I had this in my mind this morning, and I even went to the computer to post, but my hands were still clumsy and I closed my post window. So I just decided to take a shower.
Less eloquently worded than the first version, I offer my second attempt.
What struck the spark was a line in a book that referred to something (other than pornography) as being pornographic. I.E. something that is a glossy, retouched, mechanically perfect stripped version of the real thing.
Now without getting into a debate about whether the word "pornographic" is actually suitable for use in other fields, I would suggest that cell phones and automobiles and handguns exhibit this to a degree.
It's not a new phenomenon, though. As technology allows things to be manufactured to tighter tolerances, design uses these capabilities to create an aesthetic that reflects the precision of manufacture.
It's intuitive that something with poor tolerances is "shoddy", but why is it intuitive?
Experience shows us that things can have "character", and our emotional memories are bound to visual experiences that exhibited this character - Whether it's a flickering fluorescent fixture, a cracked vinyl dashboard, peeling paint, or the grain of a piece of wood.
I can remember these things with great detail. I can't remember anything that was pristine, or precisely machined, or an expanse of unmarred plastic.
Everything I remember is broken.
WRT the second question in the poll, imagine, e.g. Legos. I remember Legos, and have many "snaphots" in memory - but they are not about shiny new plastic blocks as they come out of the case for the first time, but of teeth-marks, mismatched sets, and lego men missing limbs.
Less eloquently worded than the first version, I offer my second attempt.
What struck the spark was a line in a book that referred to something (other than pornography) as being pornographic. I.E. something that is a glossy, retouched, mechanically perfect stripped version of the real thing.
Now without getting into a debate about whether the word "pornographic" is actually suitable for use in other fields, I would suggest that cell phones and automobiles and handguns exhibit this to a degree.
It's not a new phenomenon, though. As technology allows things to be manufactured to tighter tolerances, design uses these capabilities to create an aesthetic that reflects the precision of manufacture.
It's intuitive that something with poor tolerances is "shoddy", but why is it intuitive?
Experience shows us that things can have "character", and our emotional memories are bound to visual experiences that exhibited this character - Whether it's a flickering fluorescent fixture, a cracked vinyl dashboard, peeling paint, or the grain of a piece of wood.
I can remember these things with great detail. I can't remember anything that was pristine, or precisely machined, or an expanse of unmarred plastic.
Everything I remember is broken.
WRT the second question in the poll, imagine, e.g. Legos. I remember Legos, and have many "snaphots" in memory - but they are not about shiny new plastic blocks as they come out of the case for the first time, but of teeth-marks, mismatched sets, and lego men missing limbs.
Facebook
Twitter