I think 6ix makes a good point, if the avant garde stuff is what the general public and corporate people think of when they think of “great design”(becasue thats what is promoted in the media, basically stuff that doesn’t sell lots of units) then you end up fighting this perception of what “great design” actually means. It seems like pitching great design to corporate is like the boogeyman, they are so quick to equate it to spending more money - either on R+D or materials, manufacturing processes, which in turn only produces products that are less accessible for the common person (Starck’s lemon squeezer anyone?) i.e. loss of revenue by not spanning more of the mass market. i think classic business/corporate culture, when you boil it down, really believes that “less interesting” equates to higher revenue, and its a very difficult perspective to change.