>>462022
I realize that everybody is listening to the same podcasts and that using the term "collective unconscious" is considered fashionable, well-read and 'in touch with something deeper' rn.
but neither do we need to mystify what is happening in design by using it, nor are you even understanding it correctly.
what you are trying to point at is *NOT* Jung's "collective unconscious", but Durkheim's "collective conscience"
*obviously* art and design are reflections of dynamics in society! otherwise we would still be stuck doing cave paintings..
art history is exactly about untangling these drivers!
>okay, so what might actually be the interesting message in flat design and globohomo?
idk, but maybe along the lines:
>we globally prefer lying to ourselves by willfully accepting to call monopolistic datacenter-gigacorporations-with-insight-into-every-persons-character-and-life by their self-given names à la "social media" and "recommendation system" in exchange for them making us feel connected to the increasingly faceless system of symbols that is contemporary internet.
not complete, but a starting point(?)
>rising and falling empires
sure, cute. we all enjoy fantasizing about collapse to avoid growing up and taking the responsibility of having to change anything.
>no need to organize and cooperate with all the other (equally) rotten characters, if I can just lean back and passively wait for transformation through destructive collapse
I am used to someone spreading the apocalypse message and I even get it.
but PLEASE don't forget to prioritize the less speculative drivers in design development, one of which is that flat design emerged in the global marketing of tech-giants, where it is not just speaking to *one particular culture*, but *all of them at the same time* - so bland, identityless, and scalable that (basically) no international user would feel alienated or even bothered. during a time when children began flooding the internet (via smartphones)
