Your ‘antiques’ are the most modern things you own | THE WORLD OF INTERIORS
Endless rehashings of Art Deco and Shaker ‘style’ ignore the radical spirit that drove them, argues Michael Diaz-Griffith in the latest round of Room for Debate
We used to play a little language game: when an object had acquired 100 years of age, it became, magically, ‘antique’. Now, that wave washes ashore the things of the 1920s. But when I look at relics from that decade – say, in a photo from the 1925 International Exhibition of Modern Decorative and Industrial Arts, the Big Bang of Art Deco – I realise, tilting my neck, that I’m not looking back at all. The dining room composed by René Lalique for the Sèvres pavilion, for example, is not ‘antique’ in the way we used to mean: neither ancient, nor remote, nor quite belonging to former times. Nor…
saved by
related reading
- A Call for New Aestheticsnewaesthetics.art
- The Anti-Slop Aesthetichyphen.art
- A Call for New Aestheticsnewaesthetics.art
- Patina and Intimacy - by Simon Sarrismap.simonsarris.com
- Patina as proof: The shift from quiet luxury to lived-in aesthetics.patter.substack.com
- benjamin.pdfweb.mit.edu
- The Painted Protest, by Dean Kissickharpers.org
- The Afterlives of Computer Artemptysetmag.com
- Book Review: From Bauhaus To Our House - by Scott Alexanderastralcodexten.com
- Miniatures Collectionluminaire.com
- Shop Class as Soulcraftthenewatlantis.com
- Patrick Collison (@patrickc) on Xx.com