Comment by analog31 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by analog31 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Here's the story that made sense to me: In the pre industrial age, visible ornamentation was symbolic of a craftsman's skill and attention to detail, when you couldn't inspect the invisible aspects of a product. For instance a violin has an ornately carved scroll, and features such as the "bees sting," whereas you can't take it apart to see if the neck mortise is precisely fitted. It is one of the few pre-industrial-age products whose aesthetics have not changed much.

Today, those features are no longer necessary, and we look for other measures of quality in products -- for better or worse.

I grew up in a "midcentury modern" house, and my family lives in one today. I find the modern decor to be comforting because in my case it reminds me of home. My mom claimed that the sparse decor was easier to maintain, for instance: "There are no knick-knacks to dust around." Truth be told, the house also happened to be available during a very frothy market, and my spouse would have chosen something more traditional.

It's also claimed that the simpler decor works in smaller houses.

We were not rich. The MCM houses in my 'hood, including ours, are certainly not clutter free, yet still feel pleasant and comfortable.

What are we talking about here? I didn't read the full article but I looked at the synopsis at the top: "Striped patterns, flickering lights, bright glare, and crowded visual environments such as supermarkets"

With the exclusion of striped patterns, this just sounds like a typical over lit commercial environments, probably overhead fluorescent lights, maybe lights and screens running at different refresh rates. That has nothing to do with home decor of any era or culture.

Also I'm guessing the acoustics are consistently horrible in these environments too. Air quality probably sucks too.

Indeed, I'm a musician and the acoustics of most modern commercial environments suck.

People are responding to the title. Which I think is a bad summary. It's more like modern lack of design like the quote points out

With all due respect, if you bought a house during a frothy market, and you use words like “mid-century modern, you are 100% part of the elite class, even if you don’t consider yourself rich. Maybe you are part of the top 10% instead of the top 1%, but that top 10% or 20% is exactly the class I was referring to.

Sure, and today, it's like if you can buy a house at all.

Probably what makes the house less cluttered is that the elite class can afford to throw things away.

Keeping your house clean and neat is elite? I guess I'm elite lol finally.now what do I do about those bills?

TBF most ppl reading/posting on HN are part of the elite.

Elite doesn't imply "more money than I know what to do with" it simply means being closer to the upper end the of income and/or wealth distribution, or failing that, being part of some cultural generation that gives you more influence than the average bear, i.e. journalist, university prof etc. The cutoff for being in the 20% of household income in the US is $175K. From what I understand that's one entry level FAANG income.

I (, at least for my sanity, want to) believe the average HN user isn't working for a FAANG. It seems most are either hobbyists or work at a startup in some way

they could be a fellow prole with an eye for design. We exist :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com