance. There is a
danger that we may cease to regard modern design as a work of art. Instead
it could become mere 'equipment' serving us anonymously and efficiently,
but no longer delighting or even interesting us.
Gerald Clough
Ronnie McKinley wrote:
>
> In rec.antiques Gerald Clough wrote:
>
> >Good point, like "Everyone gets respectable if they live long enough."
> >Aren't we in a "period" right now that has no real style of its own and
> >might, in effect, be called the "Reproduction Period"? By that, I mean
> >that consumers are urged to pick a period or style and decorate to that,
> >there being no "Late 20th Century" style that I can detect.
>
And Ronnie said:
> Oh I think there's certainly a "Late 20th Century" style, just as there
> is/was a 1950s style a 1960s/70s style (or more correctly a 'revival') and
> a 1980s style. The style is collectively "modernism" or post-modernsim from
> the late 60s/1970s onwards, so may sniff and turn thier nose up.
>
> Modernism so dominated the teaching of architecture and design from the
> 1940's onwards that when the inevitable reaction came, generally known as
> Post-Modernism, it was at first a rebellion of scattered underground
> resistants rather than a unified revolution. Expressionists, who had always
> refused to toe the Modern line, unregenerate historicists and old-fashioned
> Arts & Crafts men were thrown into the limelight. A crude Neo-Classicism
> with strong Art Deco overtones, a " vernacular" Arts & Crafts revival and a
> refined and mannered revival of Modernism itself were among the styles
> favoured by a new generation in the 1970s. The regin of Modernism as a
> fundamentally new and completely dominant aesthetic was over.
>
Which somewhat befundled me, and I said:
I think I follow the argument, but I have to say (in friendly jest,
really) that the preceeding sounds a bit like those BBC arts
commentators that Monty P parodied :) Help me out. Give me a couple
of examples from the current period. I'm trying to understand.
I, Gerald, said:
> >Agreed. Arts and Crafts was as much about an approach to living as a
> >definable set of specifications or design traits, except that the
> >designs were to satisfy the goals of the life style being urged. In
> >that respect, I tend to think of Arts and Crafts as being more timeless,
> >not so much of a period, even though it is (for now) associated with a
> >range of years. I don't think I would even talk about Arts and Crafts
> >"reproductions", provided they are quality, although we would certainly
> >differentiate between a vintage piece and a newly produced one.
> >
>
Ronnie then said:
> The Arts and Craft movement, the one driven by Wm.Morris, Ruskin and the
> rest of the dedicated followers was IMHO "unique" - therefore being
> 'unique' that must define it as a "Period" just as Chippendale or Sherton
> were "unique." Anything merely "reproduced" in later times of an "unique"
> period that's setting out just to merely copy without added "abstraction"
> or "development" can be nothing else other than a "reproduction."
>
To which I respond:
I see the point, I think, that it may be called a copying, a
reproducing, unless it was new design within the same ethos as the
founders.
I earlier said:
> >
> >That's the difference, and therein lies the "word trap" of "style" as
> >being "stylish", and style as a life-style. I consider the classic
> >1950's designs as a life-style style, in that it represented an
> >awareness of being on the edge of the technological avalanche that was
> >the beginning of the "space age" and a freedom from the "old", but it
> >was also promoted into "stylishness".
>
And Ronnie said:
> Yes, I don't think I disagree with that, but the classic 1950s design
> wasn't just reproductions of Chippendale etc, well not in Britain. In many
> ways the 1950s was a unique era and that was reflected in the times, in the
> people and in design.
>
I earlier said:
> >It's unfortunate that it is no longer possible for a crafter or designer
> >with a lot to "say", a lot of content, to move a large segment of the
> >consuming popluation with his/her ideas through mass production. The
> >market is dominated by corporate strategies and judgements of what
> >people will "buy", rather than confidence in the content of a design
> >movement
>
Ronnie's response:
> That's no different to any pervious time or period. It has always been the
> few that develop or set a new "style" You don't think in Wm Morris' time
> that the masses thought he was a 9 to 5 guy, he was a weirdo, and all the
> rest of his followers were classed the same. His ideas and motivation were
> taken and bastardized "by corporate strategies and judgements of what
> people will buy" converted into sentimental craptrap and this is what was
> so ironic about the Arts and Craft Movement and Wm Morris in particular.
>
> Design is never fixed and stable, but always changing. One phase merges
> into the next, creating new forms which often surprise and delight. To
> define these as a new style we must wait for the perspective of experience.
To which I reply:
Agreed. It's the "designing", not the "design" that is what we talk
about in a movement, the ideas expressed, rather than the static objects
that are once made and mark only a point in the evolution of the ideas.
A continuing, and likely to become tangled (so maybe we should break it
condense it the next round) dialogue between:
>
> Ronnie
> mcki...@netcomuk.co.uk
> http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/index.htm
> ==============================================
> Cast a cold eye
> On life, on death.
> Horseman, pass by!
> ==============================================
> rec.antiques FAQs at the following URL
> http://lonestar.texas.net/~clough/rafaq.html
and
Ronnie McKinley
In rec.antiques Gerald Clough wrote:
>A continuing, and likely to become tangled (so maybe we should break it
>condense it the next round) dialogue between:
>
Gerald, think if you want to continue on with this we should take it out to
email and start at the beginning again, where we can explore it more fully.
It's really too long winded IMHO to discuss it any further here, think we
are starting to make the others yawn. :) In fact the response above to
Kris, I thought was a reasonable sum up on this "modern" era?
On the subject of "reproduction" - age to me isn't important, a bookcase
that is merely made in a previous period style is a "reproduction" doesn't
matter if it's 50years old or 100years old it's still a "reproduction" how
can it be anything else?
Steve and Terri
Ronnie McKinley (mcki...@netcomuk.co.uk) wrote:
: In rec.antiques Steve and Terri wrote:
:
: >Oh, I don't know... I was in a shop here in Houston not too long ago, and
: >heard an interior designer advising a client that instead of having to
: >choose between Victorian and Art Nouveau, she could choose the Eclectic
: >Style, which *everyone* (who is *anyone*) is using now...
: >
: >I wonder what period that would be? :-D
:
: I may have missed the humour or meaning in your post, so please excuse me
: ;)
:
: The style sometimes called "Eclectic" was a vital influence that tempered
: the appeal of Gothic just as the Arts and Crafts movement gathered pace but
: was more commonly called the "Aesthetic Movement" which brought a lighter,
It never occurred to me to think of the Aesthetic Movement when I
overheard the comment -- from the context of the conversation, the
"Eclectic Style" to which the decorator referred was simply the technique
of mixing periods and styles harmoniously. I have no trouble with
eclectic interiors (it would be hypocritical of me if I did, since my
house is an unholy mix of styles and periods) but I thought it humorous
that this tendency had been dubbed a decorating "style"... and so I was
nominating it (in jest) for the dominant style for the end of the 20th
c....
Terri
--
Terri Carl
ter...@neosoft.com
moll...@epix.net
mcki...@netcomuk.co.uk (Ronnie McKinley) wrote:
>Gerald, think if you want to continue on with this we should take it out to
>email and start at the beginning again,
<....>
>Ronnie
>mcki...@netcomuk.co.uk
>http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/index.htm
Please, no! I'd like to eavesdrop more, this is good stuff.
This sort of discussion is what is needed here, IMO. I just wish
I thought I knew enough to contribute more.
Gerald Clough
Ronnie: What say you break the topic down into more narrow issues and
kick off with one of them. You're far more qualified to do that than I
when it comes to periods and movements and styles, etc. I think the
whole area is of interest to much of the group, and we can take it in
smaller chunks.
Gillam Kerley
Steve and Terri wrote:
>
> It never occurred to me to think of the Aesthetic Movement when I
> overheard the comment -- from the context of the conversation, the
> "Eclectic Style" to which the decorator referred was simply the technique
> of mixing periods and styles harmoniously. I have no trouble with
> eclectic interiors (it would be hypocritical of me if I did, since my
> house is an unholy mix of styles and periods) but I thought it humorous
> that this tendency had been dubbed a decorating "style"... and so I was
> nominating it (in jest) for the dominant style for the end of the 20th
> c....
I thought the style of the late 20th Century was Techline, associated
with the recently deceased Madison, Wisconsin architect Marshall Erdman.
(Though there are already low-budget knockoffs/repros by Bush, Sauder,
and a few others you'll find in the furniture section of K-Mart).
This style assumes that the computer and other electronic gear is the
centerpiece of the home or office, and that all other furnishings must
serve to support it. The result is white (or pale gray) furnishings
assembled at 90 degree angles, divided (particularly in the commercial
setting) into cubicles. The latter is sometimes referred to as the
"Dilbert" style, though this term is now highly regarded in academic
circles, since Dilbert was not a designer but the major philosophical
interpreter of the period.
Enough of that....now a few words about "eclectic."
There are actually several subcategories of this "eclectic" style. One
version (exemplified by my home) is "Late 20th Century Garage Sale,"
with a upscale equivalent "Late 20th Century Antique Shop." This
version is assembled piece-by-piece, without an overall plan.
There is also "Postmodern" design, which, as I pretend to understand it,
intentionally superimposes clashing styles to stimulate the viewer (who
is also the viewed) to challenge the preconceived ideas of the other and
the non-other. Thus, the presence of an art-deco lamp or Indonesian
ceremonial mask in a Victorian decor is not a mistake, but a challenge
to the privileged status of Victorian aesthetic within the decorating
context. The viewer is forced to deconstruct paradigms in the
recognition that the exclusion of the other from the decorating canon is
an atavistic reiteration of dead while male thought.
Anyone know what the homes of Derrida and Foucault looked like?
GK (or not-GK, depending on the perspective of the viewer, cf.
Foucault's seminal essay "This Is Not GK")
Gillam Kerley
I agree. Tho I'm still looking for a "credit given for real-life
experience" diploma mill that will issue me a Ph.D. just for having read
it.
> This sort of discussion is what is needed here, IMO. I just wish
> I thought I knew enough to contribute more.
I never let not knowing anything stop me from contributing. If you
don't believe me, just see my last post to this thread. ;-)
GK
OXSHUNEER
Ever hear of "Early Salvation Army" ? ;-)
Steve and Terri
Gillam Kerley (gke...@execpc.com) wrote:
:
: There are actually several subcategories of this "eclectic" style. One
: with a upscale equivalent "Late 20th Century Antique Shop." This
: version is assembled piece-by-piece, without an overall plan.
:
: There is also "Postmodern" design, which, as I pretend to understand it,
: intentionally superimposes clashing styles to stimulate the viewer (who
: is also the viewed) to challenge the preconceived ideas of the other and
: the non-other. Thus, the presence of an art-deco lamp or Indonesian
: ceremonial mask in a Victorian decor is not a mistake, but a challenge
: to the privileged status of Victorian aesthetic within the decorating
: context. The viewer is forced to deconstruct paradigms in the
: recognition that the exclusion of the other from the decorating canon is
: an atavistic reiteration of dead while male thought.
So *that's* what that bust of Napoleon was doing in the... well, never
mind.
Now that you have gently reminded me that there is, of course, a real
Eclectic (sub)Style for the late 20th c., I'll simply have to go find that
interior designer and apologize for assuming she didn't know anything.
How mortifying! And I live so *close* to a Philip Johnson masterpiece,
virtually in its shadow -- how could I have so completely missed the
point?
Maybe I can pretend I was possessed by the spirit of a DWEM... yeah,
that's it... maybe even one that suffered from extensive opium use...
the other Terri
--
Terri Carl
ter...@neosoft.com
Kris Baker
Only if you get there before 10am.
Kris
(whose living room has been totally gutted as of
two days ago, so is living in Early Demolition Decor)