>>450004
>I dont really care about splitting hairs over categories
That's their entire premise and MO, and the hairs they split are both ridiculously arbitrary ("Often rough stones") and so circularly self-referential and qualified with the weasely-est of weasel words that it's meaningless-
>"The CARI system is not universally applicable; many artifacts fit either zero or very many aesthetics."
Embarrassingly dumb and pointless...except to allow them to be wildly wrong as they split hairs and ignore all context for that purpose.
> just whether I can find good design work and cari is a great archive
The clear implication of much of their commentary is that the examples and "aesthetics" they catalog are NOT good design, but are an ersatz version of existing aesthetics that only get on their radar because they-
>"...have broken into "mainstream" culture by way of corporate appropriation"
This not only betrays a simplistic "corporations are bad, m' kay?" mindset, but also betrays a fundamental misconception of how and why certain trends in visual arts and advertising happen the way they do.
Like when they label modern/pop art inspired visuals "corporate hippie"-
>Appropriation of 'Hippie' culture, motifs & psychedelic graphic styles for corporate applications.
- but ignore the fact that "hippies" didn't invent that stuff but appropriated the hell out of it from much earlier trends and sources, much of it commercial in origin and having nothing to do with any counterculture. (pic of WW1 era Wedgewood ceramics related)
At best its just ignorant, and at worst it's just propaganda in the service of anticapitalist historical revisionism.
