5 ms·

Isn't kind of weird that what is considered good aesthetic is removal of (visual) features? Why is that considered good looking? If you take it to its extreme

Isn't kind of weird that what is considered good aesthetic is removal of (visual) features? Why is that considered good looking? If you take it to its extreme conclusion, the best environment to live in from an aesthetic perspective would be a big white box with each side being made up of a material that changes its hardness based on what you want to do (lie down to sleep and becomes soft, walk on it, becomes hard, sit on a corner and becomes slightly soft on the floor with very soft walls) and all your communication and entertainment is done via floating images that materialize at a comfortable distance from your face so you can talk with your peers, watch videos, holograms and whatever else. Getting outside would have a part of the wall disintegrate (we'd call that a door, for historical reasons), although "outside" would now just be an aesthetically pleasing sea of white featureless cubes.

checkyoursudo 9y ago
I would live in that (Ikea?) house in a heartbeat, though not your white-featureless-cube dystopian horror outside. My ideal house has almost nothing in it. For some, aesthetic is certainly greeblies[0], but I think minimalism is widely accepted as one aesthetic ideal. Why? Why does anyone prefer anything? I'm not sure we exactly know yet, from an art/design/aesthetic perspective. Edit: OTOH, I am pretty sure my dad's mother preferred a mass of junk and clutter and mess in her house, to make it feel alive. [0]https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=greeblies https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=greeblies
Jtsummers 9y ago
The removal of visual features may make some things more aesthetically appealing, but it also allows the objects to be more easily fit into your particular preferences. As an example, I have a digital photo frame. It has a large bezel that's silver/grey with black trim. It does not fit well on my desk. I have a minimalist style in my home. Removing that bezel would allow the object to sit on my desk and actually look like it belonged. On the other hand, my girlfriend's home has a beach/Caribbean thing going on. Most of her photos and art are in wood frames (with an unfinished look). The bezel on this digital frame makes putting it inside a wooden frame of that sort difficult (it would need to be too large, or strategically positioned so you didn't realize it was just a façade). Reducing the bezel, for her, would allow the frame to be placed inside of a wooden frame that fit her styling much better. The object would not stand out, it would blend into the environment. My view: A minimalist aesthetic for objects is not desirable because the minimalist aesthetic is desirable. It is desirable because objects of this form are more easily placed inside any environment. An object with an opinionated appearance will stand out unless it fits the rest of your possessions. This may or may not be desirable. But it should be up to the owner of the object whether attention is drawn to it, not up to the creators of the object. EDIT: Fixed a word or two. This was my 3rd write-up of this because they kept disappearing so I wrote it rather hastily.
_jal 9y ago
There are a lot of cliches in design about this. "Take things away until you cry." "Perfection is achieved when there is nothing left to take away." The point is not minimalism for the sake of minimalism, and not always to be aesthetically pleasing (although with cell phones, it is). The point is to find where form meets function, to make something with no superfluous elements.

checkyoursudo 9y ago

I would live in that (Ikea?) house in a heartbeat, though not your white-featureless-cube dystopian horror outside. My ideal house has almost nothing in it. For some, aesthetic is certainly greeblies[0], but I think minimalism is widely accepted as one aesthetic ideal. Why? Why does anyone prefer anything? I'm not sure we exactly know yet, from an art/design/aesthetic perspective. Edit: OTOH, I am pretty sure my dad's mother preferred a mass of junk and clutter and mess in her house, to make it feel alive. [0]https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=greeblies https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=greeblies

Jtsummers 9y ago

The removal of visual features may make some things more aesthetically appealing, but it also allows the objects to be more easily fit into your particular preferences. As an example, I have a digital photo frame. It has a large bezel that's silver/grey with black trim. It does not fit well on my desk. I have a minimalist style in my home. Removing that bezel would allow the object to sit on my desk and actually look like it belonged. On the other hand, my girlfriend's home has a beach/Caribbean thing going on. Most of her photos and art are in wood frames (with an unfinished look). The bezel on this digital frame makes putting it inside a wooden frame of that sort difficult (it would need to be too large, or strategically positioned so you didn't realize it was just a façade). Reducing the bezel, for her, would allow the frame to be placed inside of a wooden frame that fit her styling much better. The object would not stand out, it would blend into the environment. My view: A minimalist aesthetic for objects is not desirable because the minimalist aesthetic is desirable. It is desirable because objects of this form are more easily placed inside any environment. An object with an opinionated appearance will stand out unless it fits the rest of your possessions. This may or may not be desirable. But it should be up to the owner of the object whether attention is drawn to it, not up to the creators of the object. EDIT: Fixed a word or two. This was my 3rd write-up of this because they kept disappearing so I wrote it rather hastily.

_jal 9y ago

There are a lot of cliches in design about this. "Take things away until you cry." "Perfection is achieved when there is nothing left to take away." The point is not minimalism for the sake of minimalism, and not always to be aesthetically pleasing (although with cell phones, it is). The point is to find where form meets function, to make something with no superfluous elements.