CoffeeBreaker
- 56 Posts
- 11 Comments
0·7 days agoYou said
aesthetics is largely a province of the wealthy and privileged anyway.
And I provided a counterpoint to your statement: there are obvious examples where aesthetics are different, valued and not exclusive to the “wealthy and privileged”.
i’m sorry it offends you so much that most people can’t afford beautiful unique cars and homes.
This has nothing to do with what people can afford and everything with what people value. Just as a silly example: take a look at the type of things that the guy on DIYPerks has done. I think what he does is insanely cool, and nothing he’s done requires anything absurdly expensive. It requires skill, effort and taste.
What a miserable way to live it must be to go around associating “cost” with “worth”.
aesthetics is largely a province of the wealthy and privileged anyway.
Take a look at any popular festival (Diwali in India, Carnival in Brazil, Oktoberfest in Germany, Cherry Blossom in Japan) and you will quickly see that every one of these has its own unique style, and that by definition is not something for the wealthy and privileged.
I’m not watching 100th video on why that new Ferrari is ugly
The video is not about that. You are literally prejudging a video because of the thumbnail. It’s your loss.
0·7 days agoYou will not find anything more privacy oriented than Njalla.
Be careful what you wish for.
By valuing only efficiency and utility, you end up creating a world where everything follows the same bland cookie-cutter style, where every city looks the same and where corporations can easily shape and control our needs and wants.
Ferrari does things primarily to sell cars, because it’s a company, a for-profit organisation.
Toyota sells more cars than Ferrari. Do you think that if Ferrari should starts building more cars like Toyota it will be good for them long-term?
Are you familiar with the doorman fallacy?
According to data they seem to be doing fine
So is McDonald’s.
The argument is not that things stopped being popular. It’s that they are becoming uniformly similar in a bland way.
Why should anyone care if the answer is seemingly an uninspired “stop liking things I don’t like”?
If you actually watch the video, perhaps you can understand why. But it seems you are more interested in sticking to your preconceived notions than listening to someone with opinions of their own.
Not the point. He also talks about how all coffee shops ends up looking the same, how house decor all adopt the same bland style, etc
Status symbols not having a common appeal
You really should watch the video instead of arguing past the point. The main thing about the car is not that is lacks a “common appeal”, but exactly the opposite. It takes no risks, it ends up lacking any distinguishing feature and becomes a regular consumer product. “Common appeal” is all it has.
My guess is that Ferrari as a business cares only about taste of people who can afford their products.
The people who can afford and actually buying the Luce are not doing because the car is sexy or a unquestionable example of “cool”. They are buying it to signal status. They don’t care about “taste”.
Watch the video, and you see he argues that being a commercial success does not mean it is cool. Quite the opposite: it means that the companies are only creating products that are “safe” and follow a formula that has been proven to work.
You are taking a 30+ minute video that uses the Ferrari Luce as one way to illustrate a larger point. You don’t even have to watch the video: the summary right below it says
This is not about personal tastes or “sense of fashion”, or anything like that. This is simply a video essay from a designer making the argument that a worldview of efficiency-maxing and extreme utlitarianism is making everything converge to a lowest-common denominator design.