| How meaning is articulated, suggested, or suppressed in transition processes is an inherently social phenomenon. The history of theorising about ornament bears evidence to this as much as do current practices. From myths to 'mere ornament'---various signifying practices (and forms of life within which they take place) determine how meaning changes. People will perceive such change differently, and under certain conditions, change is conceived of as loss.;This thesis explores issues pertaining to meaning and ornament in epistemology, philosophy, sociology, semiotics, aesthetics and psychoanalysis. Theoretical discussion is combined with empirical research to elaborate connections with signifying practices: the use of ornament in the life-worlds of users; in public buildings, advertising, marketing, and politics; in bicultural relationships involving appropriation or misappropriation; and in design education in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Theories and practices taken together shed light on struggles with ornamental meaning in the past and in the present.;Multiplicities of signifying practices are still ignored in theoretical discourses privileging some forms at the expense of others. Because of their separation from the forms of life of ornamental practice, they fail to grasp issues that are important to non-theorists. While most participants in the empirical research like ornament, mainstream New Zealand traditions of ornament are perceived as having suffered the same historical rupture as others in the West. Many still perceive of ornamentation as 'typically Maori' (or 'primitive') even while they are nostalgically consuming it.;Attempts to explain bicultural practices of appropriation without reference to the history of colonisation and present power configurations must fail. Whether or not a cultural image retains or loses its meaning depends on factors such as knowledge, understanding, relationality and co-operation. If culture is treated as raw material---as it is by the culture industries---cultural elements are subjected to rules inherent in marketing and capitalist economies and their meaning is deliberately changed. Designers and other cultural intermediaries, who ought to be able to deal competently with these issues, receive nothing in their education to prepare them for the ornamental strategies and tactics of their future clients. The academic environment is still largely determined by modernist agendas, and ornament---as a topic and as practice---continues to be repressed. But the separation between theory and life-worlds must be challenged along with culturally arrogant distance maintained by members of dominant cultures towards those of others. Conversations must begin that take differences seriously and explore them in a spirit of genuine partnership. |
