Comments on: “Contempo” – my term for the insincere faux-modern design style infecting our lives

By: Leah

Leah — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:01:48 +0000

Also I often love things that are in bad taste, against my better judgement, but the worst part of this kind of design is that it thinks its tasteful, or we’re encouraged to believe that it is tasteful, I guess.

By: Leah

Leah — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:58:24 +0000

Thank you for putting a name to this phenomenon. I think I always referred to it as “contemporary faux-modernism” or something…!

While I admit a fond appreciation for stark 80s post-modern design (even all that Memphis-Milano stuff)… I’ve always hated the kind of 90s onward aesthetic of brushed nickel, and excessive frosted glass, and also that awful orange beech wood (is that what it is? usually it’s in veneer form) or faux mahogany. And you’re right about the excessive curves. It’s always noticeable in canned restaurant chain decor. Inappropriately curved furniture, “abstract” prints on the upholstery etc.

It’s definitely a pox on Vancouver.

By: LB

LB — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 21:50:02 +0000

In reply to Doug C..

@Doug I’m not surprised others have come up with the same word. “Contempo” is such a loathsome word, it perfectly fits this loathsome design shipwreck. Also I love (and will adopt) your “contempt-orary.” I agree on the lowest-common-denominator commercialism of this style, but my real question is *why* the majority of buyers actually like this stuff? I’m not sure the answer is obvious. Anyway, explanation or no, it’s clearly some sort of unholy collision between commercial economics and buyer psychology. But it’s like picking a scab; I can’t leave it alone.

And why does the attempt to make things appear more “friendly” almost always fail now?

By: Doug C.

Doug C. — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:28:17 +0000

A friend and I came up with contempo a while back as well. Depending how much we hated it, it became contempt-orary. This is a pet peeve of mine and a lot of other designers and architects as well.
I think it is a development of a consumer based design process where objects and buildings are created to “appeal” to the largest number of people. Too boxy, put a curve on it, too monolithic, break it up into smaller parts and use a lot of different materials. It subjugates the design to a rapid process of speed modification to appeal to the broadest range of people (allegedly) and negates the critical power of design thinking which is time consuming and might confuse the buyer.
It is part of believing consumers are the only arbiter of design success and only your box office ($) matters, cynical to an extreme.

By: Zbigniew

Zbigniew — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:02:24 +0000

Contempo. A possible diminutive for “contemptible”? Great article.

By: LB

LB — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:30:02 +0000

In reply to Erica W.. @Erica PS "pointless curves, pointless anthropomorphism" made me laugh.

By: LB

LB — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:28:22 +0000

Ha, thanks Erica. I mean, I don’t care what we call it, as long as it has a name. The faster we can name it, the faster we can discourage people from buying it. It seems that as soon as I bring it up, people know exactly what I’m talking about. A Vancouver reader tweeted this response to it yesterday: “… a design aesthetic that fills me with inarticulate rage.”
https://twitter.com/pattoni/statuses/260079679782940672

By: Erica W.

Erica W. — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:11:49 +0000

A *lot* of Italian design is like this. Low, middle and “hi” end Italian housewares have this contempo vibe — pointless curves, pointless anthropomorphism, glossy primary colors, huge knobby handles. I often wonder if it’s a reaction to the good design in the country that is hard to shift — you really can’t knock down the building and people keep their homes and their furniture forever, so some designers perhaps rebelled by creating fugly stuff for the kitchen and so forth. I love the term, though, and will do my part by spreading it.