I think what complicates the matter is not so much if we can make meaningful distinctions between art and/or design, but that the economics driving these markets are mostly opaque and their affect on design/art have not been thematized as much. The gatekeeping aspects of fairs like Design Miami or Art Basel (or really any sort of 'collectible' fair) have been criticized indeed, but not how it affects the designer/artist, and what they make. In most cases, design - unlike art - still lives in a critique-free space.
In a traditional gallery model, the gallery covers many if not most of the production costs which really becomes their investment. The designer/artist is not autonomous and their detachment from the direct sales functions of the work shields them. In essence, this sort of relationship is a glorified version of the more traditional role of the designer as consultant hired by a manufacturer to design work for them. Both 'brands' unite in those case, as they do for any of the other cases of designers and their galleries you mentioned.
In the collectible art/design market it pushed the work continuously in a more speculative direction that is quite specific to 'collectible design'. While I agree that it is effectively a critique of the modernist movement as a rejection of usefulness, 'collectible design' is tied to our culture of spectacle. You call that rightly 'decadence'. I try to share your optimism that at some point we might be looking back at the "outgrowth from our decadent artistic movement".
sort of touching on this subject too in a few days (especially gate keeping). Love everything you wrote here, Ben! Happy new year too: )
Amazing insights!
I think what complicates the matter is not so much if we can make meaningful distinctions between art and/or design, but that the economics driving these markets are mostly opaque and their affect on design/art have not been thematized as much. The gatekeeping aspects of fairs like Design Miami or Art Basel (or really any sort of 'collectible' fair) have been criticized indeed, but not how it affects the designer/artist, and what they make. In most cases, design - unlike art - still lives in a critique-free space.
In a traditional gallery model, the gallery covers many if not most of the production costs which really becomes their investment. The designer/artist is not autonomous and their detachment from the direct sales functions of the work shields them. In essence, this sort of relationship is a glorified version of the more traditional role of the designer as consultant hired by a manufacturer to design work for them. Both 'brands' unite in those case, as they do for any of the other cases of designers and their galleries you mentioned.
In the collectible art/design market it pushed the work continuously in a more speculative direction that is quite specific to 'collectible design'. While I agree that it is effectively a critique of the modernist movement as a rejection of usefulness, 'collectible design' is tied to our culture of spectacle. You call that rightly 'decadence'. I try to share your optimism that at some point we might be looking back at the "outgrowth from our decadent artistic movement".