4 ms·

My reading of the article was that the defence for why there aren’t more intricate details is because people think it’s more expensive due to complexity of prod

My reading of the article was that the defence for why there aren’t more intricate details is because people think it’s more expensive due to complexity of production. He then went on to broadly say that shouldn’t be the case due to scale economy etc. He actually also did mention that some things are simple yet still ugly. The patterned china case though was precisely for arguing the more complex manufactured piece product being cheap AF. I don’t think the author claimed it was bad to prefer simple, just that lots of public goods stuff are boring looking these days. I feel that way about a lot of concrete I see. I would push back on “single most mainstream”. These decisions are not made by some voting mechanism. Many times it’s a local optima of loud complainers and opinionated decision makers. The most mainstream people actually can’t be bothered by most things, but would appreciate (IMHO) some intrigue from time to time. Another related thing: HGTV disease. Where the house is all white everything…which I have a preference to now…but I do wonder if it’s just memetic influence of what people say looks nice.

evilduck 2y ago
I think it's still a large degree of fashion. In 2024 we spot the lone ornamented streetlamp that survived and think it looks nice or appreciate that its still standing, or walk past the an old decorated building that was maintained all these years think it looks elegant, but if you travelled back to 1920 when your entire environment was filled with cheaply manufactured fake ornamentation then the new simplistic modern designs would have been the things that demanded notice and been associated as the new hotness and an ornamented cast iron product would have carried an association as old and dated. For the same reason if you sold an avocado green kitchen appliance in 1988 you'd be viewed as out of fashion and still too early to be retro-cool. Not everything gets a retro-resurgence, but everything gets old.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  Case in point: Eichler houses. When I was young, they were cheap and cheerful and derided as "little boxes made of ticky-tacky". Now that they're going for a million+, they are "mid century modern" and cool. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Eichler#Eichler_Homes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Eichler#Eichler_Homes
  - mturmon 2y ago
    Some of that perceived value is the (wonderful) original Modernist attributes of simplicity, manufacturability, and form-follows-function, which are integral to the design philosophy of those homes. The design work of the Eamses is another case: https://www.vitra.com/en-me/magazine/details/eames-potato-chip-chair https://www.vitra.com/en-me/magazine/details/eames-potato-ch..., it’s just a magnificent use of the material. Even the original Case Study homes were intended to be affordable, not made as mansions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Study_Houses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Study_Houses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_House_(Los_Angeles)#Description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_House_(Los_Angeles)#Des...) Needless to say, I think OP is just not well informed about design. Just as it might have been hard to make an ornate street lamp, it’s also hard to make a clean modernist home. There are reasons (personal, practical, philosophical) to prefer one or the other for a given use, but the author isn’t seeing those nuances.

evilduck 2y ago

I think it's still a large degree of fashion. In 2024 we spot the lone ornamented streetlamp that survived and think it looks nice or appreciate that its still standing, or walk past the an old decorated building that was maintained all these years think it looks elegant, but if you travelled back to 1920 when your entire environment was filled with cheaply manufactured fake ornamentation then the new simplistic modern designs would have been the things that demanded notice and been associated as the new hotness and an ornamented cast iron product would have carried an association as old and dated. For the same reason if you sold an avocado green kitchen appliance in 1988 you'd be viewed as out of fashion and still too early to be retro-cool. Not everything gets a retro-resurgence, but everything gets old.

082349872349872 2y ago
Case in point: Eichler houses. When I was young, they were cheap and cheerful and derided as "little boxes made of ticky-tacky". Now that they're going for a million+, they are "mid century modern" and cool. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Eichler#Eichler_Homes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Eichler#Eichler_Homes
- mturmon 2y ago
  Some of that perceived value is the (wonderful) original Modernist attributes of simplicity, manufacturability, and form-follows-function, which are integral to the design philosophy of those homes. The design work of the Eamses is another case: https://www.vitra.com/en-me/magazine/details/eames-potato-chip-chair https://www.vitra.com/en-me/magazine/details/eames-potato-ch..., it’s just a magnificent use of the material. Even the original Case Study homes were intended to be affordable, not made as mansions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Study_Houses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Study_Houses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_House_(Los_Angeles)#Description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_House_(Los_Angeles)#Des...) Needless to say, I think OP is just not well informed about design. Just as it might have been hard to make an ornate street lamp, it’s also hard to make a clean modernist home. There are reasons (personal, practical, philosophical) to prefer one or the other for a given use, but the author isn’t seeing those nuances.