6 ms·

Only the rich can afford to own nothing/exert effort to have empty space without consequence. Ordinary folks when presented with an object have to perform a me

Only the rich can afford to own nothing/exert effort to have empty space without consequence. Ordinary folks when presented with an object have to perform a mental calculation over the cost/inconvenience of storage vs. disposal and if wanted again, replacement.

fcarraldo 3mo ago
The rich also can afford to keep their minimalist modern spaces clean and clutter-free, through paying staff. These environments tend to look awful when not tended to continuously because a single out-of-place item is so clearly visible. Cluttered old homes with lots of things all over the place make it a bit less jarring when there's a stack of work left out on a table.
- kakacik 3mo ago
  They are awful to even look at, IHMO. Cold, sterile, tells something about people living in such fugly soulless places. Which is fine to be honest, its nice to see clearly the type of person on the other side of the table, no need to dig through empty speech clutter for clues. But impressive it is not.
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
- tpm 3mo ago
  > Cluttered old homes with lots of things all over the place make it a bit less jarring when there's a stack of work left out on a table. that's wrong: my minimalist (in looks, not in equipment) all white kitchen looks completely fine even after a dinner party, because even then it doesn't look full, dirty or cluttered. The old one (and it wasn't that old, only there were more and darker colors and lines and objects) decidedly didn't. The art of designing modern spaces lies in the ability to make the space visually appealing (in my case minimal) while still able to function correctly. Too often the designers and their clients forget about the practical aspects.
  - elf25 3mo ago
    Rich is a mindset. My kitchen has three spatulas. One i bought when i moved out, mom’s and grandma’s. I don’t NEED three but can’t afford to throw two away. Rich see two extra and toss two because it’s just a damn spatula and they KNOW that if they ever need two, they can afford to run out and buy one. Now expand that thought process to everything you own. Declutter becomes easier.
    - tpm 3mo ago
      Or you can build enough cupboards to stash away three generations of cooking utensils and no clutter will be visible. But that too demands a bit of investment in terms of money and room space.
    - ffaccount2 3mo ago
      I don't get it. Why did you buy a third spatula, if you consider it a significant expense (i.e you can't replace ones you have if they break), and you already have two.
      - mghackerlady 3mo ago
        Perhaps they didn't have the other two already. From the phrasing, it seems they bought one when they moved out of their parents house and received/inherited the others
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
snozolli 3mo ago
Only the rich can afford to own nothing/exert effort to have empty space without consequence. Reminds me of the reason that grass yards exist: to show the world that one can afford land for the sake of owning it, rather than for growing crops.
- pooploop64 3mo ago
  Lawns are for much more than just flexing. It's an outdoor part of your property which is flat and open enough to use for various activities and purposes. I don't know where people get such a cynical idea that this is THE reason anyone has lawns.
  - jmbwell 3mo ago
    Yeah this is all very regional too. Row houses in London and brownstones in New York or whatever won’t have front lawns as a function of density, but may have back yards or gardens, which may or may not be a function of producing your own food, which is all tied up in different experiences of war, while certainly countryside estates are for form more than function, while post war housing in the midwestern US was in part a build-on-your-lot market with houses literally ordered from a Sears catalog… There’s definitely more to the story and there are myriad factors.
    - jyounker 3mo ago
      Sears stopped making homes in 1942. They were strictly pre-WWII.
    - nly 3mo ago
      I live in a London terrace, originally built circa 1900. There's plenty of evidence the rear gardens were used for growing food and drying laundry back then Children would also play there where they could be seen from the kitchen (which was always in the rear), rather than playing in the road (as much) Rear gardens also served as a space where you would converse with your neighbour. Typically fences between neighbours were low and wire (tall 6ft wooden fences came later) The other thing is the only toilet in a 4 bedroom property would also be out there, as an outdoor WC, accessible from outside I doubt much read space was reserved for lawn back then

fcarraldo 3mo ago

The rich also can afford to keep their minimalist modern spaces clean and clutter-free, through paying staff. These environments tend to look awful when not tended to continuously because a single out-of-place item is so clearly visible. Cluttered old homes with lots of things all over the place make it a bit less jarring when there's a stack of work left out on a table.

kakacik 3mo ago
They are awful to even look at, IHMO. Cold, sterile, tells something about people living in such fugly soulless places. Which is fine to be honest, its nice to see clearly the type of person on the other side of the table, no need to dig through empty speech clutter for clues. But impressive it is not.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
tpm 3mo ago
> Cluttered old homes with lots of things all over the place make it a bit less jarring when there's a stack of work left out on a table. that's wrong: my minimalist (in looks, not in equipment) all white kitchen looks completely fine even after a dinner party, because even then it doesn't look full, dirty or cluttered. The old one (and it wasn't that old, only there were more and darker colors and lines and objects) decidedly didn't. The art of designing modern spaces lies in the ability to make the space visually appealing (in my case minimal) while still able to function correctly. Too often the designers and their clients forget about the practical aspects.
- elf25 3mo ago
  Rich is a mindset. My kitchen has three spatulas. One i bought when i moved out, mom’s and grandma’s. I don’t NEED three but can’t afford to throw two away. Rich see two extra and toss two because it’s just a damn spatula and they KNOW that if they ever need two, they can afford to run out and buy one. Now expand that thought process to everything you own. Declutter becomes easier.
  - tpm 3mo ago
    Or you can build enough cupboards to stash away three generations of cooking utensils and no clutter will be visible. But that too demands a bit of investment in terms of money and room space.
  - ffaccount2 3mo ago
    I don't get it. Why did you buy a third spatula, if you consider it a significant expense (i.e you can't replace ones you have if they break), and you already have two.
    - mghackerlady 3mo ago
      Perhaps they didn't have the other two already. From the phrasing, it seems they bought one when they moved out of their parents house and received/inherited the others
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

snozolli 3mo ago

Only the rich can afford to own nothing/exert effort to have empty space without consequence. Reminds me of the reason that grass yards exist: to show the world that one can afford land for the sake of owning it, rather than for growing crops.

pooploop64 3mo ago
Lawns are for much more than just flexing. It's an outdoor part of your property which is flat and open enough to use for various activities and purposes. I don't know where people get such a cynical idea that this is THE reason anyone has lawns.
- jmbwell 3mo ago
  Yeah this is all very regional too. Row houses in London and brownstones in New York or whatever won’t have front lawns as a function of density, but may have back yards or gardens, which may or may not be a function of producing your own food, which is all tied up in different experiences of war, while certainly countryside estates are for form more than function, while post war housing in the midwestern US was in part a build-on-your-lot market with houses literally ordered from a Sears catalog… There’s definitely more to the story and there are myriad factors.
  - jyounker 3mo ago
    Sears stopped making homes in 1942. They were strictly pre-WWII.
  - nly 3mo ago
    I live in a London terrace, originally built circa 1900. There's plenty of evidence the rear gardens were used for growing food and drying laundry back then Children would also play there where they could be seen from the kitchen (which was always in the rear), rather than playing in the road (as much) Rear gardens also served as a space where you would converse with your neighbour. Typically fences between neighbours were low and wire (tall 6ft wooden fences came later) The other thing is the only toilet in a 4 bedroom property would also be out there, as an outdoor WC, accessible from outside I doubt much read space was reserved for lawn back then