Has Dwell Magazine become irrelevant?

<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">As someone who has built a life around being a proponent of Modern Design, I find myself supporting and gravitating towards companies that have similar philosophies.  In October of 2000 I remember walking by a news stand in NYC and seeing the Premiere Issue of a new magazine called Dwell.  The cover was bold.  A big steel box of a house with a woman and her dog sitting in front of it.  The heading under the title said 'AT HOME IN THE MODERN WORLD' in all caps with a lovely sans serif font.  The features listed on the cover had tag lines like 'Design for Real People' and 'The Most Beautiful Vacuum Cleaners on Earth'.  I was drawn from the start and picked up a copy.  </span><div><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">When I got it home I read the first issue from cover to cover and salivated at both the publisher's mission and the editor's opening remarks.  They were brilliant.  Lara Hedberg (publisher) led with the tag line : From the Robie House to Our House and talked eloquently about we should aspire to create homes that fulfill our deep longing for meaning and beauty.  Editor Karrie Jacobs went a step further.  She wanted to stage a minor revolution.  Her beautifully written introduction talked about how the design community has a desire to try and show architecture as this perfect and unattainable being.  Dwell was aiming to give it back to regular ordinary people and this inspired me.  From then on, I waited on every issue and saw the magazine grow and develop to reach thousands of new readers every month.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEienmQE_6mod7RFdfwEMIYXUTbNVAlbrQSH2fJpWqHeUAd0rvARxyVLD0uuTVw5a5J2Ud6x1rLWwPQaxCZCSPy-JNEO7V2Ba43x7v5Ap2q8W7KHzLuSHsHwTM7US_mezfGPkT05eEjI46U/s1600/dwell+003.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEienmQE_6mod7RFdfwEMIYXUTbNVAlbrQSH2fJpWqHeUAd0rvARxyVLD0uuTVw5a5J2Ud6x1rLWwPQaxCZCSPy-JNEO7V2Ba43x7v5Ap2q8W7KHzLuSHsHwTM7US_mezfGPkT05eEjI46U/s320/dwell+003.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><div><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">By 2006 each issue was the size of a local phone book filled with page after page of enviable goods and projects.  Despite the change in editors (I believe they are currently on their fourth in 12 years) there seemed to be a continuity of thought that made me believe I could be part of this revolution.  Year after year went on and slowly the mission changed. It seemed that the book was getting thinner and thinner as advertising revenue across the industry tanked.  The magazine started to lend their name to conferences and consumer partnerships (such as a tile line with Heath ceramics) and the revolution started to fizzle.  It seemed that all of the energy of the original mission was now going into generating revenue to keep the ship afloat.  Today the magazine arrives about as thick as the original issue, which is pretty thin.  I used to devote a solid two hours to reading each volume and now it takes me all of eight minutes.  All of the original tenacity and gumption have been replaced with project after project of designs that seem as impractical and unattainable as the designs they once condemned.   </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Now I suppose you could argue that shelter magazines as a whole are tanking.  Domino closed and even Martha Stewart couldn't sustain the popular Blueprint brand.  But I would disagree when you see books like Elle Decor, House and Home, Elle Decor UK, Living ETC, and Inside Out growing by the month. Even Atomic Ranch and Modernism haven't lost their luster through the recession and I even found myself picking up recent issues of Architectural Digest, which is amazing in and of itself.  These books have survived by focusing on their core audience and not concerning themselves with trying to grow beyond their brand.  I think this is a lesson Dwell could definitely learn from.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Of course there will always be people discovering Dwell for the first time and falling head over heels. But for my part I will not be renewing my subscription and I am very sad to say that.  I wish the magazine went back to it's original desire to show the average person about meaning and beauty in the home as opposed to finding the craziest places around the world which most people will never even come close to living in.  </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Karrie Jacobs once wrote that Dwell wanted to demonstrate that a modern house could be a comfortable one.  If only it were so.</span></div>

Has Dwell Magazine become irrelevant?

As someone who has built a life around being a proponent of Modern Design, I find myself supporting and gravitating towards companies that h...

Read more »

Can Design Really be Altruistic?

<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I once read an interview with Ayn Rand where she described "The Fountainhead" as a tale of the altruist vs. the egoist. Altruistic behavior is defined as being unselfishly devoted to the welfare of others. Egoist behavior is exhibited by those who only care about themselves. I don't know what the percentages are, but I would guess that if you divide the general population into the two categories, most people would fall into the latter of the two. At first, I thought this was just a social commentary. People are selfish, end of story. However, the more I looked at the idea of altruism, I discovered that it's very difficult for Altruism to triumph over Capitalism. This became clear to me after reading a book by Karrie Jacobs describing her search for the perfect $100,000 house.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">In the book the author travels over 14,000 miles across the United States to see if it is possible to buy the perfect little modern dream house anywhere in the United States for the total cost of $100,000. She seeks out the most interesting and innovative of the practicing architects available to her (Ms. Jacobs was the founding Editor-in-Chief of Dwell Magazine, so I'm sure she knows a few) and grills them all about the possibility of such a house. In most cases, the Architects are reluctant to guarantee that such a house could be built. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">This whole thing got me thinking: Let's say you could build a 1,000 SF modern house for $100,000. And let's say it even looks cool and holds up pretty well to the usual wear and tear. And let's say you got it published in a magazine because you did such a good job that you wanted everyone to see your inexpensive house. What would happen? </span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">If I had to guess, I'd say that the price would skyrocket as soon as your phone could stop ringing. While the initial idea of designing an affordable modern house has real altruistic merit, the reality is that demand would drive the price up. Does anyone remember the arrival of the Mini Cooper? When they started selling Mini Coopers in the US, they were advertising the car around $17,000. As soon as the waiting list got to be more than two months, they jacked up the price in order to quell demand a little. Today, a new Mini Cooper will set you back almost double the initial offering price. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">Often in history, Design tries to solve a problem <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">affordably</span>, and succeeds. Look at the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Eames</span> Bent Plywood chair. Designed as a modern affordable furniture solution, the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Eames</span> Bent Plywood Chair was made in the USA and well within the reach of the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">average</span> American when it was introduced. Today, a chair like that can run as much as $1,000 per chair. The same is true of the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Emeco</span> Navy Chair. Designed of aluminum (steel was hard to come by) these chairs were supposed to be indestructible and affordable so that the military could deploy them all over the world. Today, a simple aluminum chair like that will set you back quite a few <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">Benjamins</span>. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">I guess what I'm trying to say is that as a Designer, you may have the best of intentions. You may want to design something affordable and cool. But if you succeed in making something cool, people will covet it and then Capitalism kicks in. Because of Capitalism, I believe it is very hard for anyone to really produce Altruistic design. Even if you do it because you have a ton of money, the work will still not get to the intended recipient.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">Let me give you a final example. Let's say a hot musical act wants to put on a show, but they want the tickets to be affordable and they don't want them to be scalped. Let's say the only way to get these tickets is to wait in line the day of the show. The band feels good about this plan because they want the real fans to be the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">beneficiaries</span> of their generous gift. Unfortunately, what would end up happening is that people would be renting themselves out to stand in line for the wealthier people who want to go but don't want to wait in line. I've seen it happen. That's Capitalism for you.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">In conclusion, I don't want to stop you from Designing the world's next needed thing. I would just like to suggest that if you truly have altruistic intentions for a design project, then perhaps you might be better off charging what the market will bear and then giving the proceeds to charity. At least then you know that the beneficiaries of your efforts will be of your own choosing. </span>

Can Design Really be Altruistic?

I once read an interview with Ayn Rand where she described "The Fountainhead" as a tale of the altruist vs. the egoist. Altruisti...

Read more »