t h e A S E T HETIC M Y W By Virginia Postrel E C O N O › assets › ... · Michael Graves housewares has indeed cap-tured customers. His toaster quickly became Target’s most

W

11Fourth Quarter 1999

EWe’ve all heard about the “new economy,” the “infor-

mation economy,” and the “post-industrial econo-

my.” Fuzzy though they are, these concepts cap-

ture the widespread sense that the American

economy today is not what it was at some

touchstone period in the past – the 1950’s,

perhaps, or the 1890’s. People

work in different jobs; pro-

ductivity needs different mea-

sures; industry structures have changed.

All no doubt true, but also over-hyped.The whole economy can’t be encapsulated ina catch phrase, and economic revolutions donot occur once a quarter. The claims that usu-ally accompany such labels lead seriousobservers to scoff.

But the forces driving economic growth doevolve over time. The resulting changes canaffect everything from the makeup of thelabor force to the validity of national incomestatistics, from the location of industrial cen-ters to the sources of political conflict. Andone of the most profound such trends hasgone virtually unremarked: the increasingimportance of aesthetics, a value barely rec-ognized in economic statistics but easilyobservable in business trends.

For example, when the business magazineThe Industry Standard published its 1999 listof the most important people in the Internetworld, the hardware-developer award wentnot to an engineer but to an art director, TeiyuGoto of Sony. Goto, the designer of thePlaystation, had another big hit in 1999 withthe sleek, featherweight Vaio notebook com-puter.

Silver and lavender (purple is Goto’sfavorite color), with a magnesium alloy case

and a stylized, curvy logo, the Vaio is the sortof sensuous product that inspires consumers’gadget lust. Goto himself is smitten with thelittle computers: “I can’t help patting them,”he told the on-line magazine AsiaBizTech. In amarket where computers have become a com-modity that resists branding, the Vaio isdesigned not just as a tool but as a form ofpersonal expression. The idea, says Goto, wasto create a “thin andgroovy notebook,”whose ecstatic ownerswould “want to dashout of their roomswith it.” The Vaio’slight weight is impres-sive, but so is the way it looks. This computerevokes an emotional response.

Like Apple’s iMac, the Vaio marks a newera in the industry – one in which computersare finally moving beyond the dull function-ality of the office PC while signaling broadertrends. Technology and competition are dri-ving down the cost of beauty, just as risingaffluence is allowing us to buy more of it. Weare demanding better aesthetics just abouteverywhere, from interoffice memos torestaurants.

Thanks to supplyand demand,good design iseverywhere

Beauty is notskin deep

By Virginia Postrel

hA S

t

THETICe

ECONOMY

Michael Graves’teapot for Target

Apple’s iMac

le

ft:

co

ur

te

sy

of

ta

rg

et s

to

re

s;to

p:

hu

nte

r f

re

em

an

12 The Milken Institute Review 13Fourth Quarter 1999

owing matters of quality or substance.” In themarketplace, according to this critique, we areseduced by style – enticed to pay more for lessbecause the item in question comes in a pret-ty package. Indeed, many a curmudgeonlycommentator has groused about the highprice of Starbucks’ double latte.

Yet aesthetics has a force of its own. Wedon’t need cellular phones with silvery mirrorfinishes – but Nokia was smart enough torealize we might want (and pay more for)them. Aesthetic value is real value, and pro-

ducers win customers by selling it. “In a worldin which most consumers have their basicneeds satisfied, value is easily provided by sat-isfying customers’ experiential needs – theiraesthetic needs,” write Bernd Schmitt andAlex Simonson in the 1997 book, MarketingAesthetics. Appearance counts – not just intraditional beauty industries like fashion, cos-metics or entertainment, and not just in theluxury market.

For example, in a market dominated bythe extremely efficient (and much larger)

“When you’re selling computers based ontheir personality and color choices, these arenew rules,” says Mark Dziersk, president ofthe Industrial Designers Society of America –one in which form matters as much as func-tion. “We’re seeing design creep into every-thing, everything.” The number of industrialdesigners employed has jumped 32 percentover the past five years, according to a surveyby Drexel University, and the society’s mem-bership is up 41 percent, to 3,118 in 1999.

There aren’t enough applicants to fill all thejobs, says Dziersk. And while designers domore than make things pretty, he acknowl-edges that the current boom is “mostly aboutaesthetics.”

The aesthetic economy shows up in prod-ucts, in places such as restaurants and shop-ping malls, and in standards of personalbeauty. Among the most dramatic signs is thesurging demand for cosmetic surgery, a med-ical service whose value to consumers isdemonstrated by the fact that it is rarely cov-ered by insurance and must be paid for likeshoes or movie tickets.

The number of cosmetic procedures in theUnited States increased by 153 percent from1992 to 1998, to more than one million a year,according to the American Society of Plasticand Reconstructive Surgeons. Liposuction,the most popular cosmetic surgery, which

involves removing excess fat, jumped 264 per-cent in the same period, to about 172,000procedures in 1998. Demand is high despitethe price tag. The average surgical fee for lipo-suction was almost $1,900 per site (a chin, say,or one thigh), not including anesthesia andoperating room services. And liposuction isone of the cheapest cosmetic procedures.

the value of presentation

In the 1930’s, the industrial designer HaroldVan Doren explained that “design is funda-

mentally the art of using lines, forms,tones, colors and textures to arouse anemotional reaction in the beholder.” Thatis too narrow a definition, because itignores the art of achieving that resultwithin ergonomic, manufacturing and

cost constraints. But it’s a pretty good start foraesthetics, especially in the economic context.

Starbucks, for example, has built its brandnot just on coffee but on a distinctive style forits establishments that combines rich earthtones with the precise lines and luxurious tex-tures of high-end office design. The companyhas had an in-house department of designersand architects since 1991. “Every Starbucksstore is carefully designed to enhance thequality of everything the customers see,touch, hear, smell or taste,” explains CEOHoward Schultz. “All the sensory signals haveto appeal to the same high standards. The art-work, the music, the aromas, the surfaces allhave to send the same subliminal message asthe flavor of the coffee: Everything here isbest-of-class.”

Aesthetics is about presentation – aboutthe way we communicate through the senses.It is about perception, not cognition or use-fulness, though it may affect both. And thissuperficiality can be disturbing. Aesthetics is“the power of provocative surfaces,” says onecritic. It “speaks to the eye’s mind, overshad-

V I R G I N I A P O ST R E L ([email protected]) is the editorof Reason Magazine and the author of The Future and ItsEnemies: The Growing Conflict over Creativity, Enterprise,and Progress (Free Press, 1998).

Every Starbucks store is carefully designed

to enhance the quality of everything the

customers see, touch, hear, smell or taste.

co

ur

te

sy

of

sta

rb

uc

ks

co

ff

ee

co

mp

an

y

t h e a e s t h e t i c s e c o n o m y

We are seeing design creep

into everything, everything.

With its emphasis on shifting relativeprices, microeconomics is a better guide thanMaslow to understanding the increasingvalue of aesthetics. As individuals or societiesgrow richer, they can consume more of virtu-ally everything, including aesthetics. Themarginal utility of some goods, such as foodand basic shelter, is high initially but drops offfaster than the marginal utility of otherattributes, such as aesthetic quality. So we areincreasingly willing to trade additional incre-ments of basic goods for more aesthetic expe-riences.

The basics also come to include more aes-thetic components. Clothing becomes deco-rative. Favored foods evolve from basic carbosand fat, to enticing flavors and elaborate din-ing experiences. Shelter expands to encom-pass architecture and interior design. Richsocieties and rich individuals devote a greater

percentage of their income to aesthetics.Affluence, therefore, is a major reason for the

growth of the aesthetic economy.At the same time tastes have

changed, increasing the demand foraesthetic variety. To understand this

change, we must first consider whataesthetics does for consumers. It gener-ates pleasure, of course, which we canimagine as pure consumption. But italso makes social signaling and screen-ing easier. Sensory cues tell us what

to expect about a product, place or person. Thus, aesthetics can indicate class,

attitude – even ideology.Commercial brands use aesthetics to build

identity, and so do individuals. A college stu-dent recounts her transition from preppy topunk: “I cut my hair very short and woreblack clothes constantly. Wearing black madeit easy to spot my friends and be spotted bythem. While I was rebelling against society ingeneral, being the nonconformist in thatsense, I was also conforming with the smallergroup of people that became my friends.”

There is always a tension between the com-forts of conformity and the desire for variety.To keep signals meaningful, we need aesthet-ic stability. But too much stability is boring.The interplay between conformity and varietyis what creates fashion.

Adopting well-recognized new styles letsconsumers (or organizations) enjoy noveltywhile still sticking with the mainstream or


Wal-Mart, Target discount stores can’t com-pete purely on price. Innovative design istherefore central to the chain’s strategy.“Whatwe’ve staked out is we’re going to be the trendleader,” says David Gerton, Target’s buyer forhome decor. In February 1999, Gerton’sdepartment made a splash with a new line ofhousewares – some 250 items developed bythe postmodernist architect-designer MichaelGraves, whose $150 Alessi tea kettle was asymbol of 1980’s extravagance.

Graves is well known among styleaficionados. But his name means nothing tomost of Target’s middle-American shoppers,who are not in the market for tea kettles thatcost more than VCRs.“It’s the designs that sellthe product, not whose name is on them,”says Gerton. The playful novelty of theMichael Graves housewares has indeed cap-tured customers. His toaster quickly becameTarget’s most popular model, even though itruns $39.99, the top of the store’s price range.

Graves’ patio furniture has similarly com-manded a premium price of $479, versus$400 for the previously top-priced set. Yetsince its introduction, outdoor furniture salesare up 30 percent. Graves’ picture frames,vases, clocks, and other gifts are outselling thechain’s other gift products.

Aesthetics obviously involves beauty, butwhat we mean by beauty is itself fraught withambiguity. People perceive some things asbeautiful without regard to culture or context– symmetrical faces, smooth surfaces, specificcolor combinations. Along with this biologi-cally based perception, there is a more con-textual aesthetic sense. Something that looksnovel may be interesting, or something famil-iar comforting, without regard to its beauty in some ideal sense. The Michael Gravestoaster is cute – rounded and friendly looking– but it hardly represents enduring beauty. Its

aesthetic appeal lies largely in its whimsicalcheerfulness.

Some designs attract through emotionalassociations, whether personal or cultural. Weenjoy some aesthetic elements more overtime, as we develop a taste for them or exploremore of their pattern and depth. Some stylesdraw power from allusion or wit. Aesthetics isnot an absolute. It is a discovery process – asearch through trial and error, experimenta-tion and response, for sensory elements thatmove or delight. That process is open-endedand competitive, and one in which standardsare subjective.

why the aesthetic economy?

In their book, Schmitt and Simonson invokethe insights of psychologist Abraham Maslowto explain the growing importance of aesthet-ics in economic competition. Maslow’sfamous “hierarchy of needs” asserts thathuman beings satisfy basic needs, such asfood and shelter, before moving on to lessessential items. “Experiential and aestheticneeds are higher-order needs, which individ-uals seek only when basic needs have beensatisfied,” they conclude.

In all but the most extreme cases, however,the Maslovian model is wrong. We do notwait for aesthetics until we have full stomachsand watertight roofs. Given a modicum ofstability and sustenance, human beingsdemand and create beauty in ritual, personaladornment and everyday objects. Five thou-sand years ago, Stone Age weavers living inSwiss swamps were working intricate, multi-colored patterns into their textiles and usingfruit pits to create beaded cloth. There wasnothing utilitarian about this work, nothingthat suggests a society focused only on lower-order needs. Even in the most difficult of cir-cumstances, merely practical products do notsuffice.

14 The Milken Institute Review


co

ur

te

sy

of

ta

rg

et s

to

re

s

The Michael Graves toaster is cute –

rounded and friendly looking – but it hardly

represents enduring beauty. Its aesthetic

appeal lies in its whimsical cheerfulness.

often marked by distinctive styles, hasincreased everyone’s daily encounters with abroad range of aesthetics, thereby heighten-ing awareness of design. Consumers anddesigners have more sources from which topick and choose elements, increasing thepotential supply of aesthetics.

One result is that styles once fraught withsymbolism – blond hair on black women,earrings on men, crosses, and the like – startto lose their meanings. My propensity forroyal blue fingernail polish says nothingabout “transgression”; I just like the color.Aesthetics becomes less reliable (or at leastless stable) as a social signal, even as its con-sumption increases.

the technological edge

On the supply side, the cost of producing aes-thetic content is dropping dramatically, there-by increasing availability, raising standardsand undermining the accuracy of income sta-tistics. In the 19th century, synthetic dyes andchromo-printing drove down the cost of rich-ly colored clothes and fancy paper goods,making them everyday objects. Working-classpeople could emulate the general styles – ifnot the full-blown luxury – formerly reservedfor the wealthy. Today something similar ishappening, mostly thanks to the falling priceof computing power.

Graphic design once required the servicesof a specialist. Now, basic graphic elementscome embedded in software for word pro-cessing, presentation slides and Web pages.Even cultural slugs with no taste can rundecent-looking Web sites or publish passablyattractive pamphlets – the know-how comeson a disk. What was once an unarticulatedknack or a carefully honed professional skillhas become an off-the-shelf product. Theresult is a higher standard of aesthetics in per-sonal and business communications. While

attractive presentation may no longer indi-cate respectability, ignoring aesthetics doessend a negative signal – a disregard for thesensibilities of the audience.

Sensing all this, Kinko’s has launched a $40million marketing effort to get customers touse its services to meet those rising standards.“A napkin is not a ‘leave behind,’” says a bill-board, while another warns that “hand shad-ows don’t count as ‘overhead projections.’” ATV commercial shows a young man who con-vinces his girlfriend to marry him by usingsharp-looking graphs that chart his increas-ing love and projected earnings. “I like whatyou’ve done here, Craig,” she says. Kinko’smessage: “Sometimes it’s not just what yousay, but how you say it.”

This trend has its dissenters, notably ScottMcNealy, chairman of Sun Microsystems,who banned Microsoft Powerpoint presenta-tion software as a waste of employees’ timeand intranet bandwidth. He wants handwrit-ten slides instead. But audiences and presen-ters still demand aesthetics, and there aretechnological ways around McNealy’s decree.After I wrote about it in Forbes, a readerresponded: “I work for the Java Centers, aconsulting organization within Sun, and wedo zillions of presentations. We’ve handledthis prohibition by doing our slides inBlueprint or Comic Sans, two fonts whichlook like hand lettering.”

For producers, technological advanceshave changed both the process of aestheticcreation and the constraints it faces. The cos-metic surgery boom is partly a product ofcomputer-controlled lasers and endoscopesthat require only tiny incisions. For industrialdesigners, computer-aided design systemshave made the process of creating renderingsand building models much faster and easier,allowing many more possibilities to be ex-plored. The same is true for graphic designers,


with their preferred subgroups.The dynamic of this interaction can

change, as tastes shift between conformityand novelty or between group identity andpersonal expression. Earlier in the century,both businesses and social critics like VancePackard imagined aesthetics as somethingimposed on consumers to manipulate them.From Paris fashion dictates to annual auto-mobile model changes, the notion was thatcentral authorities would decree hemlinesand fin sizes – and that consumers, fearful offailing to live up to social expectations, wouldaccept them. This plan didn’t always work, ofcourse: Some styles were complete flops. Butit captured something true about what con-sumers wanted from mass-market aesthetics:the security not only of looking good, but offitting in.

Over the past several decades, Western

consumers have become more assertive andmore interested in self-expression. (For whatit’s worth, I’m inclined to attribute the trendto the confidence inspired by greater educa-tion and multiple generations of middle-classliving.) The result is a demand for what theDesigners Society’s Dziersk calls “individual-ized objects – more interchangeable artifactsthat can be combined to represent a personal-ity.” Designers can no longer afford to imag-ine that they’re dictating the perfectly con-trolled environment. Instead, their task is todevelop components that consumers willrearrange in unpredictable, often highly per-sonal ways. Although designers have less con-trol over how their creations will be used,there is more demand for their work since afew standardized styles aren’t enough to satis-fy consumers.

Meanwhile, a profusion of subcultures,


Jhane Barnes employs two mathematicians

to create algorithms that embed her

textile-design concepts in software.

co

ur

te

sy

of

jh

an

e b

ar

ne

s

as Scandinavia and Southern California, overothers. It requires people in many fields toinvest in learning new skills.

The value of aesthetics, though real to con-sumers, is not easily measured. Just as it isdifficult to measure the productivity of ser-vices, aesthetics may be better without beingmore profitable. If your competitors invest inbetter graphics, prettier stores or nicer foodpresentation, just staying even can requirespending more on aesthetics, with noincreased profits to show for it. That can skeweconomic statistics: If the Consumer PriceIndex can’t recognize the longer life of tires or the existence of cellular phones, it’s cer-tainly not going to notice the value of better-looking memos.

On a more personal level, the competitionto look good revealed by the cosmetic surgerystatistics can be a real pain – even if no actualcutting of flesh is involved. As producers,many of us would prefer to look like slobs.And even with software tools to counteractthe temptation to be sloppy, developingdesign skills takes time away from things wemight rather do. Mere surfaces, we tell our-selves out of both conviction and conve-nience, are not real.

As consumers, however, we benefit fromthe increase in aesthetic standards, and wedemand more. So the race continues, and weget to enjoy a more attractive world, even associal critics denounce the beauty myth forcreating it. The Puritan heritage, with its dis-trust of decoration and visual symbolism,remains an important strain in our cultureand intellectual discourse. The value con-sumers attach to aesthetics remains, to manycommentators, a sign of folly or deception.

As the importance of aesthetics rises, peo-ple develop passionate attachments to partic-ular aesthetic styles, or to aesthetic quality ingeneral. The result is increasing political

conflict between aesthetics and other values,and between different aesthetic visions.

Over the past 20 years, aesthetic regulationhas become a much more common elementof land-use controls. Zoning laws and envi-ronmental-impact statements have beenjoined by architectural review procedures. Insome cases, these processes are limited to his-toric preservation. But increasingly they seekto make purely aesthetic standards, which areby nature highly subjective, a part of the reg-ulatory process. It is not enough to controlenvironmental spillovers, as VictoriaTschinkel, Florida’s Secretary of NaturalResources, said in the 1980’s: “We have todecide, as Floridians, is this going to be aclassy place or not?”

Some aesthetic regulations seek to avoid“incongruous” construction, while others for-bid “monotony.” Some specify particulararchitectural styles, materials or colors.Among other requirements, Portland, Oregonnow limits the width of garages that face thestreet in new houses and specifies what per-centage of the façade must be windows anddoors. When builders and real estate agentsprotested that the rules would make housestoo expensive and harder to site – especiallyon urban “infill” lots – officials countered thataesthetics considerations were more impor-tant than economic or logistical ones.

“Nearly every day, I or someone in myoffice hears a complaint from a citizen aboutthe poor quality of design of new construc-tion.... I’ve heard complaints for so long andfrom so many, that I simply cannot supportyour request that we do nothing about thisissue,” City Commissioner Charlie Haleswrote to the Portland MetropolitanAssociation of Realtors. “So I want to encour-age you and your members and your col-leagues in the development industry to pro-pose something – anything – that will put a


architects and interior designers, who useslightly different tools. In some cases, the newtechnology enables aesthetic combinationsthat would have been impossible withoutcomputer assistance; Frank Gehry’s curve-fitting architecture and George Lucas’s specialeffects are the most prominent examples.

Jhane Barnes employs two mathemati-cians as full-time consultants to create algo-rithms that embed her textile-design conceptsin software. She literally couldn’t create someof the patterns without the computer assis-tance – they are too complex to graph or toremember. Others would require a week of

tedious charting to do what she now managesin an hour. These specialized software toolshave given Barnes many more design options,and much more time to explore them.

“The design process is much faster,”Barnes notes. “So that means my collectioncan be larger, and that means business cangrow. Also, I’m more prolific. That means Ican be a better designer, because I can throwaway things that didn’t take so long to designand say, ‘Oh, I can do another one in a shortamount of time, so let me just make it better.’”

But coming up with a new season’s collec-tion takes as long as it ever did: The comput-er just allows more iterations. “If I know Ihave a month to finish fall,” Barnes says, “eventhough with the computer I could finish it ina week and take a three-week vacation, I’mhaving too much fun – I take the whole

month. So the line is better than if I had to doit the long way.”

Just as software enables Barnes and othersto create designs that were not previouslypossible, computing power is making theinternal workings of many products smallerand lighter. Mechanical parts are replaced byever-shrinking (and ever-cheaper) electron-ics. This trend both increases the importanceof so-called provocative surfaces and makesmore sorts of surfaces possible.

“Products that formerly had their shape,weight and bulk defined by the mechanismsthat filled them (viz., telephone shells oncehad to accommodate bells, gears, dials and

wiring) have now become ‘dematerialized,’ “writes sociologist Harvey Molotch. “What isnecessary inside is small and light comparedto what can go on the outside. Shape can fol-low whimsy, mimic icons, and enhance visualand tactile experience.” Function thus impliesno particular form.

aesthetic conflict

The aesthetic economy presents the samesorts of problems of disruption and measure-ment that other economic changes have cre-ated. Like other trends that reward personalqualities over physical strength, it may shiftthe relative value of male and female employ-ment in a way that favors women. (This is nota foregone conclusion, however; industrialdesign, for example, is an overwhelminglymale field.) It also favors certain regions, such



If the Consumer Price Index can’t recognize

the longer life of tires or the existence of

cellular phones, it’s certainly not going to

notice the value of better-looking memos.

lion performing arts center, neighbors raiseda ruckus with the local planning board. Thestainless steel structure, they claimed, woulddestroy the visual harmony of the local land-scape, with its woods and historic buildings.Bard unsuccessfully argued that the buildingwould barely be visible from outside the cam-pus. But under pressure from the public andthe planning board, the school eventuallyagreed to relocate the center. It will move thebuilding farther inside the campus, awayfrom existing arts buildings, at an additionalcost of $10 million.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and itis not the only thing that individuals value.But the very power of aesthetics encouragespeople to become absolutists – to insist thatother people’s stylistic choices, or their trade-offs between aesthetics and other values, canconstitute a form of pollution. Here, NobelPrize winner Ronald Coase’s theory of socialcosts can be a helpful guide to policy. Insteadof assuming that the source of the “pollution”is the party that should be responsible formitigating it, Coase encourages us to look atthe relative costs to the two parties of avoid-ing the harm. A homeowner derives largebenefits from a design that satisfies his or herpreferences, while the cost of changing thatdesign is high, both in dollars and in lost util-ity. The person complaining about ugly andstupid houses, by contrast, can generallyavoid aesthetic harms simply by not lookingat the designs. And since we tend to not tonotice things that have been around for awhile, that avoidance cost goes down overtime.

This analysis suggests that in aestheticmatters, the norm should make thoseoffended by their neighbors’ choices respon-sible for dealing with the problems – byscreening themselves, by paying their neigh-bors to remove the offensive features or by

simply averting their eyes. This approach notonly minimizes the costs of getting along, itpreserves the aesthetic discovery process.And it avoids the absurd implications ofextending the principles of aesthetic regula-tion – a world with fashion police, approvedstyles for memos and mandatory plasticsurgery.

The temptation to exercise political coer-cion to force one’s aesthetic opinions on oth-ers, can be overwhelming in the face of whatseems ugly or inappropriate: How dare thatperson have such bad taste! Perhaps we needan aesthetic equivalent (or interpretation) ofthe First Amendment to overcome this temp-tation. Such questions, unfamiliar as they are,will become increasingly prominent as theeconomy becomes more and more devoted to producing aesthetic values. Instead of theclassical proposition de gustibus non disputan-dem est, we may find ourselves in a worldwhere matters of taste are our mostintractable disputes.

selected references

R.H. Coase, “The Problem of Social Cost” (1960)published in The Firm, The Market, and the Law(University of Chicago Press, 1988).

Christopher J. Duerksen, Aesthetics and Land-UseControls: Beyond Ecology and Economics (AmericanPlanning Association, 1986).

Stuart Ewen, All Consuming Images: The Politics ofStyle in Contemporary Culture (Basic Books, 1999).

Harvey Molotch, “L.A. as a Design Product” inAllen Scott and Edward Soja, eds. The City: LosAngeles and Urban Theory at the End of the 20thCentury (University of California Press, 1998).

Kathy Peiss, Hope in a Jar: The Making of America’sBeauty Culture (Metropolitan Books, 1998).

Howard Schultz and Dori Jones Yang, Pour YourHeart Into It: How Starbucks Built a Company OneCup at a Time (Hyperion, 1997).

Bernd Schmitt and Alex Simonson, MarketingAesthetics: The Strategic Management of Brands,Identity, and Image (Free Press, 1997).


stop to the ugly and stupid houses that we seegoing up.”

Writing about the issue, Kelly Ross, direc-tor of government affairs for the home-builders, noted that Hales’ own custom homewouldn’t be allowed under the new standardsbecause its two-car garage occupies morethan 40 percent of the front facade. Ross’point does more than suggest hypocrisy. Itindicates something important about the costof design controls: They limit the aestheticcustomization that people value, and theypreclude experimentation. Indeed, theirwhole point is often to avoid stylistic varia-tion. Novelty commands attention, which is

why it has aesthetic value over and above theeffects of the particular design. But that atten-tion can be negative as well as positive.

Frank Gehry’s innovative architecture, forinstance, is highly polarizing. His forms areunlike any previously possible, and whetherpeople will grow to love them or hate themover time remains an open question – a mat-ter for discovery and experimentation. Hisfans want to hire him to do more buildings,while his detractors want, at the very least, tomake sure those buildings stay hidden fromview.

When Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, NY hired Gehry to design a $26 mil-


wh

it p

re

sto

n

The very power of aesthetics encourages

people to become absolutists – to insist that

other people’s stylistic choices constitute

a form of pollution.

M

Frank Gehry’s Art Center for Bard College

Documents

t h e A S E T HETIC M Y W By Virginia Postrel E C O N O › assets › ... · Michael Graves housewares has indeed cap-tured customers. His toaster quickly became Target’s most