MEREDITH Strategy + Design

We design the places and spaces where people come together to do great work

Chair versus chair: Design and its value genetics

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

I am so pleased with the debate engaged (not necessarily initially) by Cannell and picked up by Moss (and so many others) about the origins of design and the economy's impact on innovation.

Embedded in the discussion is a sense of authenticity, almost morality, associated with original explorations. In its advancement/resolution, I'd be very interested in a genetic chart---great designs, their origins, their briefs (given or authored), the money that was invested in the path to launch, the size of the particles of the market that supported them, and the relevance and authenticity of design measured by both economic (how many use and benefit from use) and non-economic factors (influence, impact, enrichment, enhancement, etc.), and their ultimate durability, sustainability and value.

We, of course, do not usually make a choice of approaches, but does the Moss patronage trump the Cannell ethic? Is the discipline of modernism a virtue in any economy or a mask for limited opportunity (and privileged position) in a down economy. Is Eames a recession product or a recovery product? Does the economic context provide Moss an opportunity to present process/maquette/model as special/unique/valuable, but the economy demand finish?mosscannell-sub-600