Works or products?

[Costi]

Manufacturing for the masses, modern industry obliterates the creations of the age-old Art, whose works were as fully personal to the customer as they were to the artisan. We have products today, we no longer have works.
(Honore de Balzac, Beatrix, 1839)

How much further down this road are we 170 years later?...
A personal article also meant personal requirements. Modern man has grown used to taking what is offered and he wouldn’t even know what to require from a shoemaker, an ebeniste or a jeweller. He finds it hard to imagine, to co-create, to be part of the process, to give it time – he just wants to pick the finished article from a shelf and fools himself that he has a choice. This alienation of modern man with respect to the objects that he uses explains the bad relationship he has with the material world. The more “civilized” we become, the closer we are to the spirit of primitive man: the hunter-gatherer. Only the source – Nature – was replaced with Industry.

[rodes]

Costi, It seems to me that this is not universally bad. For instance,I really do not need to have control over the making of my computer or car; I simply choose a model that best suits my needs. Perhaps, HP or GM can serve me even better than I can serve myself. However,and I believe that this is your argument,with respect to aesthetic choices, agree that it is very bad. Personal tastes are so very important to one's sense of wellbeing and happiness. The product oriented society seems to rob a person of his aesthetic taste over time. Indeed,that is the ultimate aim of the "designer", to make us want not what we want but what he wants. This seems to be more evident in the Americas than in say Europe. I have not traveled abroad very often,however for me as a US citizen,this is one of the greatest pleasures; to see not only the beauty of Europe, but to see how much Europeans seem to enjoy it. We have beauty here in equal measure; we need to appreciate it more.

[ggreen]

This is my first post on the forum, although I've been enjoying reading LL for a number if years. My name is Greg.
Costi, this quotation touches upon so many more aspects of our lives today than is immediately apparent.
I think we are significantly further down this road today. To borrow from Martin Buber and his work "I and Thou", I would say that what you describe as "alienation of modern man with respect to the objects that he uses" can be more generally seen as loss of ability to form intimate relationships with the surrounding world. I suppose key may be in the word "uses". Modern man does not live with his objects, he uses or utilizes them. This explains so many things. For example, desire to replace an aging old friend of a suit (filled with memories good and bad) with a new unfamiliar one.
I only wonder what Balzac would have said of Wiki

[Costi]

Even computers and cars can be and are custom built to customer specifications today, even though they would not have existed without industry. This is an interesting example of applying artisanal principles to an already industrialized "raw matter".
I think it is not so much (or just) a matter of aesthetics - this is not a question of destination (of course you can find shoes, computers or cars ready made that satisfy you sufficiently), but of the road to it: the WAY things are made, what goes into them, the human touch that you can feel in any object not made by a blind machine churning out identical item after identical item.
The current trend of "personalization", of "customization", of "bespoke" everything - even industrial products - shows the yearning for this human touch in the objects that surround us, so we would not feel alienated among them. Not to mention the pride of the artisan, which was replaced by the alienation of the manufacturer who has no human contact with his customers.

[Costi]

Ggreen, welcome on board! I like your insightful observations - yes, there is more to it than face value. You see how insidious this process is - why did I choose "use"?...

As for Monsieur de Balzac, he tried hard (and remained unsuccessful) to be elected a member of the Academie, like his illustrious predecessors who had compiled the famous precursor of Wiki, l'Encyclopedie - which was a dictionary of "sciences, arts and crafts" - so very much to Balzac's liking!
He was, however, an encyclopaedic spirit for sure - besides his intimate knowledge of human nature and beyond his not too polished style - he was interested and knowledgeable in almost everything: architecture, music (Massimila Doni), painting, sciences (Illusions Perdues)... what not.

[ggreen]

Costi, thank you for your welcome. I am yet to learn the use of quote function
You are correct, we often forget to pay attention to words, don't we. Little details, matter of semantics some would say.
On the subject of l'Encyclopedie, well, the process by which documentation of this sort of body of knowledge was achieved was very different from that used to assemble information on Wiki today. But we digress.
I am not so sure that current trend for "customization", "personalization" etc. is truly indicative of yearning for human touch. To me it often smells like desire to make oneself unique by way of owning something unique - the ultimate limited edition of one . But, as has been said here so many times, that is but a weak facsimile of trying to find oneself.

[Costi]

I start from the premise that we ARE unique and we have no need to prove it to ourselves or others, it is axiomatic. The thing with "customization" or the bespoke process is that it is part of the never-ending process of searching for oneself, rather than the temporary result of "having found" oneself. It is IN that process, in our involvement that we may come closer to knowing ourselves. So we are looking for ourselves in our bespoke commissions, in our customized, individualized articles. We even look for ourselves in other people, for how else can we understand them? The process of getting to know ourselves is not (only) a solitary voyage into the depths of our souls, it takes place just as much in the outside world, no?

[ggreen]

There are two parts to your axiomatic structure. First, that we are unique. Second, that we have no need to prove it to ourselves and others. I agree with the first, but not the second. I think we not only seek proof of our uniqueness, but also reassurance that we ARE. Just as we look for our reflection in the mirror we look for it in relationships with other people. Though we want to understand them, we also try to discover, understand and confirm our own selves in a relationship. I see bespoke process as very similar. We engage in a relationship by exercising our choice, then participate in creation process, and finally we continue by living with the newly created and hopefully seeing our reflection in it in some way. All of this IS being IN the process as you say. I think we are more in agreement here than in disagreement?
Having said all this, I still hold that what you described earlier as the current trend for customization is a different phenomenon. Let us not be fooled by external appearance of similarity. It has little to do with truly yearning to understand oneself, but is rooted in a superficial desire of lazy modern man to assert his uniqueness by virtue of owning "the only one" or "one of ten". Being IN the process in fact does not exist for him at all. It is ALWAYS about the destination only. The industry caught onto this and is cashing in by artificially limiting production of things and applying gimmicky distinctions to make an item unique, don't you agree?
On a slightly note, I have noticed an interesting thing. When I consider a new cloth, the easiest way for me to recognize if it is mine, if I can recognize myself in it, is to lay it over my wrist rather than over my shoulder. Then I either see a familiar hand or I don't. Perhaps this has to do with the simple fact that a hand is a very intimate part of the body and we see our hands far more often than our faces

[Costi]

There are two parts to your axiomatic structure. First, that we are unique. Second, that we have no need to prove it to ourselves and others.

The "first" part is the axiom itself, while the "second" part is the very definition of an axiom, non? - perhaps redundant, but hardly a second idea IF we accept the "former" and its implications.
But this is just formal logic and I do see what you mean - I agree many wish to possess something unique for the mere sake of it, rather than the personal meaning with which an object is invested when one is involved in its creation.

I agree with the first, but not the second. I think we not only seek proof of our uniqueness, but also reassurance that we ARE. Just as we look for our reflection in the mirror we look for it in relationships with other people.

There is yet another interesting thing going on with looking at our reflection in the mirror: it is a way for us to see ourselves as SOMEONE ELSE, as a second person. Perhaps this explains why you like to see the cloth around your wrist (yourself) rather on your shoulder in a mirror (someone else) - and I like this idea very much, because it means you choose things for yourself, not for the way others see you. And if you like yourself, others have no reason not to (this is just paraphrasing my shirtmaker who likes to say that if SHE likes a shirt she made, the customer will like it, too).

Though we want to understand them, we also try to discover, understand and confirm our own selves in a relationship. I see bespoke process as very similar. We engage in a relationship by exercising our choice, then participate in creation process, and finally we continue by living with the newly created and hopefully seeing our reflection in it in some way. All of this IS being IN the process as you say. I think we are more in agreement here than in disagreement?

Certainly!

Having said all this, I still hold that what you described earlier as the current trend for customization is a different phenomenon. Let us not be fooled by external appearance of similarity. It has little to do with truly yearning to understand oneself, but is rooted in a superficial desire of lazy modern man to assert his uniqueness by virtue of owning "the only one" or "one of ten". Being IN the process in fact does not exist for him at all. It is ALWAYS about the destination only. The industry caught onto this and is cashing in by artificially limiting production of things and applying gimmicky distinctions to make an item unique, don't you agree?

For many modern "consumers" (which is the actual word employed - may I say "used"? - by Balzac, though he did not anticipate what it would come to mean in the 21st century) it is certainly true, but not for all. Idem as far as the gimmicky marketing is concerned - it is so much easier and profitable to exploit people's weaknesses than to cultivate their virtues...

On a slightly note, I have noticed an interesting thing. When I consider a new cloth, the easiest way for me to recognize if it is mine, if I can recognize myself in it, is to lay it over my wrist rather than over my shoulder. Then I either see a familiar hand or I don't. Perhaps this has to do with the simple fact that a hand is a very intimate part of the body and we see our hands far more often than our faces

"...to recognize if it is mine" - very nicely said!

Don't give much importance to my thoughts, this was all just to illustrate the use of the "quote" function : quoted text should end with [/quote] and start with

(I inverted the natural order because this is like a spell - if you quote it right, it does its magic unfailingly!)

[ggreen]

There is yet another interesting thing going on with looking at our reflection in the mirror: it is a way for us to see ourselves as SOMEONE ELSE, as a second person. Perhaps this explains why you like to see the cloth around your wrist (yourself) rather on your shoulder in a mirror (someone else) - and I like this idea very much, because it means you choose things for yourself, not for the way others see you.

This is a very interesting idea. All of us had those strange moments when we look in the mirror and see ourselves as SOMEONE ELSE. I never thought about the fact that to some degree this is always present even when this effect not as strongly felt. And therefore the distinction you describe. I really like your explanation of "why" of my preference. I wanted to sleep on it before replying, let it sink in and see if it really appeals to my intuition. And in the morning it was clear that you are right.

Don't give much importance to my thoughts, this was all just to illustrate the use of the "quote" function:

That’s exactly the way I took it. And now the lesson is learnt. You are correct, quoting does work unfailingly. So much so that I couldn't quote you above in full

[Costi]

And in the morning it was clear that you are right.

The guy in the mirror told you so

Things always sink in, but not all are able to cast a spotlight later, recognize and retrieve the fruit that the seed has sprouted. Proust resembled this faculty to developing a photograph. Using and trusting one's intuition is also rare in a world obsessed with control (and horror of the uncontrollable). Perhaps that is why Style is such a rare flower...

[ggreen]

Things always sink in, but not all are able to cast a spotlight later, recognize and retrieve the fruit that the seed has sprouted. Proust resembled this faculty to developing a photograph.

Yes, one has to sort of let things germinate, leave the new idea alone for it to develop. Rilke called it living the questions.
“Don't search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions now.”

Using and trusting one's intuition is also rare in a world obsessed with control (and horror of the uncontrollable). Perhaps that is why Style is such a rare flower...

True, so true. And as applied to dressing, there is another contributing factor. We are already historically detached from the time when dressing well and naturally was the norm. Detached from the time when “technique” was second nature and therefore dressing was intuitive. A musician could not possibly let his interpretation (his style) come through if his technique impeded. We are insecure in our technique, we worry about correctness (as we should). We get stiff and suffocate our style. I know I am guilty of this, but I am glad I am on the right way thanks in big part to LL.

[Costi]

“Don't search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions now.”

Wonderful! The right questions are more important than the right answers. THEY lead the way: if the direction is wrong, who cares about how good the road is set out? Living the questions, letting them germinate - what a beautiful idea, equally difficult for modern (Western) man, who is not only cartesian in thought, but also impatient. The cure to this cartesian anxiety syndrome (at which you also hint when you write that "we seek reassurance that we ARE") is probably to go back, perhaps as far as St. Augustine, before the body-soul (body-mind) schism and its disastruous effects. We need to recompose ourselves, enough with analysis – Style is synthesis.

A musician could not possibly let his interpretation (his style) come through if his technique impeded. We are insecure in our technique, we worry about correctness (as we should). We get stiff and suffocate our style

Exactly. Check out the post on Charlie Siem’s motto in this thread: http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... 33&t=10052

I know I am guilty of this, but I am glad I am on the right way thanks in big part to LL.

Style is not a destination, it is a process – a road. As long as you are on the road, you are there! When you think you found your destination, fight the desire to set up camp and preach from there (like so many style gurus out there) – mannerism is the death of Style. The best part of the LL is being on the same road together with others – it’s a bit like The Canterbury Tales, except the tales are a little different and the destination is always at the horizon, but having good company while on the way is most reassuring. So WE thank you for the company (even while silent) and now, that you made your voice heard, remember to share a style pilgrim story every now and again!

[ggreen]

"cartesian in thought", "We need to recompose ourselves, enough with analysis – Style is synthesis." Now, this IS wonderful. Digging deeper and deeper here. Also setting the bar high. I recall someone recently suggesting that we should quit being art critics, take a brush in hand and paint . Analysis can be taught as a technique and that is why people like it and gravitate there. Synthesis can not. When synthesis happens it is exhilarating, true and unmistakable, as unmistakable as true style.
I imagine, next time someone asks you for some advice in dressing you will just reply: "drop you cartesian ideas and start to synthesize"

So WE thank you for the company (even while silent) and now, that you made your voice heard, remember to share a style pilgrim story every now and again!

Silent sometimes is the best company. Thank you again for making me feel welcome. Some pilgrim stories are on the way!

[rodes]

ggreen, I send my compliments and wecome you to the LL as well. The conversation between you and Costi is most interesting. I am much more in the camp of Augustine than Buber so I can envision some respectful and lively discussion with you. Perhaps we can figure out whether taste is innate or existential.
Welcome,
Rodes