Apartment foo-nishing

[CBrown85]

Rug money went into the wardrobe.

 

[TheFoo]

But, it's not purely a money issue. It's a matter of taste. A superficial copy is not the only cost-effective choice.

 

[NiceToHave]

What I don't understand is how people who care so much about whether their suits are canvassed or glued-together would be okay with a Pottery Barn copy of a tribal rug.

My take on this, as a father of a 4 year old, is that some things needs to be "cheaper" so you can actually live/use the thing. We have a pretty expensive sofa and sideboard but a cheap (but nice ) carpet and armchair. The 4 year old mainly uses the armchair when having snacks etc, if he spills on the carpet then we can always buy a new one if it gets to messy and the armchair has removable fabric that we ourselves can wash.

But, it's not purely a money issue. It's a matter of taste. A superficial copy is not the only cost-effective choice.

In my case it's not a copy thou, it's just a cheaper and synthetic shag (?).

 

[CBrown85]



But, it's not purely a money issue. It's a matter of taste. A superficial copy is not the only cost-effective choice.

Really? I've never been in a Pottery Barn, but is an $1100 rug from them really more disposable than some handwoven $2500 run from XXXXX? Genuine question, because I'm not sure if you're talking 'quality' or simply paying heed do the 'original designers'. Disclaimer: ours are from Wal-Mart or Costco.

 

[sugarbutch]



What I don't understand is how people who care so much about whether their suits are canvassed or glued-together would be okay with a Pottery Barn copy of a tribal rug.

Those aren't really the same thing. A better analog is the choice to buy a canvassed suit from an Indian maker instead of from Savile Row.

 

[TheFoo]



My take on this, as a father of a 4 year old, is that some things needs to be "cheaper" so you can actually live/use the thing. We have a pretty expensive sofa and sideboard but a cheap (but nice ) carpet and armchair. The 4 year old mainly uses the armchair when having snacks etc, if he spills on the carpet then we can always buy a new one if it gets to messy and the armchair has removable fabric that we ourselves can wash.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I totally get that. It's not being cheap that's the problem; it's fakeness. If I wanted to spend less money than it would take to get a real Beni Ourain, I simply wouldn't buy a Beni Ourain-style rug.

Really? I've never been in a Pottery Barn, but is an $1100 rug from them really more disposable than some handwoven $2500 run from XXXXX? Genuine question, because I'm not sure if you're talking 'quality' or simply paying heed do the 'original designers'. Disclaimer: ours are from Wal-Mart or Costco.

I cannot speak to the workmanship of the Pottery Barn rug. My point is that it is fake. Cheap or inexpensive does not have to mean inauthentic.

Those aren't really the same thing. A better analog is the choice to buy a canvassed suit from an Indian maker instead of from Savile Row.

No, it is not the most granular analog, but it doesn't have to be here, does it? The bigger point is less about authenticity (which your analog doesn't capture), but about refinement of taste and discernment.

A better analog, along the lines of your example, would be buying an Indian-made "Savile Row-style" suit under the impression that it will be meaningfully similar to a suit actually made by a Savile Row tailor.

 

[dopey]



What I don't understand is how people who care so much about whether their suits are canvassed or glued-together would be okay with a Pottery Barn copy of a tribal rug.

I think it is because there are some things people care about and some things they don't, and one needn't be consistent to be happy. Our sofa is from Ikea. It may be a copy of some iconic design or maybe not. I don't really care. I got sick of looking for sofas and my wife decided to order that one and be done with it. Five or so years later, it still works and I don't regret that it isn't something else. On the other hand, every time my wife comes home with a new Pucci dress, I get pissed because I think it is basically a cheap knock-off of old Pucci, which was beautfully made. The new stuff is junk and I would rather she bought cheaper cheap knock-offs from H&M.

 

[sugarbutch]

Those aren't really the same thing. A better analog is the choice to buy a canvassed suit from an Indian maker instead of from Savile Row.

No, it is not the most granular analog, but it doesn't have to be here, does it? The bigger point is less about authenticity (which your analog doesn't capture), but about refinement of taste and discernment.

A better analog, along the lines of your example, would be buying an Indian-made "Savile Row-style" suit under the impression that it will be meaningfully similar to a suit actually made by a Savile Row tailor.

I think Thomas Mahon would assert that his made-in-India line is meaningfully similar to something made by a SR tailor.

 

[TheFoo]



I think it is because there are some things people care about and some things they don't, and one needn't be consistent to be happy. Our sofa is from Ikea. It may be a copy of some iconic design or maybe not. I don't really care. I got sick of looking for sofas and my wife decided to order that one and be done with it. Five or so years later, it still works and I don't regret that it isn't something else. On the other hand, every time my wife comes home with a new Pucci dress, I get pissed because I think it is basically a cheap knock-off of old Pucci, which was beautfully made. The new stuff is junk and I would rather she bought cheaper cheap knock-offs from H&M.

This does and doesn't make sense.

Sure, people can pick what they care about. Yet, it seems to me that real taste is somehow transcendent, no? To me, it is about understanding and appreciating the intrinsic good in a thing--yet, such intrinsically good qualities tend to flow across different contexts. If I care about authenticity in one area, under the pretense that authenticity is fundamentally virtuous, it seems odd that I would not value it highly in other areas as well.

I think Thomas Mahon would assert that his made-in-India line is meaningfully similar to something made by a SR tailor.

I can't speak to that specific example. I hope you understand the bigger point, though.

 

[TheFoo]

Also, Ikea is so startling cheap for new furniture, that it is almost always impossible to find an equally inexpensive alternative. Sometimes, cheap is cheap.

A $500-1,000 rug from Pottery Barn is a different matter.

 

[dopey]



This does and doesn't make sense.

Sure, people can pick what they care about. Yet, it seems to me that real taste is somehow transcendent, no? To me, it is about understanding and appreciating the intrinsic good in a thing--yet, such intrinsically good qualities tend to flow across different contexts. If I care about authenticity in one area, under the pretense that authenticity is fundamentally virtuous, it seems odd that I would not value it highly in other areas as well...

I can't dispute that it seems odd to you, but it seems perfectly sensible to me. There is so much in the world that I don't care about very much, and for those things, authenticity or inauthenticity are just another dimension about which I don't care. For me, authenticity isn't a thing in and of itself. It is an attribute of something else. If I care about the something else then I might cae about the attributes, and if I don't care about the thing then I don't fixate much on the attributes. In any case, I am reporting my own experience and not suggesting it has to be yours.

By the way, how many experts or masters of a field have you met who are absolutely rigorous and maniacal about perfection and authenticity in their field of interest but who completely ingnore those same factors in other fields? It seems pretty common to me. Certainly, in my experience, with musicians and writers and artists.

 

[TheFoo]

I don't disagree that people are typically inconsistent in applying priorities to aesthetic things (particularly experts and masters of particular fields, now that you ask), but that doesn't make me think better of it.

Part of having taste is overcoming prejudice and looking for intrinsic good even where you wouldn't expect to find it. So, I don't see how one can exert taste if he confines that approach to a pre-defined category (clothes, furniture, food, etc.). Being a really expert collector or adept hobbyist is not the same thing as being a tasteful person.

 

[sugarbutch]



Part of having taste is overcoming prejudice and looking for intrinsic good even where you wouldn't expect to find it.

Like in a rug made in India?

 

[dopey]

You have set yourself an ambitious goal.
Have you read À rebours? I am not sure you would like it (I didn't), but you are reminding me of it now. It is also worth reading if you want to push your aesthetic views out along the lines you have been doing.

 

[TheFoo]



Like in a rug made in India?

Are you keeping track?

Dopey and I broadened the discussion to cover quality more generally. The issue with an Indian-made Beni Ourain is not that it is necessarily poorly made, but that it is necessarily fake.