i'm not sure there's any other place in the world where some portion of the citizenry would consider the notion of 'branding' national identity.

there's a picture in that, no pun.

'design is not art'

i take your meaning to be that since design is typically client-driven, there's not enough creative control to 'raise' design to the level of art. i interpret art broadly to include any conscious activity the alters the thinking or behavior of someone else, even briefly. art is the intention to create an effect, to draw out an affect. it's my belief that if we behave consciously we are changing the world in some way, and that's artistic. semantics, but on the level of individual initiative it means a lot. it also brings art to a very democratic level and allows anyone to be artistic in any aspect of his life he chooses.

design today in amerika is often characterized by a thin nationalism. the most appalling example i can think of is the donnybrook planning that continues to swirl around the WTC site. politics playing hard into the realm of aesthetics -- bad move, art as propaganda. under my broad definition it's still art, albeit with little conscious intent beyond crass manipulation.

come to think of it, we're quite artistic in our politics . . . chiefly due to the level and proficiency of the marketing involved.

new york doesn't have to work at defining a cultural identity since so much is done for the city in television and film. this place has always been iconic and very visual and it makes no difference at all whether the images presented are positive or negative -- it all remains compelling and distinctly 'branded'. there's no such thing as bad publicity, as they are fond of repeating.

the olympic bid stands as one exception -- 'cept that was chiefly Bloomberg trying to run a real estate development scheme through in the fashion of a trojan horse. they knew they had little or no chance at the summer olympics, but thought it worth a couple hundred million in city funds to see if they could run a stadium or two through in the meantime. more political marketing.

italian design is a world unto itself. it answers to no one save the avatar of the moment, and if you don't find yourself on top of the pile you mimic slavishly. the product, whether cars or shoes, becomes the worldwide spectator sport of design. few people can actually afford the shit until it percolates down to the level of knockoff.

amerika and italy represent the two ends of the spectrum: yanks are branded according to the needs of their politicians, and we might as well get those bar codes tattooed on our foreheads finally. italian branding falls outside government diktat, but defines national identity with the understanding that italians can always claim a national style of some certain sort. it's said that the italian military can't campaign for shit but they look great.

the romans? they took greek notions of aesthetics and ran widely with them, but fatted it up to the point of debauchery and then got eaten alive by a pile of hungry barbarians who were a hell of a lot more concerned with breakfast than national identity or image. a mess of sharp centurions will not get too far in the face of naked hunger and need -- cf. iraq.

nice post, DT. sorry about this trashy run-through, but i tried to put it in three times and i'm frustrated.