I quite agree with your point of view. But the fault isn’t about Design.
I’ve been attending on and off the MDW for more than 20 years. What I’ve noticed is that the event has shifted into something other than design when Fashion brands entered the game, when it was essential to be at an event to have the perfect instagram picture, when the gadget offered was more important than the design displayed. Ever since its beginning the MDW (once Fuorisalone) was supposed to be democratic and open to everyone, but what was its strength has become its point of rupture.
For the first time this year I heard people attending it on a regular basis complaining. About the crowd, about the queues, about the events and their meanings.
I’m not sure there is a possible “get back to reality” step but I wish I could see more affordable design, more sustainable solutions. Design is supposed to be for everyone, that’s where our chairs come from, our tables and our coffee makers. we need to get it back for the sake of everyone!
This was my first MDW, so I don’t know if that is the case for it historically, but all I saw to me screamed 'form over function'. That is in itself inherently exclusive in nature, but I think the origins lay somewhere else than just pure profit seeking. I can’t help but see that design has now taken a dip in the same old art movement sinusoid that birthed post-modernism after modernism. Designers and design consumers are straying away from minimalism and form follows function narratives (which were somewhat always more utopian) mostly because it has been overdone. You won’t see designers following the preachings of Rhams of Papanek in Milan. It’s just too boring, it’s not fun, it’s not exciting anymore. Now the new trends are design as art, design as pure form, design as decoration. You will see explorations of new materials and mechanisms, just purely for aesthetics. And of course, the money is in following trends. It’s not a surprise to see most up and coming designers, who might not be wealthy themselves, catering to that need. Of course all of this is tied to upholding the spirit of exclusivity, luxury and class division, as it has always been the case with „beautiful” furniture in history of design. There is no form over function design for the middle and lower class, hence the state of 2026 MDW.
I respectfully disagree that there is no form over function design for middle and lower classes. Isn't it so that Ikea has too successfully democratized this concept? Ikea is a lot of different forms for very little possible functions. But I might misunderstand your take here.
Also, talking of function: life today is manageable with only a smartphone in hand. There is basically no more «function» being asked of furniture than just accommodating a body and storing clothes. Bookshelves? Dinner tables? Sofas for watching movies together? To me that's all beautiful nostalgia – mind you, there's nothing wrong with that. But it might mean that MDW, at its core, is a fair for elaborated nostalgia. That's not a verdict, just a description.
My humble take as someone who regulary wrote on design until some 14 years ago: Milan Design Week deserves neither glorification nor to be performatively «abgesnobbt». From my perspective it remains a highly productive distinction machine.
Design was never truly democratic. Bauhaus and Scandinavian design were great ideas, but the actual democratization of design happened not through manifestos, but through Ikea and Eastern European and Chinese production.
What MDW shows today is more honest than its reputation suggests: «Made in Italy» continues to assert itself as an engine of progress by producing smoothed over worlds for the wealthy, occasionally generating an idea that captures the zeitgeist so precisely that it becomes an epoch defining piece.
This is not plannable, not institutionalizable, and not democratic. Meanwhile, I see nothing wrong with queuing for the Eames House reconstruction at the Triennale. Those visitors are searching for the moment when design still believed in something. As the saying goes, life is lived forwards and understood backwards: what will be considered the defining piece of MDW 2026 in twenty years, we simply don't know today. That decision will ironically not be made by the journalists, but by the market, which creates classics through visibility — as Hannibal Lecter reminds Clarice Starling: «We covet what we see.»
That design appears more superficial and less exciting than it once did is probably connected to the visually driven homogenization of «rich people's design». Through influencing, people have become taste-makers whose sole purpose for design is the projection of wealth — and who in the best case need European design heritage as a legitimizing backdrop, driven by the pressures of their newly acquired status. Yet the authority over what constitutes a classic has always been determined by a layer of ambitious people who understand design as an expression of a progressive sensibility.
That sensibility is probably difficult to express today in progressively conceived furniture, when storage is hidden away, nobody owns books anymore, and life can be managed entirely with a smartphone in hand.
Postmodernism's anything goes has become reality. The true design competence of elites was never the perfectly coordinated room, but the sovereign mixing of epochs and deliberate stylistic contrasts. That was always the case. What's new is that hardly anyone seems to know this anymore.
Such a great analysis of the design week and it’s so unfortunate that Milan Design Week has lost it’s appeal :( I visited it in 2019 and have some great memories so it’s sad to hear this year was not that amazing!
Over on my Substack I talk all things antiques, design history, culture, and more so you might find it interesting! I'd love to connect and chat! 😊
Interesting perspective - I think I always assumed the MDW was the epicenter of high-end luxury design - and as an American maker and interior designer rooted in creating a balance between comfort, function, and beauty - it never appealed to me as a travel expense worth taking - esp. when I've gleaned more inspiration from smaller shows that promote a more simplistic 'back to basics'-type of design.
some friends presented a new series of work in London over the weekend, and the most common response ' it's so nice you're choosing to present here and not in Milan'. Milan, and arguably LDF too, excludes young designers that keep this industry interesting.
I like and agree with your take but there are halls in the fair that are dedicated or extraordinary furniture, so I don’t think Raritas was entirely out of place (but doesn’t hurt that half those spaces were given out for free - so they certainly have the budget to experiment with new sections to draw attention to the fair)
Did you make it to the fair to see it? I was curious about the production value of Raritas but I ultimately didn’t go (lazy)
I quite agree with your point of view. But the fault isn’t about Design.
I’ve been attending on and off the MDW for more than 20 years. What I’ve noticed is that the event has shifted into something other than design when Fashion brands entered the game, when it was essential to be at an event to have the perfect instagram picture, when the gadget offered was more important than the design displayed. Ever since its beginning the MDW (once Fuorisalone) was supposed to be democratic and open to everyone, but what was its strength has become its point of rupture.
For the first time this year I heard people attending it on a regular basis complaining. About the crowd, about the queues, about the events and their meanings.
I’m not sure there is a possible “get back to reality” step but I wish I could see more affordable design, more sustainable solutions. Design is supposed to be for everyone, that’s where our chairs come from, our tables and our coffee makers. we need to get it back for the sake of everyone!
This was my first MDW, so I don’t know if that is the case for it historically, but all I saw to me screamed 'form over function'. That is in itself inherently exclusive in nature, but I think the origins lay somewhere else than just pure profit seeking. I can’t help but see that design has now taken a dip in the same old art movement sinusoid that birthed post-modernism after modernism. Designers and design consumers are straying away from minimalism and form follows function narratives (which were somewhat always more utopian) mostly because it has been overdone. You won’t see designers following the preachings of Rhams of Papanek in Milan. It’s just too boring, it’s not fun, it’s not exciting anymore. Now the new trends are design as art, design as pure form, design as decoration. You will see explorations of new materials and mechanisms, just purely for aesthetics. And of course, the money is in following trends. It’s not a surprise to see most up and coming designers, who might not be wealthy themselves, catering to that need. Of course all of this is tied to upholding the spirit of exclusivity, luxury and class division, as it has always been the case with „beautiful” furniture in history of design. There is no form over function design for the middle and lower class, hence the state of 2026 MDW.
I respectfully disagree that there is no form over function design for middle and lower classes. Isn't it so that Ikea has too successfully democratized this concept? Ikea is a lot of different forms for very little possible functions. But I might misunderstand your take here.
Also, talking of function: life today is manageable with only a smartphone in hand. There is basically no more «function» being asked of furniture than just accommodating a body and storing clothes. Bookshelves? Dinner tables? Sofas for watching movies together? To me that's all beautiful nostalgia – mind you, there's nothing wrong with that. But it might mean that MDW, at its core, is a fair for elaborated nostalgia. That's not a verdict, just a description.
My humble take as someone who regulary wrote on design until some 14 years ago: Milan Design Week deserves neither glorification nor to be performatively «abgesnobbt». From my perspective it remains a highly productive distinction machine.
Design was never truly democratic. Bauhaus and Scandinavian design were great ideas, but the actual democratization of design happened not through manifestos, but through Ikea and Eastern European and Chinese production.
What MDW shows today is more honest than its reputation suggests: «Made in Italy» continues to assert itself as an engine of progress by producing smoothed over worlds for the wealthy, occasionally generating an idea that captures the zeitgeist so precisely that it becomes an epoch defining piece.
This is not plannable, not institutionalizable, and not democratic. Meanwhile, I see nothing wrong with queuing for the Eames House reconstruction at the Triennale. Those visitors are searching for the moment when design still believed in something. As the saying goes, life is lived forwards and understood backwards: what will be considered the defining piece of MDW 2026 in twenty years, we simply don't know today. That decision will ironically not be made by the journalists, but by the market, which creates classics through visibility — as Hannibal Lecter reminds Clarice Starling: «We covet what we see.»
That design appears more superficial and less exciting than it once did is probably connected to the visually driven homogenization of «rich people's design». Through influencing, people have become taste-makers whose sole purpose for design is the projection of wealth — and who in the best case need European design heritage as a legitimizing backdrop, driven by the pressures of their newly acquired status. Yet the authority over what constitutes a classic has always been determined by a layer of ambitious people who understand design as an expression of a progressive sensibility.
That sensibility is probably difficult to express today in progressively conceived furniture, when storage is hidden away, nobody owns books anymore, and life can be managed entirely with a smartphone in hand.
Postmodernism's anything goes has become reality. The true design competence of elites was never the perfectly coordinated room, but the sovereign mixing of epochs and deliberate stylistic contrasts. That was always the case. What's new is that hardly anyone seems to know this anymore.
👏
Great article brought to me via Nikki Beem.
Such a great analysis of the design week and it’s so unfortunate that Milan Design Week has lost it’s appeal :( I visited it in 2019 and have some great memories so it’s sad to hear this year was not that amazing!
Over on my Substack I talk all things antiques, design history, culture, and more so you might find it interesting! I'd love to connect and chat! 😊
Interesting perspective - I think I always assumed the MDW was the epicenter of high-end luxury design - and as an American maker and interior designer rooted in creating a balance between comfort, function, and beauty - it never appealed to me as a travel expense worth taking - esp. when I've gleaned more inspiration from smaller shows that promote a more simplistic 'back to basics'-type of design.
some friends presented a new series of work in London over the weekend, and the most common response ' it's so nice you're choosing to present here and not in Milan'. Milan, and arguably LDF too, excludes young designers that keep this industry interesting.
Couldn’t agree more. See you not next year ;).
I like and agree with your take but there are halls in the fair that are dedicated or extraordinary furniture, so I don’t think Raritas was entirely out of place (but doesn’t hurt that half those spaces were given out for free - so they certainly have the budget to experiment with new sections to draw attention to the fair)
Did you make it to the fair to see it? I was curious about the production value of Raritas but I ultimately didn’t go (lazy)