Well said. Which is why China is at the right place at the right time.Originally Posted by Marko
The only thing able to put a stop to this is environmental concerns. There is no way this way is sustainable in the long term.
Regards
Dirk
Well said. Which is why China is at the right place at the right time.
The only thing able to put a stop to this is environmental concerns. There is no way this way is sustainable in the long term.
Regards
Dirk
Some people are looking for that today, and they can have it. There's no shortage of people making incredibly high quality handmade furniture (or cameras, or bicycles or cars, or whatever). Part of the difference is increased labor costs, but I suspect that the larger part is the contrast with all the cheaper choices that are available now that never had been in the past.
People LIKE Ikea. Even people who know that it's mostly crappy and disposable stuff. Given the choice between buying a single, handmade, last forever chest of drawers, or for the same price furninshing the entire apartment with stuff they can replace when it goes out of fashion, a whole lot of people choose the latter. For those that feel otherwise, there's plenty of artisan furniture to be had, if they're rich or are prepared to live a more spartan existence.
I personally dislike the element of wastefullness inherent in disposable consumerism. But there are aspects of this world-industrial economy that I like. I get to choose what areas of my life to invest money in. I like to cook, so I have nice pans, some of which cost more than whole sets of my friends' pans. I've spent some big money on lenses, too. But things like furniture and tv sets have a lower priority in my life, so I have a ragtag jumble of hand-me-downs, found objects, and other industrial loft detritus. If I couldn't find what I needed by easy means, I wouldn't be above going to Ikea. And I understand others have priorities that are much the opposite. The nice thing is having some choice.
Paul, that was just an observation, not criticism. I am that way with clothing - I dress mostly at Costco and Target. Not because I can't afford better but because most of the time I don't need anything more expensive that either wears out or goes out of fashion as quickly. I prefer to spend my money on things that will last me longer and that do have that personal touch, such as cars, nice (and expensive) watches and sunglasses.
Yes, having a choice IS a nice thing, as long as one can afford it. If only we could have less consumerism, though...
Or, more likely, environmental catastrophe. But this way is actually more efficient than the old way, because it uses much less resources and even uses some that would be discarded in the old days. Given the increase in population, the old way would already be unsustainable by now.
Agree, that's what I thought after I posted it. So the question is, are we becoming a disposable culture just because we can or is it fortunate coincidence? Of course, producing something with modern means and less resources and not disposing of it quickly would be even better.
I suppose our own Chris Jordan has approached this topic photographically, see also Ed Burtynski. I think there is still a lot of mileage left in this topic and probably will be for a considerable time to come.
I tend to think of human behaviour as a pendulum of a sort. It keeps swinging between the extremes, taking about a generation for any significant change. On one end of the spectrum, there are visionaries and early adopters and there are stark conservatives on the other. They both have their roles, since the mankind would go nowhere without the former and would probably sail straight into a deadly storm or jump off the cliff, figuratively speaking, without moderating and cautionary influence of the latter.
P.S. Personally, I prefer Chris' approach, but that's just me.
There is that concept of conspicuous consumption. Basically wasting is a form, or display, of wealth. However, that is far from the only aspect involved, so that all important feeling of convenience is very prevalent.
There is also the concept of instant gratification, which can sometimes lead to a one-upmanship; witness various automotive purchases, which are then considered passé as soon as the next replacement model appears. With motorcycles, that was sometimes called the bike-of-the-month club; newer riders buying the latest, then quickly wanting to switch as soon as some magazine tested something with better numbers (often by fractions of a second). It did not matter whether the average mortal could attain nor match what the magazines accomplished, some of them still want what is perceived to be best.
So the best label gets attached to cameras too, though often today it is D-SLRs, and usually means best for $$$, rather than actual or technically best. Viewed more simply, 10MP must be better than 7MP, though when it comes to ultra compact cameras this has not always proven true.
Luckily large format gear rarely treads upon these concepts. While there are prestige names, brands, and products, there is less of a feeling of being on the bleeding edge of technology. Low numbers of these cameras in public can mean that simply owning and using a 4x5 (or larger) might mean you are the only person in the area with one. This is more a concept of novelty, despite that these are very useful and functional cameras.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks