Report comment

Ruth Reed's comment appears to be disingenuous when she states; -

"Good design must not be determined nor constrained by arbitrary stylistic preferences..."

The entire Modern Movement and its current prefixed and suffixed derivatives are based on what appear to many "ordinary people" to be arbitrary stylistic preferences.

It is quite clear that the Modern Movement has had a century ot get its act together and apart from some terrible graph paper exercises in America, there has been little consensus on the way forward in terms of an overall "look" or a "Style". Wonderment follows astonishment when one of these practioners actually discovers what a wall is or redefines a window.

But let's face it, calling it high art while the roof leaks (Rogers recent school) and the thing falls apart after less than 100 years despite using the best of materials (Mies house) is pushing the public's credibility past breaking point.

Each decade breeds a new look responding to whatever is if vogue at that time, and the current decade is no exception. If some people like Prince Charles are now suggesting a backlash to this constant stream of aimless innovation for effect - well and good. This really needs to occur before the next stage in the evolution of design can evolve - a retrenchment and then a move forward.

Firmness, commodity and delight are the watchwords.
Let's head back there for a while.