Why a Culture of Design in France
Never Took Off
Stéphane Laurent
At the Centre Georges Pompidou, the main French contemporary
art center and museum located in Paris, one of the last outstand-
ing exhibitions related to design was devoted to Patrick Jouin, a
contemporary French designer. Everyone feels free to express their
mood and their opinion about such exhibitions, and they usual y
enjoy doing so, dropping a comment on a specific book near the
exit. Although using these comments in an article of this sort
might seem inappropriate, my experience and viewing distance as
a design historian al ows me to examine an event of this type to
deal with the question of design culture in France. Here, “Design
Versus Design” and “Tiffany” were recently displayed at the
Grand Palais and at the Musée du Luxembourg, respectively—the
most recent significant shows on design in Paris. More widely,
these exhibits offer an opportunity to practice a critical analysis of
the situation in France—resulting in both a negative assessment,
as well as an understanding of some of the reasons for significant
delays vis-à-vis other countries (especial y from Northern Europe)
and for some of the malfunctions in the cultural dissemination of
design in France.
The Fundamental Issue?
Can a basic or fundamental problem be identified? For 20 years,
England (primarily because of the Victoria and Albert Museum),
Germany (through the Vitra museum at Wahl-am-Rhein), the
Scandinavian countries (e.g., Finland) and the United States
(through the Metropolitan Museum of Art, MoMA, the Cooper-
Hewitt Museum, and the Bard Graduate Center in New York)
developed leading programs of exhibitions on design and deco-
rative arts. Such development was based on the desire to give
the general public a substantial knowledge of these areas, and to
achieve the same quality of display as the major exhibitions on
art general y seen at the Grand Palais, the Louvre, Musee d’Orsay,
and Pompidou Centre, or at the National Gal ery in London or in
Washington. To achieve this goal, each institution relied on exten-
sive research, both from a scientific point of view and from the
museum’s own experience and achievements.
© 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
72
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 2 Spring 2012
Meanwhile, what was happening in France? Except for some
specialized exhibitions here and there (e.g., at the Musee d’Orsay
in small rooms, at the Gal iera museum for fashion only, and at
the museum of Decorative Arts), often without substantial cata-
logues, France has been quite removed from such an outcome. In
fact, in France we are still eager to explain design, while our neigh-
bors are exploring and developing all of its refined and elaborated
facets. To il ustrate, the intention for the exhibition on Patrick Jouin
was to demonstrate to the public what industrial design is, using
the personal itinerary of the creator; in 2008, the exhibition titled
“Design Versus Design” at the Grand Palais (which we discuss
in detail later) aimed to provide a panorama of creative furni-
ture; final y, at the Musée du Luxembourg in 2010, one could find
only a poor presentation on Tiffany, despite the various informa-
tive and consistent aspects that might have been explored in the
work of the famous glass designer and entrepreneur. Furthermore,
when considering the situation over a quite longer period, the
state of affairs becomes even more alarming: It gives the strange
impression that design remains at the same place or, even worse,
regresses in terms of the education of the public about the decora-
tive arts/design; the consequences, then, affect the development of
design itself.
Despite the opportunities available from having exceptional
structures of diffusion, including the Centre Georges Pompidou
and the Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais or the Musée du
Luxembourg, many opportunities for forward progress have
been lost. In 1993, “Design, Mirror of the Century,” hastily orga-
nized, showed the paradox of, on the one hand, a strong publica-
tion through the catalog and, on the other hand, of a puzzled and
puzzling display of the objects during the show. Exhibitions on
the decorative arts have included the following: “A Golden Age
of the Decorative Arts, 1814-1848” in 1994; in 2000, the exhibition
“1900,” which was a very confused exhibition on the Art Nouveau,
compared to its equivalent in London at the same time; and finally,
in 2002, “A Time of Exuberance—the decorative arts under Louis
XIII,” which was limited to the connoisseurs of the seventeenth
century decorative arts.
The Art/Design Divide from the 1950s
Different explanations help to shed light on the reasons for such
failures. First, we still suffer from the academic complex that
divides major arts and minor arts and that always (alas!) gives
priority to the former over the latter. Indeed, exhibitions on art
are still highly visual, while design is part of a technical culture—
more austere, less able to distract the public. Second, education on
the history of design and decorative arts in France is still embry-
onic, including the education provided in design schools. Such
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 2 Spring 2012
73
teaching rarely involves scholars, rather discredited in France;
meanwhile in China, for example, because of the long tradition
of the mandarins, design scholars are routinely invited to reveal
their point of view, which is considered to be “the most neutral
and the most expert.” Design schools and professionals in France
prefer social sciences readings, which tend to be generated under a
theory combining—loosely (and uninterestingly)—aesthetic, phil-
osophical, semiotic, psychological, and sociological verbage, often
based on outdated publications.
For a time though (between 1850 and 1950), the public along
with the designers (named then “industrial artists” and afterward
“decorateurs”) were familiar with the styles (we would speak today
about a history of objects). Such familiarity was a result of the fierce
activism of the creators of objects, supported by journalists, writ-
ers, and culture officials—none of whom could tolerate anymore
the disdainful and persistent academic gap that penalized the deco-
rative arts, despite the increasing presence of objects in the every-
day environment. (Also from this age was invented the expression
“decorative arts” as a counterpart to “fine arts.”) This span of
decades was the time of historicism, Art Nouveau, and finally Art
Deco. Unfortunately, in the 1960s, the designers—new players in
the decorative arts field—expressed an absolute desire for moder-
nity. They found it convenient to denigrate a knowledge of styles,
connected to the domain of the “decorateurs” from the previous
generation, instead of taking advantage of the advertising offered
by their elders. Thus, design culture had to start over, exactly as if
the century of promotional efforts had been useless.
One evidence of this failure to thrive can be found in the
absence of a literature dedicated to design or decorative arts;
the production of such literature has significantly decreased in
terms of the number of new issues, compared to the wide range of
publications on styles and decoration at the beginning of the twen-
tieth century. Now, a strong concentration of survey books simply
introduces design for the education of the public, but very few
books specialize on the topic and stress questions from the field. In
addition, very few periodicals specialize in design, and none focus
on research.
As a result, the old but persistent academic system had an
easy time taking over, in a country where the overwhelming pres-
ence of the fine arts contributes to their cultural domination. In
such conditions, we understand better why significant exhibits on
design or decorative arts in France still provide some definitions,
often emphasizing the scenography, as in the Starck and Ron Arad
shows, to attract the public. Such an impressive display, although
more or less successful, sometimes appears to hide the poverty of
the content or of the curator’s capacity to reflect on the content.
Meanwhile, in the other countries mentioned, the motivation for
and recognition of the technical culture and the lack of such a great
74
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 2 Spring 2012
heritage in painting generate a wider interest in the design and
decorative arts from the public. Objects seduce and stimulate the
intellect, without any need to use subterfuge.
This situation is precisely the one that faced nineteenth-
century France, as northern nations already were motivated to
focus more on the production of everyday objects. And just as in
the nineteenth century, one can find in France, since the 1980s, the
paradox of both a successful breakthrough in industrial design
(including at an international level interior decor, car design,
animation graphics, and stars such as Philippe Starck)—which
nevertheless suffers from a poor understanding—and a difficulty
with institutional and academic representativeness.
However, this weakness or difficulty is not only a cultural
problem; it also has important implications for the design devel-
opment actors, who remain mostly unknown to the general public
and whose interest and taste for design are not much encouraged.
Economic issues inevitably follow: a tight market in home furni-
ture design, whose customers belong to an upper-class elite; some
risk of market losses because of the difficulty in promoting French
products internationally (with the exception of the luxury sector,
which appears to be the mirror of France abroad since the end of
the seventeenth century); and an underdeveloped infrastructure
for the preservation and the culture of design, which deprives the
sectors of tourism and communication of possible job opportuni-
ties and incomes (with the exception of some initiatives, such as
the Saint-Etienne cluster and its City of Design, the Lace Museum
in Calais (northern France), and the museum of Decorative Arts
in Paris). Because the richness of this heritage is vast and encom-
passes techniques as different as the arts of ceramic and glass; of
wood, textiles, and paper; of metal; and of plastic—and this since
the Middle Ages—it largely surpasses the potential of the fine arts
in terms of the numbers of artifacts, expressions of creativity, and
implications for the economic and industrial worlds.
More insidiously, we can see that, in place of weaker institu-
tions, the art market now controls the heritage of decorative arts
and design. To understand, we can recognize their recent acknowl-
edgment by collectors and dealers, which has caused the objects of
designers and decorators of the twentieth century to reach record
prices in auctions, including recent works from the art-design
creators. (A table conceived in the 1980s was sold for 111,000 euros
[U.S. $148,144 approximately] by the French auctioneer, Tajan.)
Such success highlights the exclusive interest in decorative arts and
furniture, to the detriment of design in general and industrialized
objects in particular.
This latter tendency to disregard design has apparently
been targeted for correction by the exhibit at the Centre Georges
Pompidou on Patrick Jouin—in a new but very unequal confronta-
tion between the Ancients and the Moderns. Somehow, those who
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 2 Spring 2012
75
planned the exhibit stood up against the cultural deficit of exhi-
bitions on the subject served up by the Grand Palais blockbuster
shows machine, and worked particularly to remedy the failures of
“Design Versus Design,” which missed the opportunity—ten years
after the failure of “Design: Mirror of the Century”—to offer the
public a comprehensive, fair, and exciting view on design. Such an
overview would indeed have succeeded in leading the way toward
a salutary deepening of understanding and appreciation. However,
the public can only be confused when it has been presented design
on the one hand as an impressive gallery of amazing and rare items
(the operating principle of a collector’s collection) and on the other
hand as a panorama everyday life imbued with an almost anony-
mous beauty (the operating principle of industrial design).
Looking for Links and Continuity
Can we, in fact, identify any continuity or links between the two
fields? Fol owing the show on Charlotte Perriand, we can indeed
praise a wonderful initiative that emanates from the Ministry of
Culture that is the Centre Georges Pompidou and that intends to
revive the exhibitions of the former Centre de Creation Industriel e
(Industrial Creation Centre) and, in doing so, to sort out the design
of its incestuous marriage with the art market. We do so despite
the fact that the ministry’s head office has consistently promoted
art-design through acquisitions of the FRAC (Fonds Regional d’Art
Contemporain), and even through the Design creators granted and
hosted by the prestigious Vil a Medici in Rome. This effort is also
a way to release design from its usual subservience to the services
of architecture observable in many institutions, by al owing it to
claim its own legitimacy, based on complex and specific questions
(similar to the Anglo-Saxon expression of design). If we could
include items in styles determined by their context, talk of the “art
of furniture” to mean “decorative arts,” underline the connection
between house furniture and house construction with the idea that
their common technical concern took them away from the visual
arts, at the time of the industrial object such a subjection no longer
makes sense.
In Japan, one can see a great number of events related to
design that meet with great public success. In addition to tempo-
rary exhibits organized and displayed in museums, the public
discovers design through conferences, festivals, or open house
days in companies like Sony or the national television channel,
NHK. In addition, a significant number of journals targeting a
substantial audience specialize in design (e.g., Axis and Design
Research). These magazines present not just new products but also
the design process, including its research aspect. (Readers can learn
about semantic mappings and results of consumption tests.) These
76
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 2 Spring 2012
journals have no counterpart in France. However, such ways of
communicating are complementary to and constitute a complete
pedagogical framework.
The inefficiency of the system in France and the lack of
dialogue between historians and curators led to some caricatured
situations that illustrate a disconnect between France and the
advanced results elsewhere in design historical presentations. In
2005, for example, the Centre Georges Pompidou and the Musée
des Arts Décoratifs refused to loan some pieces of their collection
for an exhibition on Art Deco at the Victoria and Albert Museum,
co-organized by Tim and Charlotte Benton and Ghislaine Wood—
two scholars and a curator. Despite the display of artwork from
Picasso, Leger, Brancusi, and Van Doesburg, the Centre Georges
Pompidou nevertheless decided that such a topic was connected
to decorative arts, and the decision makers displayed the same
disdain designers have toward the decorateurs from the 1960s.
Meanwhile, the exhibition was a tremendous success, receiv-
ing a Business Prize because so many visitors crossed the Channel
on the Eurostar high-speed train to discover it! The catalogue
is stil considered a valuable reference and has been reprinted
four times in its English version. Such interest among the French
public demonstrates the possibility of a maturing appreciation for
more specialized shows on the history of design. (The exhibition
on Patrick Jouin was also a great success, with 377,000 visitors,
although how that number is split between foreign tourists and
nationals is difficult to say.)
The events that followed at the Victoria and Albert Museum
on other periods, such as Modernism, Post-War Modernism, the
1960s, and the 1950s, also have attracted an international (includ-
ing French) audience. France was the birthplace of Art Deco, and
its contribution to the movement was quite significant. Why, then,
did such a successful exhibition on Art Deco get organized abroad?
France undoubtedly has a long way to go to discover a coherent
presentation of design for the general public, as well as to meet
international standards for achieving outstanding promotion and
development of our cultural domain.
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 2 Spring 2012
77