As do I, rasta487!

They need funding for a tripod, clearly….

I think he thinks about good design on a much deeper level and sees good design as being so refined both visually and conceptually, that it doesn't need to lean on current (or past) trends. I think it's much more difficult to create something to succeeds in this way, so a lot of work ends up being, as you said, bland or lifeless. Those, I don't think are the success stories. I think of designs like his American Airlines logo, the Chermayeff/Geismar NBC Logo and others like those and to me, those are elegant, classy and timeless. It's sort of the highest level of design, that it's just untouchable. Design perfection imo. But I see your points as well and think period specific design has it's place and is fun too, but doesn't always work for branding purposes.

It's easy to confuse process with outcome. And it's easy to look at the form of the outcome and judge design on that. To me design is a process that is good or bad depending on the awareness of the designer on the consequences the product of design will have on the world. Style and trends can be interesting as anthropology and cultural documents but if it's an exercise on form - what is the point in that? If it looks silly 10 years from now and no one will want it later it's not really design. You are wasting valuable resources of the planet on creating more garbage that will end up poisoning the grounds or on the belly of a fish.

timeless has no style

@@h_alves But if you look at design that is defined as "timeless" it's really not. Le Corbusier, Saul Bass, Paul Rand, Verner Panton etc. I can spot that aesthetics and clearly place them where they belong in history. That's why we have design languages closely connected to time and style types. They are not timeless but representatives for a defined time period. Cubism, modernism, Dada, De Stijl, functionalism etc. Each of these style periods are attached to time and they had a lifespan. The 80's, the 70's, the 90's also had design languages. So in essence although something is stripped and reduced to a bare minimum, like a watch from Max Bill, its still connected to a time period (no pun intended) as it is a design language. It's not de-attached from that. That's why I often hear stuff like "oh they used to build such wonderful buildings in the 30's." Time is reference. Nothing is timeless. We only have aesthetics and personal preference. Today we make stuff for mass consumption. Used today and in the garbage bin tomorrow. Time moves on. Personally I prefer design with a great deal of longevity, such as the corporate identity program that Massimo made for American Airlines in the 50's, it could still work but it's in the human expression to wanna change it. AA changed it just because they wanted change, they probably thought it was obsolete just because it was unchanged for so long. They never identified that as a strength but a problem. That's sad but true. I also agree with Massimo when he criticizes the expression "modern". What is modern? everyone uses that word and most of them say it to define that something is NEW. Many times they point at a replica product that was originally drawn in 1932 and say "oh that is so modern" , meaning contemporary, when it's all but that. On the contrary most peoples perception of modern is old without them knowing it funny enough:)