She’s going to talk about the substance of her style (her book), but also will argue that progress is incremental, that we should appreciate change over time, and that “the desires of ordinary people matter and deserve respect.”

Art, she argues, means “making special.” Even the desperately poor do this: they paint their dwellings, embroider their rags.

Design has three purposes: Function, pleasure and meaning. Biological pleasure is universal, but fashion is cultural. Meaning can be an association or identity (standing out and fitting in [Saussure!]) “The substance of style can be summed up in two sentences: I like that. I’m like that. Pleasure and identity.

We are in the Age of Aesthetics. That means that on the margin we try to make things special, “enhancing the look and feel of people, places and things.” And there’s more aesthetic competition: it’s a key part of product design and store “experiences.” There are more aesthetics in more aspects of life. Everyone uses fonts and pictures when doing the simplest of documents.

This is a big change. For a hundred years, the big news was that you got stuff. We wanted it to be standardized, e.g., hotel rooms and fast food. Function but not style. Now we want more. And not just in hotel rooms: 71% of US women 45-54 dye their hair to cover gray, and 13% of men. But color sales among young men are up 25% in 5 years. Teen boys spend 5% of their income on hair color.

Aesthetics is becoming the killer app for information technology.

[Hmm. I’m not convinced. Things have always been designed, even the dwellings of the poor, as she says. So, what’s really different? The styles have changed, but have we really dropped style itself? Isn’t poured concrete a type of style? Ah, now in response to a question she’s pointing to the new willingness to accept a diversity of styles.]

Categories: misc dw