I think if you look at purely expressionist art that is successful at reaching some level of mass appeal if not fan base there is a story embued in it. Jazz and Jackson Pollack, Metaphor & History of Chagal, etc. Even Miro’s gross use of lines call us deeper to try to understand in interesting ways. But I do think that Miro and other artists of their time do have limited appeal because they have stretched the boundaries of connectedness way too far. But for those that do “get it” there is a story people are connecting to.

But like I said it is more important to talk about design than art. Look at the design of Harley, Mini, Corvette, Oxo, etc. These designs are not neutered of their creators. You look at these works and you “know” there is a human being behind their conception. There are bits there that just tell you that a machine couldn’t have done this.

Compare Google Search to Gmail. Even within the same organization there is differentiation in this regard. The pure rationality behind the conception of Google Search has not fully taken over the world of Gmail. Gmail having been designed fully outside the search realm has always had elements that demonstrate the humanity behind its creator. And they exploded that w/ the advent of Themes. They didn’t take them too far by opening up the creation of Themes so it remains as controlled as any other part of the Google experience, but that little “add on” at the bottom of my ninja theme is laughable and engaging. The way that Google tries to do this in search, its most successful as well as most fragile property is through the changes of the logo it does for any reason possible. What is sad is that so few people experience this b/c it is so limited to that sphere (their home page) that due to their own success so few people see–they use the chrome search in their browser most likely (and in the case of Chrome THEIR BROWSER it is right in the address bar itself).

My point being is that these moments of clear human influence whether connectible to the art universe or not, are important for pushing our value as designers. Don’t let yourself get neutered by the conservative rationality that is business and engineering.

– dave

In regards to your overall argument, I wonder if a “sense of connectedness between the consumer and designer” is important, or instead, the artist/designer’s ability to make the audience aware of its own humanness. If I do have this feeling of “connectedness” do I feel connected to the designer or do I project my feelings onto the product?

I skipped the Baroque on purpose and knowingly. Its fine that you “caught” me! Mea Culpa.

My personal take on the Baroque is that it is mostly an extension of the previous period. What I didn’t explain correctly or clearly was the importance of the abstractionist movements’ ability to STILL engage humanness while disengaging from precise realism.

It wasn’t so much that those artists during the Baroque didn’t connect, but that there was not a dramatic shift in the ways we CAN connect. I’d also say that maybe my personal taste came through more than it should have. I don’t look at the Baroque and feel connected at all to it. Goya, et. al. just don’t do it for me. :(

Does that help?

– dave

These statements should be heuristics for any product that comes out today.

It would be interesting to see how these statements correlate to early adopters vs mainstream consumers. I imagine the early adopters that say “I will not only use this product, I will pay a premium for it, and be its greatest advocate.” drive the market which causes the mainstream consumer to say “getting the job done” once that product, or similar products, become the standard.