3 ms·

Thanks for sharing, I for one found it relevant! I've always found it somewhat monstrous how much art is in museum archives -- surely "showcasing stuff behind g

by bbor 2y ago

Thanks for sharing, I for one found it relevant! I've always found it somewhat monstrous how much art is in museum archives -- surely "showcasing stuff behind glass" is something our civilization can manage?? I'd quibble that what you're really pointing to here is capitalism, though. Architecture isn't monotonous because of our cultural attitude towards architects/Architecture, it's monotonous because capitalists build most buildings, and they're predictably interested in perceived efficiency above all else. There's good reason to argue that beautiful surroundings augment worker productivity so it's not even a clean tradeoff, but in practice, only the richest companies and universities end up taking that risk with beautiful structures[1][2][3] and/or sculptures/fountains/gardens/etc. Obviously, the same dynamic applies to the exclusivity of contemporary art galleries and private collections. In Apple's(/"tech"'s) defense, I think they'd absolutely love to sell integrative products whenever possible. The Nintendo Switch was originally marketed[4] as such, and despite being a bit goofy, I imagine it helped sell a lot of units. That's why Apple spent ungodly amounts of money trying to make real AR work before compromising with "passthrough" -- they know that people are social creatures, and that a huge driver of their sales is perceived social value.[5] Again: the problem is the system of incentives, not individual bad actors. [1] Google's newest 'Bayview' campus: https://blog.google/inside-google/life-at-google/bay-view-campus-grand-opening/ https://blog.google/inside-google/life-at-google/bay-view-ca... [2] Huawei 'Ox Horn' campus: https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1fuo1tt/huawei_has_built_an_entire_europeanstyle_town_as/ https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1fuo1tt/huawei_has_bu... [3] Vanderbilt University's main campus: https://admissions.vanderbilt.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/06/20181108JR003-scaled.jpg https://admissions.vanderbilt.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4... [4] "The rooftop party" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzJdYXk6tjA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzJdYXk6tjA [5] The iPhone's status among teens: https://www.phonearena.com/news/Heres-why-iPhones-are-so-popular-with-teens_id150951 https://www.phonearena.com/news/Heres-why-iPhones-are-so-pop...

keiferski 2y ago
I agree that the fundamental issue may simply be capitalism itself, but I am more prone to blame it on a kind of individualism, both in culture and in the nature of how corporations sell products as individual objects to individual people, and not to any larger social organization. (Except as a placeholder for a group of individuals.) The difficulty is in imagining some kind of economic structure in which an Apple or Microsoft could make billions from selling products/services that are somehow public goods, or enhancing public spaces. We can conceive of top design minds at Apple spending billions to create a new personal computing device, but the same minds working on a way to improve public spaces – say, by removing graffiti easily, or planting trees easily – just somehow doesn't make sense or fit into the "types of things" they would do. It may also just be a fundamental structural issue, as I talked about in the latter part of the essay. There are far fewer legal restrictions on individual objects than there are on spaces. I.e., while everyone can use an iPhone everywhere, using a device to remove graffiti would come up against all sorts of property rights laws. It's quite a difficult topic to wrap one's mind around, at the end of the day. But yeah in general I agree that it's not necessarily individual bad actors, and incentives are a huge part of it.

by bbor 2y ago

keiferski 2y ago

I agree that the fundamental issue may simply be capitalism itself, but I am more prone to blame it on a kind of individualism, both in culture and in the nature of how corporations sell products as individual objects to individual people, and not to any larger social organization. (Except as a placeholder for a group of individuals.) The difficulty is in imagining some kind of economic structure in which an Apple or Microsoft could make billions from selling products/services that are somehow public goods, or enhancing public spaces. We can conceive of top design minds at Apple spending billions to create a new personal computing device, but the same minds working on a way to improve public spaces – say, by removing graffiti easily, or planting trees easily – just somehow doesn't make sense or fit into the "types of things" they would do. It may also just be a fundamental structural issue, as I talked about in the latter part of the essay. There are far fewer legal restrictions on individual objects than there are on spaces. I.e., while everyone can use an iPhone everywhere, using a device to remove graffiti would come up against all sorts of property rights laws. It's quite a difficult topic to wrap one's mind around, at the end of the day. But yeah in general I agree that it's not necessarily individual bad actors, and incentives are a huge part of it.