3 ms·
> I think you maybe seeing things from a capitalist perspective. The argument is that marketing has made cities more intensely colored. Its not a value judgeme
by nologic01 3y ago
> I think you maybe seeing things from a capitalist perspective.
The argument is that marketing has made cities more intensely colored. Its not a value judgement (maybe calm natural colors are better for the soul).
It is also not a universal rule, there are places here and there that have a tradition of painting, e.g., house exteriors in intense colors (these days they are invariably tourist attractions - precisely because they are exceptions).
> For example west African counties have always used bright colors in fabric due to culture
Red appears in these photos in clothing context so not sure what this (dis)proves. Sourcing dyes for clothing has been a global trade mainstay from the earliest days of human civilization.
- true_religion 3y agoAt least some of those buildings are houses. Do you think what color homes are painted has more to do with marketing or culture and geography? How about the clothing choices. I see a lot of grey. Do you think that’s an unconscious choice due to lack of marketing for bright clothes? The red in clothing does stand out, but as other posters and the article say: red was closely associated with the communist party so using it is a political statement of solidarity, not a free fashion choice. Marketing may have an effect on making western cities more catching than they otherwise would be, but communist era Russia isn’t a good example of what that would look like. Due to other constraints (e.g. government control of factories and design industry) people were not really given free expression. This is an economic factor forcing an aesthetic. Similarly, if you live next to a quarry, you’ll have a lot of polished marble buildings in your town. This isn’t because you love white marble, but because it’s far cheaper than trees to you.