we all know that aesthetic perfection is boring. luckily it is also a state of virtual impossibility and even at the closest call, it falls back on subjective evaluation and is, thus, debatable. objective, all-inclusive perfection seems an oxymoron.
cohesion is as close to perfection visual stimulants can get, and it actually hasn't been long since we've been valuing aspirations for intentional faults instead of excellence. or, more accurately, our sense of sublimity has changed to include flaws.
we have grown familiar with aesthetic mistakes: american avantgarde film makers of 1950's and 60's , such as stan brakhage, "destroyed" their prints with strange substances. their signature glitches are a part of today's mainstream visuals visible everywhere from advertising to music videos.
the net.art movement of the mid-90's took the style some steps further by creating art utilizing technical errors, such as computers crashing or visual distortion screenshots. one of my first awe-inspiring encounters with tech-glitches in mainstream online applications was the website for the movie requiem for a dream which still remains relevant as an example of creative web design although it dates back to 2000 and has been copied numerously.
(note to self: the reason it seems relevant is because you've been such a lazy schmuck that you haven't checked out any recent websites for films...)
an incongruous attitude is not limited to the visual imagery we are offered by arts. it seems flawlessness is read as staged and small glitches add a touch of reality and humanity. my personal style in both clothing and interior decoration has for years rested on creating a harmonious whole and then disturbing the cohesion with some elements that are "wrong". naturally, there is nothing spectacular or unique in my method, quite the opposite: it seems adding glitches is the style du jour.
then again, trends are a strange, ongoing process and seem to have revolved around themselves in fashion - probably due to faster cycles – and the most up to date styles are closing on attaining perfection again. whether it is ott bravado or minimalist, the obvious, intentional mistake (what a paradox!) is less prominent as an essential feature of a great look. it seems ok to sport a style flawlessly again. or is it just me, wearing all black all the time and thinking it must be a trend? oh, me smugness...
with interiors there's some lagging behind: the magazine look is very much still about combining good taste and ruining it with a touch of tackiness. that is, spicing things up with something that does not belong: a sleek modern environment disturbed with a rustic cabinet or a kitsch clock on the wall or, perhaps, a jolly old country house with a set of seethru kartell chairs – you know what i'm talking about, right?
since everyone concerned with interior trends tries to avoid copying the magazine appearance ('cause that's just lame), the logical addition of wrongdoings is catching up and balanced wholes of good and bad are taking over the slight failures to comply to aesthetic purity. we ain't far from sleek 80's black-white-chrome interiors without a hint of irony if my vision is right at all. judging by the past, i'm wrong which may not be such an awful prospect...
whether or not i am a slave to interior trends, without a doubt my perverse reverse snobbery applies to interiors in addition to clothing; if referred to or noted as "stylish" by the "wrong" people i feel the need to twitch and the same goes with my home. i want it slightly off and confusing.
but hee-haw, and why am i babbling about all this? well, i am in the midst of a decoration crisis. i got a wake-up call from my sweetie stating that our dining table lamp was looking "too retro". at first my reaction was "wtf? the beautiful yki nummi lamp from the 60's? never!", but soon i saw the point.
the thing is: you start collecting furniture and tend to feel the draw of certain styles. after a while the accumulation of stuff from various apartments starts to resemble a stage set mimicking the dreamy preference landscape of yer own brain – only it doesn't, but only exaggerates your primary penchants. needless to say, i do not believe a minute when people tell you that their collection of favorite pieces of furniture actually create a harmonious whole that does not look slightly too obvious. or maybe it's just me whose personal taste is so predictable.
in any case, some of our favorite pieces of furniture are starting to create ensembles that go overboard. the biggest problem is roundness and fluidity abundance (i love organic forms) which have inconspicuously taken over the place, and as much as i admire 70's spacey interiors, there's a point when things go too clockwork orange. below are the main pieces of our dining area – see what i mean?
it seems we lack straight angles in this apartment of curves galore, and have unintentionally turned our home toddler friendly. oh what a mess...
any ideas? haven you stumbled across stylish pendant lamps that are not a) retro and b) round that i should know about?