Author Topic: The Lure of Luxury  (Read 7430 times)

keyser

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 8
The Lure of Luxury
« on: November 04, 2015, 07:50:16 AM »
A thoughtful book review about why we value our possessions and buy luxury goods. It reminded me of a lot of the issues addressed on this site. Posted here since I'd put the author's POV as highbrow aesthete antimoustachian.

http://bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-lure-luxury

argonaut_astronaut

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • Location: US - Northern Rockies
Re: The Lure of Luxury
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2015, 08:03:17 AM »
This post seems spammy to me. Not going to open the link.

OP, in case you care, here is why:
  • You only have two posts
  • You provide only positive feedback and no personal thoughts.

talltexan

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5344
Re: The Lure of Luxury
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2015, 08:52:37 AM »
I read the article, but I think it hints at the true value of luxury items: the status within society that they convey. Being the type of person who can acquire these things is attractive to those around us who are seeking security and identity.

Obviously this is counter-mustachian.

keyser

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: The Lure of Luxury
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2015, 08:50:53 AM »
@ argonaut_astronaut - It's a link to an article / book review in the Boston Review by Paul Bloom. Not spam. The article made me think about some of the deeper concepts about why we seek out luxuries -- status vs. aesthetic/personal value. I thought moustachians would enjoy reading it. He ultimately comes down in favor of aesthetic luxuries, so I figured it belonged in this subforum.

As I look at the article more, there are 10 responses from other authors. I haven't read them yet but look forward to doing so. It it's really well done and includes a moustachian POV, maybe this should move to a broader subforum.

Torran

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 370
Re: The Lure of Luxury
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2015, 05:00:25 AM »
Great article. Much food for thought.

StockBeard

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • Age: 42
Re: The Lure of Luxury
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2015, 03:16:49 PM »
Yup, article is high quality and not spammy. But it's long, I only read half of it before I thought to myself "well, I got the message, most people buy luxury goods as a status symbol"

TheAnonOne

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
Re: The Lure of Luxury
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2015, 10:50:41 AM »
Yup, article is high quality and not spammy. But it's long, I only read half of it before I thought to myself "well, I got the message, most people buy luxury goods as a status symbol"

....and to that I say "NO WAY!!!"

keyser

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: The Lure of Luxury
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2015, 08:51:38 AM »
I'd thought about this a bit more. I'd say that the crux of the article is that there is a value beyond status competition in buying luxuries--call it an aesthetic value, or good taste, or whatever. The MMM corollary though would be that those values are subjective, and if you pick up a MMM mindset you start to recoil from these nice but unnecessary hobby items and put more value on high-quality products that meet your actual needs. Something about imagining MMM face-punching you makes nice toys less attractive :).

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2606
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: The Lure of Luxury
« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2015, 11:57:25 AM »
I'd thought about this a bit more. I'd say that the crux of the article is that there is a value beyond status competition in buying luxuries--call it an aesthetic value, or good taste, or whatever. The MMM corollary though would be that those values are subjective, and if you pick up a MMM mindset you start to recoil from these nice but unnecessary hobby items and put more value on high-quality products that meet your actual needs. Something about imagining MMM face-punching you makes nice toys less attractive :).

Hmm, I was raised to believe that "good taste" consisted of two things: making sure to not spend time, money, or effort trying to impress people whose opinions don't matter, and seeing to it that the people who do matter to you are treated well and not gratuitously subjected to things they find offensive.

Think about it: most of the things that people describe as "tasteless" are either ostentatious brand advertisements or conspicuous consumption, or something designed to deliberately offend.

Aesthetic goals can actually be accomplished quite cheaply if you're willing to put in effort.

mbk

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Lure of Luxury
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2015, 06:53:08 PM »
Nice article. After reading the article, I understand why I felt pain when my wife gave away my Sony RX-100 camera as a gift to her brother and not feel a thing when she gifted an even more expensive Sony NEX camera to her cousin. My feelings were puzzling to me for a while.
I had a history with RX-100. I searched craigslist hard and bought it for a pretty good deal. I took it on all my bike rides and captured everything of interest in bay area from my foggy rides on Golden Gate bridge to a dog chasing birds in SFO beach.
Whereas the NEX was gifted to her by her friends.

Papa Mustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1650
  • Location: Humidity, USA
Re: The Lure of Luxury
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2015, 03:57:33 PM »
I'm curious why she would give away your camera.

I have tools, etc that are important to me. I would want to discuss he giveaway of things important to me. Likewise I have a good idea of what is important to her would discuss that with her too.

Kitsunegari

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 477
  • Location: Quebec, CA
  • Penny wise, pound foolish
Re: The Lure of Luxury
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2015, 11:34:04 AM »
I'd thought about this a bit more. I'd say that the crux of the article is that there is a value beyond status competition in buying luxuries--call it an aesthetic value, or good taste, or whatever. The MMM corollary though would be that those values are subjective, and if you pick up a MMM mindset you start to recoil from these nice but unnecessary hobby items and put more value on high-quality products that meet your actual needs. Something about imagining MMM face-punching you makes nice toys less attractive :).

Hmm, I was raised to believe that "good taste" consisted of two things: making sure to not spend time, money, or effort trying to impress people whose opinions don't matter, and seeing to it that the people who do matter to you are treated well and not gratuitously subjected to things they find offensive.

Think about it: most of the things that people describe as "tasteless" are either ostentatious brand advertisements or conspicuous consumption, or something designed to deliberately offend.

Aesthetic goals can actually be accomplished quite cheaply if you're willing to put in effort.


I'm under the impression that the concept of 'good taste' is very middle class. It's used to label things that are pleasant while almost completely unnoticeable, things that don't draw attention, and especially things that don't insult anyone.
Specularly, 'tasteless' are things that don't conform to this middle class standard: things that don't mind to state "look what I've got!". 





TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2606
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: The Lure of Luxury
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2015, 03:23:54 PM »
I'd thought about this a bit more. I'd say that the crux of the article is that there is a value beyond status competition in buying luxuries--call it an aesthetic value, or good taste, or whatever. The MMM corollary though would be that those values are subjective, and if you pick up a MMM mindset you start to recoil from these nice but unnecessary hobby items and put more value on high-quality products that meet your actual needs. Something about imagining MMM face-punching you makes nice toys less attractive :).

Hmm, I was raised to believe that "good taste" consisted of two things: making sure to not spend time, money, or effort trying to impress people whose opinions don't matter, and seeing to it that the people who do matter to you are treated well and not gratuitously subjected to things they find offensive.

Think about it: most of the things that people describe as "tasteless" are either ostentatious brand advertisements or conspicuous consumption, or something designed to deliberately offend.

Aesthetic goals can actually be accomplished quite cheaply if you're willing to put in effort.


I'm under the impression that the concept of 'good taste' is very middle class. It's used to label things that are pleasant while almost completely unnoticeable, things that don't draw attention, and especially things that don't insult anyone.
Specularly, 'tasteless' are things that don't conform to this middle class standard: things that don't mind to state "look what I've got!".

Those three things you identified aren't unique to the middle class, though. Lack of ostentation is practiced by people at all income levels who don't want to attract negative attention or to give offense.

I do agree that tastelessness has a certain attention-seeking angle, because it implies a lack of respect for other people and their standards or expectations. Deliberately grossing people out or trying to provoke them is disrespectful, and it detracts from the rest of the social experience.

Kitsunegari

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 477
  • Location: Quebec, CA
  • Penny wise, pound foolish
Re: The Lure of Luxury
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2015, 08:37:38 AM »
I'd thought about this a bit more. I'd say that the crux of the article is that there is a value beyond status competition in buying luxuries--call it an aesthetic value, or good taste, or whatever. The MMM corollary though would be that those values are subjective, and if you pick up a MMM mindset you start to recoil from these nice but unnecessary hobby items and put more value on high-quality products that meet your actual needs. Something about imagining MMM face-punching you makes nice toys less attractive :).

Hmm, I was raised to believe that "good taste" consisted of two things: making sure to not spend time, money, or effort trying to impress people whose opinions don't matter, and seeing to it that the people who do matter to you are treated well and not gratuitously subjected to things they find offensive.

Think about it: most of the things that people describe as "tasteless" are either ostentatious brand advertisements or conspicuous consumption, or something designed to deliberately offend.

Aesthetic goals can actually be accomplished quite cheaply if you're willing to put in effort.

I'm under the impression that the concept of 'good taste' is very middle class. It's used to label things that are pleasant while almost completely unnoticeable, things that don't draw attention, and especially things that don't insult anyone.
Specularly, 'tasteless' are things that don't conform to this middle class standard: things that don't mind to state "look what I've got!".

Those three things you identified aren't unique to the middle class, though. Lack of ostentation is practiced by people at all income levels who don't want to attract negative attention or to give offense.


I do agree that tastelessness has a certain attention-seeking angle, because it implies a lack of respect for other people and their standards or expectations. Deliberately grossing people out or trying to provoke them is disrespectful, and it detracts from the rest of the social experience.


Are they? I find only middle class (regardless of income level) care so much about the attention it's drawing and the idea of itself it's projecting. Except maybe for strictly religious people (i.e. in my family is considered bad form to wear jewels in church, except maybe for a bride).

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!