I just finished reading Virginia Postrel's “Substance of Style” which my (ever vigilant and savvy) Mom gave me as a gift. It's a great book. It's short, it's focused, it has some great ideas in it, and the ideas are presented with enough backing that it can be the start of a discussion, rather than handwaving.
One of the most valuable points it makes is that humans need decoration as much as utility, that “form follows function” denies a basic human desire to have things be esthetically pleasing, that esthetics is fundamental to how we judge the quality of experience.
This statement resonates with me on a bunch of levels, and with a number of ideas I've been exposed to lately:
let the products sell themselvesAnd all respect to D.Boon, but he was wrong. Admirably idealistic, but wrong. Which brings me to the next idea,
fuck advertising and commercial psychology
psychological methods to sell should be destroyed
because of their own blind involvement
in their own conditioned closed minds
the unit bonded together
morals
ideals
awareness
progress
let yourself be heard
Critics of ornament have aimed some of their sharpest attacks at bodily decoration—at all the ways in which individuals create “false” selves and at the temptation to judge people by their appearance.We are creatures of first impressions, surface judgments and sensual experience. In a world of teeming with information this becomes especially important, since we have less time to evaluate beyond the surface. Pretending that we can see the essence of things is one way to help us filter through the deluge in the short term, but it denies how we actually work. Moreover, since we relate to objects anthropomorphically, I believe that all of these ideas also apply to our relationship to objects. As Postrel puts it: I like that. I'm like that.
form follows fashionEven in the design of paperclips.
some sidedishes:
- "One of the most valuable points it makes is that humans need decoration as much as utility, that “form follows function” denies a basic human desire to have things be esthetically pleasing, that esthetics is fundamental to how we judge the quality of experience."
Adolf Loos, and his book Ornament and Crime (1906). In a very strong display of reasons, the architect states (among other things) that ornament is not intrinsec to design, therefore aesthetics of design do not relate to ornament inclusively. A design oeuvre can be aesthetically independent of decoration, being ornament an evil since "it forces craftsmen to do unnecessary work and thus deprives them of initiative, or which contributes to the shortening of the useful life of ordinary items by creating ever changing fashions"[1].
"while finished goods today may not appear to have excessive ornamentation, products with new functions are constantly being designed, and it has become possible to manufacture infinite variations of similar items"[2].
( [1][2] http://www.jidpo.or.jp/index-e.html )
- can it be argued that it can be blamed on the industrial production of objects and the technological improvements leading to the situation quoted above[2]?
- can it be argued that also to blame is the advertisement industry, and the new product necessity?
( html version http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:5kmJVmeg4DIJ:www.prsresearch.com/Articles/increasing%2520the%2520likelihood%2520of%2520new%2520product%2520success.doc+%22new+product%22+necessity&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 )
( document http://www.prsresearch.com/Articles/increasing%20the%20likelihood%20of%20new%20product%20success.doc )
i am really asking...
nice site
Posted by: betting online at December 14, 2003 09:02 PMHello folks nice blog youre running
Posted by: lolita at January 19, 2005 04:38 PM