STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
Many more words, yet no additional content or reason.
Who’s opinion is unsupported? I’ve talked about form and function and quality. You are preoccupied with not wanting a thing to look like another thing without having a reason for why it shouldn’t.
Mind explaining? I’m seeing you say this is awful and that’s the worst, but it would be more interesting for people to discuss their thoughts in a way that others can actually engage them.
And flatware hobbyists tend to be creepy nutjobs.
In defense of the mob, expensive flatware has a bit of flash problem. Flatware is a small detail in the American mind, and to have spent good money on it –– along with every other object in one's home –– communicates an all encompassing fixation on the material. But Foo is really the king of flash. With flash, you get strong reactions (love/hate). For instance, I hate Foo's porsche, but I love his suits. These reactions are so strong they runneth over. At this point, I don't even know about this Pott 33 business. I just know I feel.
I have no problem with him (or anyone else) spending money on flatware. I spend money on much more ridiculous things than flatware (subjective of course). I love his Porsche, and I love his suits; I just don't like this flatware. Has nothing to do with Foo himself.
Yes, didn't say you said it was. But you prove my point. Most things that Foo purchases elicit a love/hate reaction because he's flash, that is to say, most things Foo owns call attention to themselves. I think Americans cannot tolerate flatware calling attention to itself. This is my adopted homeland, so I will stand by the red, white, and blue, but just with a little less fervor that natural soilers.
To be accused of word salad after your response to @brokencycle is hilarious. You spit out subjective phrasing, hoping there is enough of it to force the reader to get tired and accept your point of view.
Form -
This is, obviously, the aspect that people are disagreeing on. You find them very pleasing. I do not.
I find them bulbous and unpleasing to the eye. They reek of trying too hard to stand out through faux simplicity.
The tines on the fork look out of shape with the rest of the set; the neck and handle of the fork looks kinked and poorly thought out compared to the other pieces.
The knife, as mentioned before, looks like a poorly designed .... something. It is not graceful at all. If you set it away from the rest of a flatware setting and away from plates you could be forgiven for not knowing exactly what it is.
Function -
I am sure it is able to transport food from a surface to another surface or to a mouth. I am sure it is moderately or possibly very comfortable to hold in the hand.
However, unlike chef's knives, where a conversation over handle shape and ergonomics might actually have some place to go on either side of the discussion, the question of "Does this function as flatware?" I don't think is first in the mind of most people when choosing a set. Because the assumed answer is already "Yes."
Ultimately the disagreement is about Form.
Foo en fuego –– Changing my mind somewhat, but I'm still with the mob (but for different reasons). Let me rundown my resistance to Pott 33 and fancy flatware in general.
I feel a very few essential objects, like things designed to put food in your mouth, should not call attention to themselves. I don't like being aware of the thing that is delivering food to my mouth, whether for good or bad reasons. Also, dedicated readers may find this hard to believe, but I'm a man of the people. You set out that Pott 33 and some peeps gonna be like I've never eaten with something like this before. It's like 2001 is calling, and it wants it cutlery back (Kubrick's imagined 2001, with the Arne Jacobsen flatware).
DC Hillier's MCM Daily - Arne Jacobsen Flatware
In 1957 renown architect and designer Arne Jacobsen designed this classic minimalist cutlery. Originally produced by Michelsen of Demark these strikingly simple pieces were created to be, “flatware without frills” and their clean, precise lines were considered a vision of the future. Or at least...www.mcmdaily.com
Some people may lose all motor function when they encounter such objects for the first time.
Also, in defense of Foo, I think most of us have unfinished homes. I feel flatware is a low mileage item. It's really for the man who has it all. Most, including myself, would be better off buying another piece of art or something of the like.
In defense of the mob, expensive flatware has a bit of flash problem. Flatware is a small detail in the American mind, and to have spent good money on it –– along with every other object in one's home –– communicates an all encompassing fixation on the material. But Foo is really the king of flash. With flash, you get strong reactions (love/hate). For instance, I hate Foo's porsche, but I love his suits. These reactions are so strong they runneth over. At this point, I don't even know about this Pott 33 business. I just know I feel.
A most basic principle of design is that form should be assessed in relation to function. You are assessing form based on prejudices and preconceptions.
What does it mean for fork tines to “look out of shape”? What shape, exactly, should they have? If a fork’s neck and handle are “kinked”, is that good or bad? Why does it matter to a thing’s design whether one can “[know] exactly what it is” without context? I wager to the extent you have any answers to these questions, they inevitably reflect preconceived notions of good form that have no rational bases—but I’m happy to be proven wrong.
Further, you are using words like “unpleasing”, “trying too hard”, “poorly designed”, “not graceful”, etc., without substantiation through any logic or conceptual explication. This is merely proud ignorance. Or, in other words: “Yucky! That’s different from what I’m used to!”
Instead, many talented designers have realized the inward taper from head to handle is pointless (e.g. Pott, Mellor, Jacobsen, etc.). If you don’t need to taper a handle, why go through the trouble of tapering it? If we understand a thing or feature to be useless, we should then consider it enlightened and good to do without it. Truth, in my experience, is always more beautiful than falseness, no matter what one’s immediate impression.
David Mellor was a master designer and one of England’s greatest. The Pride flatware set was his very first. The Minimal set was his last and he seem to have considered it to be his best work. If you look at the evolution of his flatware designs over time, you can see how the “elegance” of Pride melted away and evolved into the “not graceful” Minimal. Or maybe, it just evolved. Sadly, not everyone can keep up.
Yes, didn't say you said it was. But you prove my point. Most things that Foo purchases elicit a love/hate reaction because he's flash, that is to say, most things Foo owns call attention to themselves. I think Americans cannot tolerate flatware calling attention to itself. This is my adopted homeland, so I will stand by the red, white, and blue, but just with a little less fervor that natural soilers.
I am assessing form based on my subjective opinion of what looks good. You are ascribing prejudice and preconception to try to attack my subjective opinion and make your subjective opinion appear objective.
This is once again merely attacking a subjective opinion with your opinion spit up into words to cloak it as otherwise. What, in your opinion, separates a "preconceived notion" from any other opinion?
This is the same as any defender of the works of say...Morphosis or Frank Gehry telling the multitudes of people who think their buildings are ugly that they are merely plebes who just don't understand.
”They have realized it is pointless" = They think it is pointless, and you agree.
The form is, itself, the point.
Surely based off your vast purchasing history, you cannot truly believe that doing away with anything not strictly useful is "enlightened and good." You are either engaging in pure rhetorical bandying, or you are completely unaware of the rank hypocrisy of the statement.
Appeals to authority are boring. Also hilarious considering you accuse others of prejudice and preconception. Falling back on "this master liked it the best" is the ultimate preconception.
I like the children's set at least 2x as much as anything else that has been posted recently...Sorry you were unable to take my one sentence seriously.
I find the overly square handles childish. They remind me of every plastic utensil set I've seen babies play with.
Here is a set Mellor actually makes for kids View attachment 1565423
The difference (besides the colors), is at least this knife doesn't look like a Cub Scout failed to whittle a pickle.
So what if it looks like a child's set, you ask? Maybe that doesn't bother you. That's fine. It doesn't appeal to me.
"Locked in a traditional mindset" is just a way of trying to establish objectively superior taste without support.
I like the children's set at least 2x as much as anything else that has been posted recently...
If I had lake house or something, I'd totally keep those there.