discussion questions responses

sandra

Theauthor James B. Twitchell talked about the luxury and the related role are the same in the society. According to him, the world is now moving towards unnecessary utilities that are not mandatory for the person. He defines luxury as any utility that might give a bit of happiness in the short term but also provides a bit of distress to the person and the user of the article.

The definition has been changing and now there is a pattern that can be seen in the society that is nothing but a feeling of getting anxious.

Yes, I agree to the definition given in the article since now the article is being sold not because of the utility but on the basis of curiosity. A person gets curious because his friend or relative is using the product and then he goes and buys the same without actually knowing the proper usage of the product. Because of this, the person is unable to utilize the product and this becomes a showcase for the person just a part of the luxury (Apter pp 4).

The truth in today’s world is that there is no real luxury that can provide happiness to the user. They are happy just because they have something that they did not used to possess in the past and they can flaunt the same (Seabrook pp 15).

References:

The Experience of Motivation: The Theory of Psychological Reversals by Michael J. Apter

The Marketing of Culture and the Culture of Marketing by John Seabrook 

william

Read the article “Needing the Unnecessary” by James B. Twitchell. (The article is easily found by conducting an Internet search using the words in the title.) How is luxury defined? Do you agree with this definition and with the role of luxury in society? 

This article has the words that ring out are the first few lines “If you want to understand material culture at the beginning of the 21st century, you must understand the overwhelming importance of unnecessary material” (Twitchell, 2002, pg1). I believe James B. Twitchell was able to capture his entire point with a few words. I do not fully agree with Twitchell’s definition but I do see his logic (I would have fully agreed one year ago).

Luxury defined is the “basic” want’s people have grown accustomed to and still have in their mindset it is considered a luxury “basic” that they want to spend their money on, also I believe luxury is something that gives monetary value toward that specific person. I can personally walk down the street wearing a Rolex, driving a Mercedes, and wearing a ten thousand dollar suit and I wouldn’t have a single head turn in the country of Chad (I’ve worn a Rolex and it does not turn an eye). The reason being is the Chadian people do not consider these items I’ve mentioned to have any value, there isn’t even a market for any of it. If you want to talk luxury to them think simpler like having a microwave “que ça fait du pop-corn (does that make popcorn)”, was the first thing at least 20 different people asked me (pop-corn is a luxury).

     I believe the perfect example of monetary value is Art. “Some may argue that monetary value is only one part of an artwork’s worth” ( Pelletier, 2007, pg1). Art is in the eye of the beholder, if I looked at the most valuable painting in the world and did not know how to appreciate it, what worth does it have in my eyes?

Pelletier, C. (2007, Sept 04). The value of art. Retrieved from http://www.scena.org/lsm/sm13-1/sm13-1_valueart_en.html

Twitchell, J. “Needing the Unnecessary.” August/September 2002. Web. 9 September 2013.

http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/01/needing-the-unnecessary

.