4 ms·

Strongly disagree with the authors choice of conflating what they call high modernism with utilitarianism or lack of interest in aesthetics. Personally this co

Strongly disagree with the authors choice of conflating what they call high modernism with utilitarianism or lack of interest in aesthetics. Personally this cozy, homely, "clay pot on the floor", pastoralism does nothing for me. I'm a big fan of industrial design and I don't think characterizing it as 'low-maintenance', even though it may be that as well, does it justice. >"Spatially, the minimalist and glossy-modernist trends have the unfortunate habit of moving toward a void" What's wrong with voids for example? One of the most interesting design choices that I came across recently were the designs in Denis Villeneuve's Dune that he made for the interiors. Very empty, but also very awe inspiring.

vinceguidry 5y ago
I welcomed and enjoyed the author's deconstruction of the painting, but it almost seemed orthogonal to the point they were making. A near-complete tangent, heh.
- coldtea 5y ago
  I dunno, it sounded very clearly connected with the topic, and an illustration of the topic with a concrete example. Perhaps you wanted an abstract presentation of the point instead?
  - vinceguidry 5y ago
    It was pretty far from concrete. I followed the logic just fine when I was reading it myself, but seeing parent's reaction made me realize just how abstractly connected to the thesis it was.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
I think the question is not really about avoiding voids (no pun intended), but what role they would/should/could play within residential spaces. Do we want the interior (or the exterior) of our homes to be very awe inspiring? Obviously, there's more than one answer to that question.
slibhb 5y ago
I agree with you that it's not about utilitarianism or lack of interest in aesthetics. Kim Kardashian's home is an extreme example (google it) and she was clearly concerned with aesthetics when making decisions about how to decorate. However I don't think the opposite of the "industrial design" that you appreciate is "pastoralism" (the images in the article are, but they're also ugly). The opposite is hard to describe but the French do it well. Hannah Arendt: > Modern enchantment with "small things," though preached by early twentieth-century poetry in almost all European tongues, has found its classical presentation in the petit bonheur of the French people. Since the decay of their once great and glorious public realm, the French have become masters in the art of being happy among "small things," within the space of their own four walls, between chest and bed, table and chair, dog and cat and flowerpot, extending to these things a care and tenderness which, in a world where rapid industrialization constantly kills off the things of yesterday to produce today's objects, may even appear to be the world's last, purely humane corner.
- oneoff786 5y ago
  KK’s house is basically a tv show set, no? Not sure it counts for anything.
coldtea 5y ago
It's not the "lack of interest in aesthetics" the problem in high modernism, and the author doesn't say so. It's a lack of interest in lived/organic/patina/messy-because-of-life aesthetics, and a tendency towards pure/empty/conceptual aesthetics. >Personally this cozy, homely, "clay pot on the floor", pastoralism does nothing for me. Well, that's a choice. And like any choice, there are tradeoffs, and ways of thinking and cultural consequences that are associated with it (not just regarging messy vs clean-looking kitchens). >What's wrong with voids for example? It's sterile and clinical.
- karmakaze 5y ago
  Not necessarily, e.g. non-synthetic zen sparseness.
- dkarl 5y ago
  > It's a lack of interest in lived/organic/patina/messy-because-of-life aesthetics, and a tendency towards pure/empty/conceptual aesthetics. I think he's cheating, then, by comparing a real estate listing with his own lived-in home. Modern architecture and design spaces are just as conducive to lived-in-ness, when people actually live in them. You can hang art on the wall and accumulate whatever decorative touches and knick-knacks appeal to you or carry sentimental value. Wanting the architecture and built interior design of a home to reflect the personal life and "mystery" of its inhabitants is classist as well, because only a limited number of people can afford professional architecture and design services to customize a home to reflect their personality. Most people customize a home themselves, via their own decoration, furniture, books, and other cherished objects. In fact it seems bizarrely oppressive to assume that the professional designers of a domestic space need to stock a home with life before it is inhabited, as if the people moving in will otherwise suffer a deficiency of it. Whose life do you expect to see in an uninhabited house? What kind of Frankenstein's monster version of life do we expect the expert professionals to synthesize in their modeling programs, to create the illusion of a space being shaped by a living presence that has never been there? Producing brand-new spaces that have the same aesthetic as lived-in spaces strikes me as something the machines will do after we are gone, manufacturing houses and adding childish crayon scribbles inside because there are no real children left to draw on the walls.

vinceguidry 5y ago

I welcomed and enjoyed the author's deconstruction of the painting, but it almost seemed orthogonal to the point they were making. A near-complete tangent, heh.

coldtea 5y ago
I dunno, it sounded very clearly connected with the topic, and an illustration of the topic with a concrete example. Perhaps you wanted an abstract presentation of the point instead?
- vinceguidry 5y ago
  It was pretty far from concrete. I followed the logic just fine when I was reading it myself, but seeing parent's reaction made me realize just how abstractly connected to the thesis it was.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

I think the question is not really about avoiding voids (no pun intended), but what role they would/should/could play within residential spaces. Do we want the interior (or the exterior) of our homes to be very awe inspiring? Obviously, there's more than one answer to that question.

slibhb 5y ago

I agree with you that it's not about utilitarianism or lack of interest in aesthetics. Kim Kardashian's home is an extreme example (google it) and she was clearly concerned with aesthetics when making decisions about how to decorate. However I don't think the opposite of the "industrial design" that you appreciate is "pastoralism" (the images in the article are, but they're also ugly). The opposite is hard to describe but the French do it well. Hannah Arendt: > Modern enchantment with "small things," though preached by early twentieth-century poetry in almost all European tongues, has found its classical presentation in the petit bonheur of the French people. Since the decay of their once great and glorious public realm, the French have become masters in the art of being happy among "small things," within the space of their own four walls, between chest and bed, table and chair, dog and cat and flowerpot, extending to these things a care and tenderness which, in a world where rapid industrialization constantly kills off the things of yesterday to produce today's objects, may even appear to be the world's last, purely humane corner.

oneoff786 5y ago
KK’s house is basically a tv show set, no? Not sure it counts for anything.

coldtea 5y ago

It's not the "lack of interest in aesthetics" the problem in high modernism, and the author doesn't say so. It's a lack of interest in lived/organic/patina/messy-because-of-life aesthetics, and a tendency towards pure/empty/conceptual aesthetics. >Personally this cozy, homely, "clay pot on the floor", pastoralism does nothing for me. Well, that's a choice. And like any choice, there are tradeoffs, and ways of thinking and cultural consequences that are associated with it (not just regarging messy vs clean-looking kitchens). >What's wrong with voids for example? It's sterile and clinical.

karmakaze 5y ago
Not necessarily, e.g. non-synthetic zen sparseness.
dkarl 5y ago
> It's a lack of interest in lived/organic/patina/messy-because-of-life aesthetics, and a tendency towards pure/empty/conceptual aesthetics. I think he's cheating, then, by comparing a real estate listing with his own lived-in home. Modern architecture and design spaces are just as conducive to lived-in-ness, when people actually live in them. You can hang art on the wall and accumulate whatever decorative touches and knick-knacks appeal to you or carry sentimental value. Wanting the architecture and built interior design of a home to reflect the personal life and "mystery" of its inhabitants is classist as well, because only a limited number of people can afford professional architecture and design services to customize a home to reflect their personality. Most people customize a home themselves, via their own decoration, furniture, books, and other cherished objects. In fact it seems bizarrely oppressive to assume that the professional designers of a domestic space need to stock a home with life before it is inhabited, as if the people moving in will otherwise suffer a deficiency of it. Whose life do you expect to see in an uninhabited house? What kind of Frankenstein's monster version of life do we expect the expert professionals to synthesize in their modeling programs, to create the illusion of a space being shaped by a living presence that has never been there? Producing brand-new spaces that have the same aesthetic as lived-in spaces strikes me as something the machines will do after we are gone, manufacturing houses and adding childish crayon scribbles inside because there are no real children left to draw on the walls.