[-empyre-] chic

[Christiane Robbins]

Ok then ... let's divert the bandying a bit - In considering "chic" I,  
of course, think of fashionable "  or at least some affectation of a  
specific notion of fashionability.

I also happen to think of gender.   If I were to extrapolate a bit  
more, I can easily position your argument aligning the PC and  
"chicness" ( " But after seeing how supercomputers and PCs in the  
1980s, PCs and the Internet in the 1990s, cell phones in the 2000s  
etc. have all gone through tremendous surges in their development once  
they became "popular" and "chic" among large numbers of people who had  
ignored them before,) with its wildly expanded global market via a  
product design directed toward domestication and personal stylized  
spheres ( an interiority, if you will.)   And in so doing ... then  
establishing a highly monetized position within a diverse aggregate of  
cultures.

Let us not forget that the "essentialized" domestic sphere is commonly  
associated  with the female gender.   So then .... do we have the the  
birth of "chic " for these purposefully designed objects ( housings )  
themselves - apart for the "hidden" technology drivers such as the  
graphic cards, etc.?

Thanks again for an interesting discussion,

Chris


On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:59 AM, Tamiko Thiel wrote:

>
> Am 28.04.2011 11:45, schrieb xDxD.vs.xDxD:
>> Hi Tamiko
>>
>> things become widespread when they synchronize with the cultures,
>> desires and symbolic domains of people, not when they become "chic".
>
> Dear Salvatore,
>
> Then we are arguing about words, because for me what you just said  
> above is my definition of "chic" - that "they synchronize with the  
> cultures, desires and symbolic domains of people."
>
> And yes, if you think I am being purposely provocative of course I  
> am, because I know that many people are uncomfortable with  
> "chicness." But after seeing how supercomputers and PCs in the  
> 1980s, PCs and the Internet in the 1990s, cell phones in the 2000s  
> etc. have all gone through tremendous surges in their development  
> once they became "popular" and "chic" among large numbers of people  
> who had ignored them before, I believe it is only reasonable to  
> acknowledge and embrace this factor. Would you feel more comfortable  
> if I said "popular" instead of "chic?" Where are the boundaries  
> between the two?
>
> The fact that they are also useful is somewhat beside the point -  
> all the things I mentioned above were useful before, but not  
> widespread until they became chic. VRML after AGP graphic cards and  
> DSL became widespread in 1999 was suddenly useful, but since it was  
> no longer chic, it was ignored completely and a good platform  
> disappeared from the landscape for no good reason. Such is the power  
> of chic to promote or destroy.
>
> take care, Tamiko
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20110430/edd58923/attachment-0001.html>