quiddities and agonies of the ruling class - a rolling new york times thread

why can't it be both?

xp

Color, pattern, and play are the guiding factors in everything we make. Even though it’s “just an axe” it’s a blank canvas with endless possibilities. When the axe is finished we sit down and think of names. The naming process is crucial: it’s where we give the axe the beginning of its story, albeit a very short story (we purposefully do not caption the axes, just give them names) because we know our customers are inventive enough to create the real ongoing story.

that's a bit precious isn't it..

this sort of thing needs a gilbert sorrentino to embalm it forever in a thoroughly devastating snapshot of a ridiculous age, really

/exposure of actual intentions for this thread

you could actually use a $200 watch on a daily basis, and it probably would keep running and look good for a long time. i wonder how many people in nyc would buy one of the axes just to hang it on a wall?

The point is that the people in this article aren't choosing between a cheap axe and an expensive one with the same utility, they're choosing an expensive product with no utility to them.

okay, add in "why bother having one at all, when you can just look at your phone," then.

Once more, with feeling: Thorstein Veblen to thread!

okay, add in "why bother having one at all, when you can just look at your phone," then.

I guarantee more Manhattan residents use watches than use axes.

xp I own a Veblen good, but I use it

a $30 timex - battery will probably go dead, case will get scratched up, strap is cheap material and will wear out, all within about 6 months to a year. at least for me - i wear it every day. so then you have to buy another one. also i rather check the time on my watch than going through my bag and trying to find my phone. so i might buy one in the $150-$200 range if it isn't likely to wear out & make me go to the trouble of replacing something or buying a new one. but i am 100% against buying stuff that looks expensive just to show off! i'd get one with no details, no logo, as simple as possible basically.

I just wear an $180 axe and use it as a sundial.

The point is that the people in this article aren't choosing between a cheap axe and an expensive one with the same utility, they're choosing an expensive product with no utility to them.

― I DIED, Monday, July 5, 2010 2:04 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban

who effing cares if some new yorker wants to spend $200 on something they think looks nice on their wall

I mean seriously dealwithit.gif

there are better things out there for u to feel superior about

I make a living doing design work, so I actually care a lot about contemporary design culture and the way in which the NYT coverage of it steers trends. There are a lot of other threads where we don't discuss silly NYT articles.

i blow minds for a living

personally

what's your rate?

which of the following things is most to blame for this thread

1) rich people

2) new york city

3) the new york times

4) design, the concept of

5) modernity

6) alienation

7) the internet

8) utility, the concept of

commodity fetishism

9) write-in (commodity fetishism)

and butt tattoos

what's your rate?

― kate78, Monday, July 5, 2010 5:38 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark

i start at $180

just enough for your very own design axe!

if this article is to be believed there is a huge market out there for ordinary household objects spraypainted in garish colors and tagged with cute & quirky bios

be on the lookout for "Best Made Rubber Plunger", a rubber plunger you'll be proud to leave your grandkids that comes in attractive Jamaican flag colors

fuck them, I'm getting buried w/ mine

ps
1) rich people

tbf I looked and milo was right - there are a bunch of non-hipstery companies that make good quality axes for similar prices (although for all I know, those are just fetish items for more conservative well-to-do folks). I guess if the axe is really of comparable quality and you're not just paying for the chic, I can't completely begrudge it the pastel stripes.

they would make for a good l&o murder weapon tbh

Ripped from the headlines of the NYT style section!

http://nymag.com/news/media/67010/

feels right for this thread

fell asleep just reading the headline. wake me up when d-brooks gets his septum pierced.

"When we married in 2001, my husband and I thought about having children someday. It was very important to us, though, that we first be financially stable enough to support them and give them plenty of parenting time. We were aware of our biological clocks -- who isn't? But before we knew it, we'd been happily married for eight years. I was 30, he was 32, and we still were not ready to be parents. Knowing that time was running out, we resigned ourselves to the fact that we probably would not have children."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070204597.html?hpid=newswell

"that's cold", said the embryo.

hey eephus there is this thread too... quiddities and agonies of the ruling class, DC edition - a rolling washington post thread

In a world of loud voices and extreme positions, David Brooks manages to be both irrelevant and absolutely essential.

this is classic

in my head i'm reading that in the movie trailer guy voice btw

Essential Irrelevance: The Collected Writings of David Brooks

It's actually a great sort of faint praise quote except I don't think it's meant that way.

no way am i actually going to read that article though

At some point in my research, it occurred to me: My husband and I could create embryos, freeze them and, essentially, donate them to our future selves.

wow, you are a genius - good luck trying to keep up with the demands of a baby when you're 45 years old

Maybe some people have the energy to do it, but just thinking about it makes me cringe.

the back injuries alone will cost thousands

there have also been suggestions that babies conceived through IVF could ultimately face health risks, so good job endangering the health of your potential child to make him/her more convenient to your lifestyle

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163580/IVF-babies-health-alert-Test-tube-children-30-cent-likely-defects-warns-watchdog.html

eep can you imagine? first ivf, then abortion - this is why they hate our freedoms

Adoption looks better and better to me as time passes.

think you're a bit over the age limit ned

if you adopt at age 17 they'll be out of the house within a year - slam-dunk

n/a actually i wouldn't reeeeally take the daily mail as scripture on this issue. or on any issue, actually.

xpost -- Brilliant!

think you're a bit over the age limit ned

One day I might find a home I can call my own.

n/a actually i wouldn't reeeeally take the daily mail as scripture on this issue. or on any issue, actually.

― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, July 6, 2010 10:45 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah there is definitely debate on the topic but it seems like the uncertainty would be enough to discourage casual usage of IVF (ie for situations other than fertility problems)

$200 design objects and young professionals not having babies - I think this thread has been turned inward on ILX.