In defense of “dinosaurs”

I was recently at a design function, many Bright Young Things, but a mixed crowd. The topic of conversation turned to the current state of design.It was mentioned, perhaps flippantly, that Scalamandre was a dinosaur, and if it didn’t rethink it’s image it would cease to exist. It was mentioned that the company was recently purchased and was indeed reworking it’s line.

But really, a dinosaur? Is it really possible that today’s designer can view such a revered company as archaic. The conversation again and again turned to “modernism”, “contemporary ”  (such a fleeting concept, ridiculous to make that claim), and my favorite “transitional”. So much irony is expressed in current design, such wit and cleverness, that to me reflects a lack of familiarity with the true value of traditional design. I would personally find such sarcastic humor tiresome before long.

Traditional design is not dead, and it is not exhausted, so much more can be explored. The 19th century was just picking up steam with serious, sometimes ludicrous, reinterpretation. My plan is to continue this exploration, in spite of the contemporary spirit, particularly challenging in this City of Angels.


One Response to “In defense of “dinosaurs””

  1. Amen! So tired of the colorless and soulless design in LA.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: