lord_whimsy ([info]lord_whimsy) wrote,
@ 2007-04-07 01:36:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:ill-considered notions, organicism

THE NEW FACE OF LUXURY


[info]merrow_sea kindly shared with me a article on vertical gardening that you might find as delightful as I did. The potential is huge for cities: Imagine 'chia-buildings', which are designed to accommodate vertical gardens on their surfaces. The urban landscapes of our planet would be utterly tranformed, as would the surrounding suburbs. Now that's a future that I could embrace!

But let us digress: Long ago, I chose to be an aesthete rather than a connoisseur; which is to say that, to me, luxury is less about cost, pedigree or provenance than the sensed qualities of a thing. True, sometimes money and "suchness" go hand in hand, but not always. A $7 Jack-in-the pulpit is far more exquisite in texture and detail than the Hope Diamond, at least to my mind.

These gentlemen have a wonderful take on luxury (thanks, [info]imomus):

“When you are on a beautiful carpet placed directly on the sand, with maybe some beautiful women, drinking some tea and with some very nice music, it’s really luxurious.”

“I think luxury is not related to materiality, it’s just some incredible situations. And as architects, you have to produce incredible situations.”

Wonderful, humane ideas, and ones which I've tried to live out. Rustic luxury to me is sitting in a bog at night caressed by warm rain as the tree frogs start an otherworldly drone. What could be more luxurious than enjoying and cultivating things that took millions of years to make? A Stradivarius is a stone axe compared to an orchid. Nothing made by humans can match it--the textures are just too rich.

Here's my crackpot prediction: Luxury in the 21st century is going depend less on how much you are able to buy and more about how much you are able to appreciate: the scent of blossoms, the dappled light from a canopy of trees, etc. Cultivate rather than collect. Time rather than money. Slow rather than fast. One's status will depend upon how much one can do with very little. Imagination, wit and inventiveness are the new currency. Building a beautiful life and sharing one's breakthroughs with others will be the goal: moth eclosion parties, gardening parties, fragrance parties, etc.

Long live the new luxury!

~W


(Post a new comment)


[info]chronographia
2007-04-07 06:58 am UTC (link)
The verdant growth above is now going to be the cornerstone of my mental picture for Operation: Ivy League. You might also find some of the Idea Factory's projects of interest.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]lord_whimsy
2007-04-08 12:32 am UTC (link)
Brilliant--all of it. Consider me a moss graffiti artist!

Moss graffiti recipe

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]chronographia
2007-04-08 06:08 am UTC (link)
As I asked [info]thistlelurid and [info]goutwort earlier this week, take pictures!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jermynsavile
2007-04-07 07:08 am UTC (link)
Now this is a future that I can embrace! Certainly more chance of happiness for mankind than the current, and expanding, obsession with things.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]lord_whimsy
2007-04-08 12:36 am UTC (link)
I do love things (antiques, suits, etc.), but I think those things should be selected judiciously, and not be ends in themselves, but rather serve a larger purpose.

I don't travel or commute very much, so I try to justify my indulgence in menswear with the rationale that I use less car and jet fuel than most people.

(Frankly, I'm not convinced, either.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jermynsavile
2007-04-08 01:28 am UTC (link)
I think you may be being too hard on yourself (but then of course I'd have to think that as I rationalise some of my own purchasing decisions using equally tendentious reasoning)!

I should imagine that, as in my own approach, items, once in your wardrobe/home, are unlikely to be junked. That clothes wear out and antiques either stay put for years or are recycled. Far rather that than follow the desperate buy-buy-buy approach encouraged by the marketplace (to buy often, to replace quickly, to care nothing of how things are made or the impact their production and disposal has) I should imagine that your purchases are considered and pay due attention to their 'footprint', environmental or otherwise. This seems a perfectly reasonable approach and hardly deserving of censure. The alternative is a fairly sad and desperate way to carry on, and extreme example can be seen here.

I have recently been enjoying the essays that accompany the photographer Nick Clements' superb Simulacra (2006), a book that, in many ways, charts my own interests and obsessions almost exactly. In one essay Clements outlines a phenomena identified in Japan as Dad's Style which he describes thus:

"The typical Dad's Stylist is aged between 35 and 50 ... and seeks to acquire goods often described as 'classic' or having 'cult status' to define their personal style. Dad's Style is acquisitive but not consumerist in the conventional sense as it involves the acquisition of goods that have already been consumed or have been rejected by the ordinary consumer as being not valid in today's world. Elitism is part of the Dad's Style ethos. It derides many of the choices made by modern-day consumers as 'uninformed' and 'undiscerning'. The Dad's Stylists also draws much of their inspiration for dress and style from those things, including films, books and magazines, that the culture industry has left behind. The Dad's Stylist often consumes film and literature not purely for entertainment value but also as a learning experience ... By rejecting much - but not all - of what modern consumerism and entertainment has to offer, the Dad's Stylist is able to reject the 'herding' instinct promoted so virulently by the culture industry and thus to see modern goods from the perspective of an 'outsider' and 'individual'."

I have less interest in elitism as a guiding principle - I tend to think that my choices are better but also while acknowledging that there is little in the way of a universal standard on most things. I also remain pretty indifferent to whether the world thinks what I buy is 'classic' or has 'cult status', rather that they accord with my own personal aesthetic and/or sense of values. But overall it seems a pretty fair description of my approach to the acquisition of things.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]andsaca369
2007-04-07 07:40 am UTC (link)
"...Luxury in the 21st century is going depend less on how much you are able to buy and more about how much you are able to appreciate..."

Oh, I hope so, I really do. I'm fed up with rampant consumerism and the concept that more and bigger is better. It's a highly destructive philosophy and one I feel is more than a little outdated.

(Reply to this)


[info]mehdi_caps
2007-04-07 08:41 am UTC (link)
I agree with everything except... "with maybe some beautiful women". Women are not elements of luxury. Women are not objects, but subjects. I particularly dislike the plural, there. I think "with some friends", or "with my loved one" would sound much better.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]lord_whimsy
2007-04-07 04:17 pm UTC (link)
Hah hah--yes, of course. And and here I was brushing it aside, thinking, "Oh, they're just being French"! Serves me right, eh? ;)

Then again, I'd be a liar if I said I didn't find the company of women to be one of the great pleasures in my life--I am blessed with knowing a lot of wonderful, interesting women. My own point of view is complicated by the fact that, on occasion, I willingly and happily serve as an aesthetic object, serving in an ornamental capacity at friend's gatherings and events. Are attractive women being demeaned if they do the same? Are they being used? Admired? Objectified? Appreciated? All of these? Are they trading on their looks, or simply sharing their gifts and charms? And is there a great difference between them and a talented musician friend who is often asked to play a little something for guests at a party? Hard for me to say for sure--it can get blurry around the edges very quickly. That said, one often knows exploitation when they see it.

It does beg the question: when organizing a party, what is one's criteria for attendees? Does one try to acheive a "good mix"? Are we treating people like aesthetic chess pieces if we do this?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]electricwitch
2007-04-07 05:08 pm UTC (link)
"thinking, "Oh, they're just being French"" Haha, bless you.

The thing is when one mixes persons into a party or contemplates them aesthetically one groups and divide them by characteristics that matter such as personality, style, ability, interests, talents and as such treat people as individuals, not genders, races, ages and other generalisations.

I do not mind being objectified, as long as the object I am turned into is beautiful- simplification is rarely so.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]lord_whimsy
2007-04-07 05:20 pm UTC (link)
I think the focus was beauty as much as gender. If a random group of women were rounded up for the sole reason they were female, then I would agree without reservation. But the fact that beauty was the major consideration here, well, that complicates things, pushing it into the realm of "qualities and gifts" you mention. And beauty being a subjective thing, it can take almost any form. Talent, intelligence, personality are all species of beauty, no? Hence the term, "beautiful people".

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]butterflyrobert
2007-04-07 06:11 pm UTC (link)
It's nice to sit around with a few beautiful women and read your blog.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]electricwitch
2007-04-07 09:15 pm UTC (link)
"beautiful women" as a phrase has another meaning, though, related to stereotyping: i.e. you´re not meant to picture a room full of insane-looking female painters or top of their field students but Benny Hill girls, you know?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]lord_whimsy
2007-04-08 12:55 am UTC (link)
Well, I'm afraid that we're all going to have to get used to the fact that men have and will always like beautiful women, just like women overwhelmingly prefer tall men. As a short man, the latter fact has always worked against me, but that is my own little violin to play for myself and no one else. Instead of accepting this fact, should I wag my finger and huffily tut-tut women who prefer to surround themselves with tall men because they find them pleasing to look at? I think not--they have a right to their preferences, even if such preferences hurt my little bitty feelings. If that is what gives them pleasure, then more power to them--life is alarmingly short for them, too. Luckily for me, I've found a beautiful woman who happens to harbor a strange fetish for leprechauns.

We all objectify other people to some degree. To say otherwise is to be disengenuous, but I will concede that to be gratuitous about it is in poor taste.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]lord_whimsy
2007-04-08 03:53 pm UTC (link)
As for the Russ Meyerses and Benny Hills of the world, I've always found their brand of low vaudevillian burlesque funny because they (either intentionally or not) both celebrate and lampoon this aspect of the human condition, this male appetite for young nubiles, and the stupid things that men will do when under its sway. But then, perhaps it's funny only in hindsight, now that men aren't as piggish as they once were? Perhaps we're fooling ourselves into thinking this is the case--scratch a man's nose and beneath it you may find a snout.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mehdi_caps
2007-04-08 08:46 am UTC (link)
Great reply. Although it contains more questions than answers. ;)

I knew it was a quote. I didn't suspect you or Imomus of objectifying women. I only had something against the way it was phrased. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]lord_whimsy
2007-04-08 03:35 pm UTC (link)
That's probably because I have more questions than answers, my friend. But then, don't we all?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mehdi_caps
2007-04-08 08:32 pm UTC (link)
Only smart people have more questions than answers. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]lord_whimsy
2007-04-09 02:24 am UTC (link)
I've always prided myself on defying the trends.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]princesslucia
2007-04-07 10:03 am UTC (link)
... moth eclosion parties, gardening parties, fragrance parties, etc.

How terribly Heian. I adore it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]siamhussein
2007-04-07 10:37 am UTC (link)
I am so short of optimism for the ongoingness that I am glad to have yours and offer only the following warning. It must not ever be packaged. I remember hearing sentiments like yours expressed at the end of the recession in the 90s by a thoughtful writer who, like me, was blind to the gilded and vulgar age about to overflow everything. Elegance and simplicity was soon smothered in Internet money and all the dubious materialism which followed. But the nasty editeers, charged with smothering the young nation's art before it can rise from the crib, those who drive New York publishing, were already deploying something called Chic Simple. Chic Simple, you would hear in the corridors. "Chic Simple." I wondered, from beneath my cowboy hat, if this might be some new kind of anticommunist toothpaste.

Ah, I see I am already well into a rant. Pardon. Long may your vision wave!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]siamhussein
2007-04-07 10:38 am UTC (link)
Chère Pincess,

I meant to reply to the main thread rather than to yours. Apologies.

S.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]princesslucia
2007-04-08 05:54 am UTC (link)
Merci beaucoup for the elucidation. I was for several minutes rather a confused princess!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]electricwitch
2007-04-07 11:43 am UTC (link)
"with maybe some beautiful women"
What, are we like expendable and expensive pieces of furniture now? Am I to position myself like a picture frame in the corner of someone´s eye, growing like a potplant?

Apart from that, glorious post.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]electricwitch
2007-04-07 12:12 pm UTC (link)
Oh, the other Rickman fan up there has already made my point redundant.

Although I find the idea of myself as a potplant more than slightly amusing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]lord_whimsy
2007-04-07 04:20 pm UTC (link)
See my response upthread.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]niyabinghi
2007-04-07 12:48 pm UTC (link)
Oh! Let's make the whole world like this......

(Reply to this)


[info]scyllacat
2007-04-07 02:36 pm UTC (link)
Indeed. I went to a garden party once, and it felt like that. Luxurious with barely an iota of expense. Lots of preparation. Very slow time. I met a lady who had been in vaudeville, and she showed me her silk top hat. Antique top hat, the kind that pops out from the brim. Ok, now my mind is wandering. Sorry... have a kitten.

(Reply to this)

My current version of luxury
[info]maggieb
2007-04-07 02:47 pm UTC (link)
I really loved your post. I have actually been thinking along those lines lately as well. My version of luxury right now: wearing my castoff cashmere sweater over pajamas while I sip coffee on my beat up but very comfy old couch. And staying in bed with my sweetheart watching movies all day Saturdays and enjoying every minute of it. These are my oasis in the sea of a crazy demanding life.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: My current version of luxury
[info]lord_whimsy
2007-04-10 12:24 am UTC (link)
Sounds like my wife. One of my greatest pleasures is watching her enjoy her creature comforts.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
your card is the Sun
[info]zzberlin
2007-04-07 03:51 pm UTC (link)
<< Luxury in the 21st century is going depend less on how much you are able to buy and more about how much you are able to appreciate: the scent of blossoms, the dappled light from a canopy of trees, etc. Cultivate rather than collect >>



In the full light of the Sun, the conscious and the subconscious are shown as two dancers linked by the promise of eternity, the rainbow double helix. The two are in symbiotic rhythm and harmony. The crystals on which they dance are symbolic of the "treasures of darkness and hidden riches of secret places" (Isaiah 45:3), which have been formed deep within the earth, by heat and pressure, into a substance that can reflect and refract the Sun's rays. Silica, from which quartz crystal is formed, is the most common element of the earth's crust; the commonplace is capable of refinement into the most precious and beautiful. Meanings: success, joy, harmony, and beauty

(Reply to this)


[info]droserary
2007-04-07 03:53 pm UTC (link)
Interesting articles. I wonder what kinds of plants they'd be able to find for the outdoor verticle gardens in the city. Not many would be able to stand the pollution. I could only imagine a sea of ivy and Ailanthus altissima seedlings.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]lord_whimsy
2007-04-07 04:18 pm UTC (link)
Not sure--perhaps the gentleman's website might give us a clue. Someone needs to hybridize a sycamore with english ivy!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ngakmafaery
2007-04-07 04:10 pm UTC (link)
...I agree: it has *always* been that true appreciation is 'luxury', is enjoyment, and simple surfeit or gluttony or excess is sadly nothing like...(actually this is a theme in the book I'm writing)...


...I live in a frankly decaying mansion, mostly filled with stout kitties and tat, and I enjoy every discoloured cheery speck...my life is better than almost anybody's, but I wish their lives were all great too! ahahaha!

(Reply to this)


[info]butterflyrobert
2007-04-07 06:13 pm UTC (link)
Here's my crackpot prediction: Luxury in the 21st century is going depend less on how much you are able to buy and more about how much you are able to appreciate: the scent of blossoms, the dappled light from a canopy of trees, etc. Cultivate rather than collect. Time rather than money. Slow rather than fast. One's status will depend upon how much one can do with very little. Imagination, wit and inventiveness are the new currency. Building a beautiful life and sharing one's breakthroughs with others will be the goal: moth eclosion parties, gardening parties, fragrance parties, etc.

I share this prediction with you. I think we've shared it for years. It'll probably begin as a backlash against the bleak sharkiness of our age.

(Reply to this)


[info]penguinkeggard
2007-04-09 04:59 am UTC (link)
"People who live within their means have no imagination." Oscar Wilde.

I look forward to a sublime 21st also, but I fear it'll be reserved for only an enlightened few.

Sublimity and synaesthesia pale in comparison to the FCAT, nowadays.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]lord_whimsy
2007-04-10 12:22 am UTC (link)
Your FCAT, my housepaint, I'm afraid.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]desant012
2007-04-10 12:10 am UTC (link)
Nature really does offer some of the most amazing luxuries, and while it's (in most cases) free, it takes a certain person and development to appreciate it.

By the way, have you ever read Novalis - The Novices of Sais?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]lord_whimsy
2007-04-10 12:21 am UTC (link)
I'm ashamed to say I have not, but I've been dying to attain a copy--which I just have!

Thank you for prompting me. Have you read it?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]desant012
2007-04-11 02:34 am UTC (link)
It's the best look I've read so far into people who have a deep appreciation for nature, because it takes it straight from the poetic, imaginative perspective (though I've always liked Baudelaire). It took a couple of reads to tear through the constant heavy imagery and metaphors (the style can get a little Alchemical, I'm sure intentionally), but it's worth it when you end up finding yourself in there. It's strange how things created even 200 years ago can still ring true.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]freesurfboards
2007-04-10 06:11 pm UTC (link)
I had the pleasure of seeing a "painting" using this watering technique, at the Boston ICA. If you're ever in Boston it's a great gallery.

http://www.judirotenberg.com/sg/sgcumulonimbus.jpg

It's called "Cumulonimbus" by Sheila Gallagher. The room it was in smelled amazing, as you can imagine.

(Reply to this)


[info]fusis
2007-04-13 05:15 am UTC (link)
I love this idea. I have my own vertical garden, seen here:



However, it's a bit out of control, not good for the paint or structural integrity of the building at all.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]lord_whimsy
2007-04-13 02:24 pm UTC (link)
It's certainly beautiful, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…