so, design journalist michael cannell wrote an article in last sunday's new york times entitled design loves a depression outlining for us all a thoughtful and reasonable condemnation of the old days of lavish design and manufacturing, saying simply that, as the time for frivolous spending has subdued, so will the buying of such frivolous fare in favor of, say, useful objects, that are considered for function, economy as well as beauty and are not solely artful. he concludes that what comes next, a mindfulness unseen since the great depression, could be good too. three days later, retail innovator murray moss shot back an missive positing, among other things, that the times article was mean-spirited and that he felt deeply resentful of "the tone of comeuppance in mr. cannell's article" of "his condescending, parochial-school-matronly, calvinistic reproach of the design that flourished during what he refers to as the "economic boom.""

the thing is, murray is not clear enough about his point because he is audibly angry at someone daring to skew the very core of what he has been building to since 1994: the celebration of frivolity. i entered the retail design business myself in 1999 with the apartment concept store (mentioned here) in no small part as a reaction to the museum quality of mr. moss' presentation of a discipline that i, as a frenchman, felt belonged to the everyday, not the exceptional. i started the apartment as a place for contextual design, to piss off the whole movement of design as art, untouchable and unapologetically expensive. i saw design as something to be used, trashed and bought again, non-precious and available for all, not to be put behind glass at any cost. fact is, i did not rightfully understand mr. moss' intention back then, knee-jerking in the same fashion that he now knee-jerks michael cannell's thoughts. i think that he might be taking this a bit personally because he has, perhaps, lost faith in his own postulation that, indeed, frivolity is important. these are my words, not his, as the only way for me to understand the intent of a man who not only sells but commissions a series of clocks by studio job "as a riff on the outrageous excesses of america's 19th century tycoons and russia's new oligarchs" for $700,000. i never understood frivolous, or even superficial, as a put down and i am surprised to hear him seeming to.

murray, if i may speak to you directly, michael is not calling you out on your wasteful ways, he's not saying that you have dedicated your life to nonsensical pursuits devoid of value. for one thing i have learned through my own friendship with philip wood is that there is nothing wrong with messing with the division lines between art and design, form and function. and that when it is done with humor and elegance as well as respect for the medium, as both Citizen:citizen and you do, the whole concept of those lines blurring becomes a lot more palatable. thanks to this approach, the whole concept of design as important thankfully deflates. and i always thought that that was the skill you had mastered. but like my son from whom a set of legos were inadvertently borrowed by his sister, you are throwing a tantrum because you feel this shit is yours, you feel ownership of the concept of important frivolity, let's call it. but it is not, it is ours. you are talking of allowing "design to address multiple tasks — including function — as well as the myriad other concerns that might be compelling to the designer. to expand the criteria with which we evaluate design, not shrink it." that is exactly what michael is saying, what we are all saying! what a wonderful ride has design indeed been on, how amazingly it has evolved! from the first ever design-oriented time magazine cover to target's manifesto, the stature that design has attained and the demographic lines it has busted through has been a gold mine for all involved. you included. you especially. which may be part of the problem...

everywhere i go, in just about everything i experience, i see a lost opportunity for better design, for better attention paid to what would make a product or service better adapted to human use. for as long as i can remember, we have been bent to manufacturers' and designers' will with little protest from our side but i believe it is now time to make our voices heard! why are companies allowed to use the word "design" in advertising when we know they are simply appropriating a word for selling purposes. design needs to be a foundational principle through which the needs of humanity need to be considered, not simply a marketing mechanism. and i do not mean "humanity" in any way as charity, i do not condone any process that specifically results in favors to the most but rather favors to the human as a specie. that human wants things and needs things. and that human perceives wants and needs in wildly different ways from person to person which is what makes the filthy animal an interesting creature and why we feel compelled to discover and know one another better when a compelling argument has been made. we then take the plunge and start conversations, that is what eventually turns into culture, isn't it?

culture, I once was told, is what remains once you’ve forgotten everything. and I could not agree more. culture ultimately is less about knowledge of the past and more about how you use knowledge in the present, it is a conversation that is alive with concepts, words and emotion. and we all participate in that conversation, the humble ones, the pretentious ones, the talented ones, the mediocre ones, the beautiful ones, the ambitious ones, the thoughtful ones, the needful ones, we all have a word to contribute for culture to advance. there is no right or wrong, there is no good or bad, only opinions and judgment from one human only valid for that human only. that, to me, is what the moss store is about, the careful editing of life from ONE point of view, that is your strength murray, that is your vision of life, one that you have successfully transmitted to the public. michael is no more indicting your vision than he is lauding a less-is-more approach, he is simply talking, as you are, about evolution which, in design as in anything else, is necessary for progress. continuing to commission and sell object that have value for you do not in any way counter the need for cheap and good design. let's stop being absolutists about this, nobody is saying that ikea is the answer. the beauty of this argument is that there is no answer. none. not you, not michael cannell, know anything more than what you can see today and surmise might happen from cautionary lessons learned. in other words, you don't know shit. and neither do i which is why i feel so comfortable weaving morality tales for the people who are still, in today's world, able to assign truth to any concept out there. do we not know better by now than to ever be right about anything?

murray, when it comes to design proper, i scarcely doubt that you would ever say to dieter rams that his radio needed more buttons for that is what, at that time, design needed to thrive, reduction. what is wrong with suggesting that design's next evolutionary step might be reduction again after years of maximalism? we are simply following the times, all of us hoping for the best. "the best" being what suddenly matters most to human beings who feel like the dead has reached its end. do not criticize an article, criticize, if you like, people's seemingly irrepressible fear when confronted with an unknown context. criticize, if you like, people's paralysis in times of danger. criticize, if you like, people's infallible retreats to the "lessons" of the past instead of inventing new ones. criticize, if you like, people's outsourcing of the concept of hope to a surely hopeful presidential figure instead of making choices that do not require hope.

i understand your anger but i think that it does not have a place here. you are mad at the wrong person. the fact that things will be harder do not mean that they will be worse. join the anti-determinist train and agree with me and carl jung that you are not what happens to you but what you choose to become.