To me Art Deco seems to range from Kinda Like Art Nouveau all the way to "I can't Believe it's not Bauhaus".
Deco and Bauhaus both seem to sometimes share an excitement towards mass production and materials themselves.
Art Deco shows off luxury and wealth, which is not very far from truth to materials.
With art Nouveau I notice designs more than materials, unless they're simple natural things like wood, not really giving any sense of technical achievement or extravagance in the actual materials.
Bauhaus seems to deliberately design things that would not work without the specific high end materials used, and look out of place if they are scratched, everything is pointing to the raw substance, the craftsmanship, the function, and the level of maintenance, and
the design is just a frame.
Art Deco doesn't do the minimalism thing the same way,
I greatly prefer Art Nouveau, but it seems like both the aesthetic and philosophy of Bauhaus is everywhere.
Maybe there's something missing in my personality since I don't quite feel the appeal of simplicity and valuable materials as strongly as some, while the more philosophical types all seem to love it.
I think part of the mass appeal of Bauhaus might be because it got popular when tech was worse. You couldn't make a cheap CrapBoard thing and veneer it, unless you wanted it to peel in a week. That still happens, but it's possible to reliability do form, function, and material more separately.
Maybe people were tired of crappy goods that broke in a year, and Bauhaus was a way of advertising that you weren't doing that.
Now of course, durability seems random, and sometimes people take superficial Bauhaus elements and use them without the deep quality that it was supposed to be about, and it looks bad from the start and then breaks.
And we've got cheap synthetic materials that can be incredibly strong if you know how to design with them, although unfortunately they do not survive the trash compactor, when people toss them even though they're perfectly good, because people tend to see things without valuable substance as disposable.
Deco and Bauhaus both seem to sometimes share an excitement towards mass production and materials themselves.
Art Deco shows off luxury and wealth, which is not very far from truth to materials.
With art Nouveau I notice designs more than materials, unless they're simple natural things like wood, not really giving any sense of technical achievement or extravagance in the actual materials.
Bauhaus seems to deliberately design things that would not work without the specific high end materials used, and look out of place if they are scratched, everything is pointing to the raw substance, the craftsmanship, the function, and the level of maintenance, and the design is just a frame.
Art Deco doesn't do the minimalism thing the same way,
I greatly prefer Art Nouveau, but it seems like both the aesthetic and philosophy of Bauhaus is everywhere.
Maybe there's something missing in my personality since I don't quite feel the appeal of simplicity and valuable materials as strongly as some, while the more philosophical types all seem to love it.
I think part of the mass appeal of Bauhaus might be because it got popular when tech was worse. You couldn't make a cheap CrapBoard thing and veneer it, unless you wanted it to peel in a week. That still happens, but it's possible to reliability do form, function, and material more separately.
Maybe people were tired of crappy goods that broke in a year, and Bauhaus was a way of advertising that you weren't doing that.
Now of course, durability seems random, and sometimes people take superficial Bauhaus elements and use them without the deep quality that it was supposed to be about, and it looks bad from the start and then breaks.
And we've got cheap synthetic materials that can be incredibly strong if you know how to design with them, although unfortunately they do not survive the trash compactor, when people toss them even though they're perfectly good, because people tend to see things without valuable substance as disposable.