What has postmodernism done for you lately? I heard it doesn’t give a flying duck…

I finally got around to reading ‘Interview with Postmodernism Curator at the V&A, Glenn Adamson’ by Katherine Elliott last week.

This was the bit I was particularly interested in;

Q: In your opinion, what is the difference between critiquing work created as art and work created for use, like product design?

A: I think it’s a continuum or maybe even just a shift in emphasis. You can treat a design object like an art work (Duchamp started doing so a century ago after all) and you can also treat an art work like a design object, by considering its production and distribution narrative. So to me, the difference is in the manner of questioning, not the supposed inherent nature of the object, or even the maker’s intention.

The question and answer that directly followed this was particularly thought-provoking, to me, given that they explore further that last part – intention – and what importance is has to historians/theorists, when forming a historical narrative. Not as much as I might have thought.

In the field of research jewellery, you’d have to argue that it is a particularly intriguing arena to investigate.