Wessie, good luck with the book proposal! If you want a pair of eyes . . .
The rich are always going to have nice things, that's what it means to be rich. (I should say I'm pretty comfortable.) Nor do I think the wealthy are uploading themselves in the cloud, but much wealth -- the flows of capital that make modernity -- is already digita…
Wessie, good luck with the book proposal! If you want a pair of eyes . . .
The rich are always going to have nice things, that's what it means to be rich. (I should say I'm pretty comfortable.) Nor do I think the wealthy are uploading themselves in the cloud, but much wealth -- the flows of capital that make modernity -- is already digital. More on this in other quarters. You are concerned, rightly imho, with the character of the physical. And I don't think that's necessarily a luxury good at all. You are asking questions around what design, consumption, maybe rituals of materiality (gardening? craft?) mean for relatively ordinary life. What are meaningful THINGS for the inhabitants of large polities?
Thanks David, I may well ask for your insight at some point!
I don't mind the rich having nice things – I'm no working-class hero either – but I'm interested in the dynamics of inequality insofar as they inevitably shape the character of the world we inhabit. Beyond that, the material (and immaterial) culture of different parts of society is a matter of sociological observation.
And yes, those are the questions I'm asking, but more particularly: how does the meaning and value of artefacts change as they are displaced by technology (not the same as being replaced!), and what patterns can we discern in their displacement? Who benefits from the paradigm shift away from discrete objects to centralised systems, and what should be wary about losing? Hopefully that gives a flavour!
Wessie, good luck with the book proposal! If you want a pair of eyes . . .
The rich are always going to have nice things, that's what it means to be rich. (I should say I'm pretty comfortable.) Nor do I think the wealthy are uploading themselves in the cloud, but much wealth -- the flows of capital that make modernity -- is already digital. More on this in other quarters. You are concerned, rightly imho, with the character of the physical. And I don't think that's necessarily a luxury good at all. You are asking questions around what design, consumption, maybe rituals of materiality (gardening? craft?) mean for relatively ordinary life. What are meaningful THINGS for the inhabitants of large polities?
Thanks David, I may well ask for your insight at some point!
I don't mind the rich having nice things – I'm no working-class hero either – but I'm interested in the dynamics of inequality insofar as they inevitably shape the character of the world we inhabit. Beyond that, the material (and immaterial) culture of different parts of society is a matter of sociological observation.
And yes, those are the questions I'm asking, but more particularly: how does the meaning and value of artefacts change as they are displaced by technology (not the same as being replaced!), and what patterns can we discern in their displacement? Who benefits from the paradigm shift away from discrete objects to centralised systems, and what should be wary about losing? Hopefully that gives a flavour!