3 ms·

Yes, clearly we sometimes need to push what is "normal" and create things that people don't yet know they want, but we should be pragmatic about it. For example

by paul 19y ago

Yes, clearly we sometimes need to push what is "normal" and create things that people don't yet know they want, but we should be pragmatic about it. For example, Esperanto may be a more "rational" and well designed language, but I'm going to keep using English because that's what works for me. The early cars were "horseless carriages" because that was easier to build and easier for people to relate to, and there's nothing wrong with that. The notion that "I know exactly what people need and my ideas are all rational and brilliant while other's are stupid and irrational" is just so arrogant and wrong, but it seemed to be the main point of the Fountainhead (based on the 1/3 of the book that I read 10 years ago...)

pg 19y ago
I don't think early car manufacturers deliberately made cars look like horseless carriages because they'd be familiar or easy to build. I think it was more because it was the only kind of vehicle they could imagine.
- paul 19y ago
  Yes, I didn't mean to imply that there was a conscious decision -- everyone is limited by what is familiar, including designers and inventors. The point is that retaining familiar elements doesn't doom us to stagnation. Incremental improvements are usually sufficient and more successful.
  - vlad 19y ago
    I want to chime in because your two posts combined are still valued less than pg's rebuttal, but I think you are more right. Early cars were simply modified carriages with motors attached by hobbyists. Hobbyists--already busy enough building and improving their engines--wouldn't stop to learn how to carve wood. Two interesting ideas come to me about this. From what I've read, Henry Ford studied assembly lines at the Springfield Armory (which was first to create machines to make individual parts for guns, as well as first to allow non-skilled labor to assemble pieces together without involving a craftsman at all.) What's ironic is that two brothers who created and sold the first gasoline car (motorized carriage) were also in Springfield. Henry Ford made many innovations to the product and the pipeline. New competitors innovated on the design front to get more customers, while Henry didn't. Since Henry did not change his automobile, and people wanted to buy cars in the 1920's with a more modern look (as defined by not looking like the same car Ford had put out since 1908), other designs took hold. Successive design changes are made to stand out from the current crowd, that's all. http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blDuryea.htm http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blDuryea.htm http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:yqqlYiJW0w4J:www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/industrial.htm+springfield+armory+henry+ford&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:yqqlYiJW0w4J:www.engr.s...
gibsonf1 19y ago
Think about it this way: how much would you respect an artist that had no personal vision or personal style in his work, but just did whatever his clients wanted so that there was no consistent character at all in his art? Can you name any respected artist that works this way? My guess is no. The point here is that for an artist to make authentic art, the work has to be a reflection of that artist's core values regardless of what they are. It is that core that gives consistency to an artists work, and it is being true to that core that is necessary (but not sufficient) to make meaningful art. Rand's point was not at all that Roark would "force" his work on his clients for whom Roark could care less, but rather that the client had to choose Roark because Roark's work resonated with the values of the client in the same way that someone who buys art is hopefully doing so because that art resonates with their values. The point Rand was making was that culturally the kind of art Roark was producing, in the beginning of the book, is not popular and that only a few desired it. By the end of the book, Roark had found success in finding a growing body of clients who wanted his style of design. He had found his niche and had remained true to his core values as an artist - integrity being the primary one.
- paul 19y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. Vision is important, but that vision needs to include a path connecting the vision to the present, and that includes making things sufficiently familiar. For pure art it may not matter (though I suspect that wealthy artists have adapted to market demands, but won't admit it), but for functional products it matters a lot. This is sort of an amusing debate, because usually I'm the one pushing to make things more different and unconventional. However, to make changes really take root, you often have to "boil the frog".
  - gibsonf1 19y ago
    The point of yours I was responding to is: "I know exactly what people need and my ideas are all rational and brilliant while other's are stupid and irrational" So given that, as opposed to the familiarity issue (which I wasn't talking about - but is another intersting topic), I don't see any false dichotomoy in my response. I think for art you can look at a work in 2 ways: the subject and the style. The subject can and usually is highly influenced by the buyer, but the style of the artist, which I argue should be a manifestation of the artist's core values, should not be influenced. If it were, the artist would lack core values and consistency - which is never the case (that I know of) for meaningful artists. So again, the buyer chooses the artist for their style, and then goes from there on possibly suggesting a subject (such as a portrait), not the other way around. You can easily argue that Apple is taking this same approach to technology. They present a distinct style of products - usually highly designed/integrated and simple to use (some would argue almost inspiring to use) in their many different products, but the type of product they make is highly influenced by what people want. For many, Apple products might be too simple or too expensive, but there is a growing group of people willing to pay extra for Apple's style of technology. Now, if Apple were to change their style based on market research for every product, that would be the death of the apple brand as we know it, and they would morph into yet another cloning company. The familiarity idea you were talking about also breaks down with the Apple example, as who knew they wanted a Mac before it existed? It certainly wasn't familiar, nor was the Iphone, etc. But that issue is another topic. My point was that to be a successful artist adherence to a core set of values is key (in the case of business you could call it branding). This issue shows up alot in music, where people will find that a band has "sold out" by changing their unique sound to appeal more to a mass audience thus losing those original fans.
robg 19y ago
No doubt "stupid and irrational" takes it to a logical extreme. But on some level we have to believe that we know better, don't we? And I'd argue the grander the vision, the greater the stubbornness necessary. What I love about the web is the empiricism involved for the low price of testing what works and what doesn't. Perhaps the conservative nature of car companies owes itself to their expensive design process?
bp001 19y ago
The notion that "I know exactly what people need and my ideas are all rational and brilliant while other's are stupid and irrational" in one that people are absolutely entitled to. Arrogant, yes - wrong, I don't think so. The funny thing is that in the Fountainhead, Howard Roark really sacrificed A LOT for his singular focus on the types of projects he wanted to work on. His measure of value in his life was not having steady jobs, but achieving his vision. If someone wants to focus on something that doesn't match the conventional goals, I don't see that as being a problem as long as it doesn't inhibit other's freedoms. Rand again takes this to the extreme, but it helps her to make a point (and makes for a more interesting story).

by paul 19y ago

pg 19y ago

I don't think early car manufacturers deliberately made cars look like horseless carriages because they'd be familiar or easy to build. I think it was more because it was the only kind of vehicle they could imagine.

paul 19y ago
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that there was a conscious decision -- everyone is limited by what is familiar, including designers and inventors. The point is that retaining familiar elements doesn't doom us to stagnation. Incremental improvements are usually sufficient and more successful.
- vlad 19y ago
  I want to chime in because your two posts combined are still valued less than pg's rebuttal, but I think you are more right. Early cars were simply modified carriages with motors attached by hobbyists. Hobbyists--already busy enough building and improving their engines--wouldn't stop to learn how to carve wood. Two interesting ideas come to me about this. From what I've read, Henry Ford studied assembly lines at the Springfield Armory (which was first to create machines to make individual parts for guns, as well as first to allow non-skilled labor to assemble pieces together without involving a craftsman at all.) What's ironic is that two brothers who created and sold the first gasoline car (motorized carriage) were also in Springfield. Henry Ford made many innovations to the product and the pipeline. New competitors innovated on the design front to get more customers, while Henry didn't. Since Henry did not change his automobile, and people wanted to buy cars in the 1920's with a more modern look (as defined by not looking like the same car Ford had put out since 1908), other designs took hold. Successive design changes are made to stand out from the current crowd, that's all. http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blDuryea.htm http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blDuryea.htm http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:yqqlYiJW0w4J:www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/industrial.htm+springfield+armory+henry+ford&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:yqqlYiJW0w4J:www.engr.s...

gibsonf1 19y ago

Think about it this way: how much would you respect an artist that had no personal vision or personal style in his work, but just did whatever his clients wanted so that there was no consistent character at all in his art? Can you name any respected artist that works this way? My guess is no. The point here is that for an artist to make authentic art, the work has to be a reflection of that artist's core values regardless of what they are. It is that core that gives consistency to an artists work, and it is being true to that core that is necessary (but not sufficient) to make meaningful art. Rand's point was not at all that Roark would "force" his work on his clients for whom Roark could care less, but rather that the client had to choose Roark because Roark's work resonated with the values of the client in the same way that someone who buys art is hopefully doing so because that art resonates with their values. The point Rand was making was that culturally the kind of art Roark was producing, in the beginning of the book, is not popular and that only a few desired it. By the end of the book, Roark had found success in finding a growing body of clients who wanted his style of design. He had found his niche and had remained true to his core values as an artist - integrity being the primary one.

paul 19y ago
That's a false dichotomy. Vision is important, but that vision needs to include a path connecting the vision to the present, and that includes making things sufficiently familiar. For pure art it may not matter (though I suspect that wealthy artists have adapted to market demands, but won't admit it), but for functional products it matters a lot. This is sort of an amusing debate, because usually I'm the one pushing to make things more different and unconventional. However, to make changes really take root, you often have to "boil the frog".
- gibsonf1 19y ago
  The point of yours I was responding to is: "I know exactly what people need and my ideas are all rational and brilliant while other's are stupid and irrational" So given that, as opposed to the familiarity issue (which I wasn't talking about - but is another intersting topic), I don't see any false dichotomoy in my response. I think for art you can look at a work in 2 ways: the subject and the style. The subject can and usually is highly influenced by the buyer, but the style of the artist, which I argue should be a manifestation of the artist's core values, should not be influenced. If it were, the artist would lack core values and consistency - which is never the case (that I know of) for meaningful artists. So again, the buyer chooses the artist for their style, and then goes from there on possibly suggesting a subject (such as a portrait), not the other way around. You can easily argue that Apple is taking this same approach to technology. They present a distinct style of products - usually highly designed/integrated and simple to use (some would argue almost inspiring to use) in their many different products, but the type of product they make is highly influenced by what people want. For many, Apple products might be too simple or too expensive, but there is a growing group of people willing to pay extra for Apple's style of technology. Now, if Apple were to change their style based on market research for every product, that would be the death of the apple brand as we know it, and they would morph into yet another cloning company. The familiarity idea you were talking about also breaks down with the Apple example, as who knew they wanted a Mac before it existed? It certainly wasn't familiar, nor was the Iphone, etc. But that issue is another topic. My point was that to be a successful artist adherence to a core set of values is key (in the case of business you could call it branding). This issue shows up alot in music, where people will find that a band has "sold out" by changing their unique sound to appeal more to a mass audience thus losing those original fans.

robg 19y ago

No doubt "stupid and irrational" takes it to a logical extreme. But on some level we have to believe that we know better, don't we? And I'd argue the grander the vision, the greater the stubbornness necessary. What I love about the web is the empiricism involved for the low price of testing what works and what doesn't. Perhaps the conservative nature of car companies owes itself to their expensive design process?

bp001 19y ago

The notion that "I know exactly what people need and my ideas are all rational and brilliant while other's are stupid and irrational" in one that people are absolutely entitled to. Arrogant, yes - wrong, I don't think so. The funny thing is that in the Fountainhead, Howard Roark really sacrificed A LOT for his singular focus on the types of projects he wanted to work on. His measure of value in his life was not having steady jobs, but achieving his vision. If someone wants to focus on something that doesn't match the conventional goals, I don't see that as being a problem as long as it doesn't inhibit other's freedoms. Rand again takes this to the extreme, but it helps her to make a point (and makes for a more interesting story).