No Comments Written by Robert on June 10, 2008 – 9:46 pm

Designers have always made deliberate references to earlier styles in their work. The popularity of stylistic revivalism reached a peak during the influential Arts & Crafts movement of the nineteenth century, and a low point during the early modern (Modernity) era, when designers began rejecting these references as reactionary and sentimental.

It was not until the 1950s and 1960s that older designs were rediscovered and repopularized as stylish and potentially inspiring for designers of the new age. During these decades, the numerous reeditions of prewar modernist works demonstrated their canonization as “design classics,” and the term “retro” was used for the first time to refer to designs that deliberately referenced a particular stylistic direction from the history of design.

Nevertheless, in English-speaking countries, it remained far less common than the synonymous term “revivalist” for several decades. In the 1960s and 1970s, theorists such as Charles Jencks and Robert Venturi defined the term “retro” in such a way that made stronger parallels and distinctions between traditional and stylistic design methods for the twentieth century. In their wake, advocates of postmodernism like Alessandro Mendini and Michael Graves began to use references from earlier stylistic periods in a self-conscious and playful manner, often employing an ironic undertone, or referencing a number of different historical stylistic periods simultaneously.

Only from the 1990s onward, then, when the history of design ceased to be discussed so exclusively within the framework of postmodernism’s critique of modernism’s ahistorical outlook, did the term “retro” come to take on any real significance and traction in the world of design. These days, designers regularly draw inspiration for new works from virtually every historical design period. Examples from the world of industrial and product design include Jasper Morrison’s references to the simple wood furnishings of the 1950s, AndrØ Dubreuil’s interest in nineteenth-century metal furniture, and Karim Rashid’s use of shapes and materials from the 1960s.

Household items from the 1990s on have also attempted to evoke nostalgic associations in users by mimicking the forms and chrome and wood veneers that were so popular in the 1950s. In the automobile industry, recent examples include the redesigns of the Beetle by Volkswagon, BMW’s new Mini, and the PT Cruiser by Chrysler. Recent years have also seen an emerging trend of retro futurism, which refers to a futuristic style of the past (Futuristic Design).

The appeal of retro design can be examined in light of theoretical insights that were contributed by scholars such as VilØm Flusser, Umberto Eco, Jean Baudrillard, and Marshall McLuhan, who as early as the 1960s pointed to the significance of semantic and mythological aspects of our commodity culture. Thanks in large part to the influence of these key thinkers, the 1980s and 1990s saw a marked rise of interest in the socio-cultural implications inherent to the design of everyday objects.

Against this backdrop, particularly in industrial contexts, retro design was seen as an opportunity to charge everyday objects with historical, emotional, and cultural value through the use of nostalgia, thus ensuring unique selling propositions (USP) that distinguished them from competitors.

It is important to distinguish retro design from processes that draw from different stylistic periods and trends indiscriminately, and without an overarching point of historical reference. It should also be noted that there are numerous attempts to replicate design classics from earlier periods to look as close to the originals as possible. These designs are more aptly described as replicas (Fake), and when unauthorized, can be found in violation of copyright and intellectual property laws. Likewise, re-editions of unaltered design classics, which have become popular in recent years, are not legitimate examples of retro design because they are not appropriated into a new design but rather are simply re-issued. Redesigns, on the other hand, can sometimes be considered retro design if the original is old enough to be perceived as a historical artifact.