Wessie, nicely done, as always. But I think "decadent" is ambiguous, and that creates a confusion in your essay. On the one hand, decadent implies decline. But rich societies need markers, too ("Veblen goods") and LVMH and its ilk are happy to provide them. So lots of European companies can be have thrived by selling signs of being rich, especially into the burgeoning class of newly rich folks. (Downturns rough, see Mercedes.). But that hardly exhausts "decadent." Jeff Bezos's largest sailing yacht in world with lascivious girlfriend on prow is, also, decadent. I'm not exactly talking about inequality, though there is that. More bad taste. So "decadent" as vaguely moral and aesthetic problem. And are we so sure that European luxury, at least a lot of it, isn't in fact guilty as charged on that score? You're the design guy . . .
David, you have deftly spotted the weld-point at which a missing quarter of the essay should have been attached. Many luxury products are extremely vulgar – Veblen goods indeed. In this sense, their decadence is part of their dynamism, since they are successfully catering to an enormous global class of nouveau riche which has emerged in the last 30 years. This has naturally heightened the importance of differentiation within the luxury sector. From the perspective of "quiet luxury" – Brunello Cucinelli, Loro Piana – your Louis Vuitton handbag might as well come from Wallmart. In any case, thanks for the perceptive comment!
Yes, exactly. I was writing in haste. I meant to mention China, hence the problem for Mercedes this week.
Last week, maybe, two things crossed my transom. An old house came on the market, built of stone, on a bluff overlooking the Atlantic, with some land, artist's studio/residence, maybe an old style pool. Dock. Can watch whales. Oh, way out Long Island, Montauk. Asking 18 million. Seemed like a bargain, frankly, for a really rich person. You've "got something." And then there was a handbag for something north of 100k, and a watch . . . you get the point. So it's not just the number, and it's not just the thing, or the way it's made . . . it's sort of how these things come together in a way that somehow makes sense.
I look forward to your lengthier discussion in due course!
Wessie, nicely done, as always. But I think "decadent" is ambiguous, and that creates a confusion in your essay. On the one hand, decadent implies decline. But rich societies need markers, too ("Veblen goods") and LVMH and its ilk are happy to provide them. So lots of European companies can be have thrived by selling signs of being rich, especially into the burgeoning class of newly rich folks. (Downturns rough, see Mercedes.). But that hardly exhausts "decadent." Jeff Bezos's largest sailing yacht in world with lascivious girlfriend on prow is, also, decadent. I'm not exactly talking about inequality, though there is that. More bad taste. So "decadent" as vaguely moral and aesthetic problem. And are we so sure that European luxury, at least a lot of it, isn't in fact guilty as charged on that score? You're the design guy . . .
Keep up the great work.
David, you have deftly spotted the weld-point at which a missing quarter of the essay should have been attached. Many luxury products are extremely vulgar – Veblen goods indeed. In this sense, their decadence is part of their dynamism, since they are successfully catering to an enormous global class of nouveau riche which has emerged in the last 30 years. This has naturally heightened the importance of differentiation within the luxury sector. From the perspective of "quiet luxury" – Brunello Cucinelli, Loro Piana – your Louis Vuitton handbag might as well come from Wallmart. In any case, thanks for the perceptive comment!
Yes, exactly. I was writing in haste. I meant to mention China, hence the problem for Mercedes this week.
Last week, maybe, two things crossed my transom. An old house came on the market, built of stone, on a bluff overlooking the Atlantic, with some land, artist's studio/residence, maybe an old style pool. Dock. Can watch whales. Oh, way out Long Island, Montauk. Asking 18 million. Seemed like a bargain, frankly, for a really rich person. You've "got something." And then there was a handbag for something north of 100k, and a watch . . . you get the point. So it's not just the number, and it's not just the thing, or the way it's made . . . it's sort of how these things come together in a way that somehow makes sense.
I look forward to your lengthier discussion in due course!