Thursday, April 30, 2009

Martin D'orgeval


Deyrolle.

On 1 February 2008 at 5.00 a.m., a fire ripped through Deyrolle, the famous old entomology and taxidermy store in the heart of Paris.

Its historic collections of thousands of butterflies and rare insects, stuffed animals and minerals, built up since it opened in 1831, burnt.

Martin d’Orgeval’s photographs show the animals and insects that survived the disaster in situ, against a background of charred woodwork in the shop that had been their habitat since their natural death.

Book published by Steidl.

Monday, April 27, 2009

The Macguffin Library




Just viewed this at the Design Museum. It struck me as one of the more interesting projects I've seen there in a long time. Perhaps it was the literary aspect and the use of technology. It just struck a cord.
The following is an article from We Make Money Not Art that questions & explains the project more concisely than I could.





A few weeks ago we read a short interview with Vito Acconci where he was asked a similar question regarding the design/art argument and he was saying that a big part of the problem came from the fact that 'art' is the only discipline that is defined by a qualitative appreciation. We share that point of view and we think that the word art would have to be left for any kind of work that excels in whatever area of human activity. Who is to say that the work of Ferran Adria is less art than that of Jeff Koons? Or that a Frank Lloyd Wright building is less or art than an Andreas Gurski photograph? Or that Leonardo's flying machines is less art than his Monalisa?... What are the grounds for comparison and how or why would you do it? This is the eternal argument, from our point of view is easier as we see no boundaries. Maybe this interpretation of design might be confusing or unacceptable for some people who do have a very clear idea of the boundaries of between the two.




The 'McGuffin Library Collection' by Noam Toran and Onkar Kular obviously lives in the edges of what is traditionally accepted as design, and I guess it raise questions in both directions. As they explain, McGuffin is a term invented by Alfred Hitchcock to define an object within a film, which somehow acts as a devise to carry the narrative of the story. In terms of the story, the design of this object becomes, so its conception is a design exercise on its own. For Onkar and Noam this works perfectly well to explore further their ideas around the use of design as a medium that is central to their work. In this case they wrote 14 synopsis for imaginary films for which they designed an object. These objects are primarily talking about the role of objects as mediators in our understanding of the world (in this case of the story). In a second layer, they are talking about the world of technology, production and design. The objects are produced in rapid form directly from 3D computer models. The objects are not unique necessarily unique as they are printed very much like you would do with a computer document. Is that a banal use of technology, design and engineering just because thy are not pursuing 'the grater good' or the commercial enterprise? Would that make it art? For us what makes them good design and good art is exactly the same thing, they are able to broaden and challenge our preconceived ideas of what things are, while being moving and engaging.