| innerspaceboy |
01-15-2017 12:33 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls
(Post 1795637)
The old crap comment was tongue in cheek. I also enjoy the aesthetics you find appealing, but some of the adjectives you used to support your ultimate conclusion of grotesque aesthetics is what got to me. Geometric, angular, and new to be exact.
|
I was taking my reaction to an extreme to convey the surprise I experienced given my contemporary consumer ignorance. It appears we were both being tongue-in-cheek.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls
(Post 1795637)
You also have to understand that those designs would, in fact, fit the aesthetics of many modern homes, so it's not unreasonable for low/middle class consumers to feel "Yes! That is what I want in my home. That object reflects and accentuates my taste in art and general aesthetic values!"
|
You're quite right - the lamps pictured are likely suitable for low/middle-class homes, and it would be unreasonable for me to expect that sort of customer to purchase a Victorian lighting solution. I suppose I was frustrated that there was not a single offering from Target remotely in the ballpark of what I was looking for, but again - that was also an unreasonable expectation. I'd presumed that neo-Victorian style was still in fashion for at least a sufficient portion of the hoi polloi to warrant a single representative piece, but I was incorrect in that assumption. Or perhaps more simply, it would appear that Target does not market to that demographic, neither financially nor artistically.
My difficulty, (and it is entirely my own doing), is that I so seldom set foot into a market which sells mass-produced or new goods that every time that I do serves as a culture shock to my system. |
