Janus Thinking

Damien Hirst’s skull, entitled ‘For the Love of God’ is supposed to evoke a sense of our own mortality - in contrast to the eternity that diamonds endure.

Does it do that? Is it beautiful? Is it macabre? Is it luxury?

Beyond its simple juxtaposition of mortality and eternity - its evocation of the transience of life - the skull can also be a reminder of the fundamental ‘thisness’ of life.

While diamonds and human beings are made of exactly the same stuff at an atomic level - carbon - we are moulded rather differently. Thinking about it though, each diamond also has its own ‘thisness’, a product of both its growth over billions of years and the process of its polishing. No two diamonds ever have exactly the same facet ratios and characteristics.

Hirst’s use of these diamonds expresses his own thisness, and also the thisness of diamonds themselves….

Food for thought?

Is bottled water something that can be appreciated in the same way as fine wine or fine art? That’s what a new book, “Fine Waters: A Connoisseur’s Guide to the World’s Most Distinctive Bottled Waters” suggests (website here). According to the author, Michael Mascha, water connoisseurship is a rising trend. There are over 3000 different brands of bottled water, differentiated by varying levels of total dissolved solids, pH and hardness.

I am not a water connoisseur; the rising popularity of water connoisseurship suggests that it could be the case that people are actually appreciating different types of water. But water is nearly free out of the tap, where it is subject to stringent quality guidelines. It’s *very* difficult for the average consumer to discern differences in water. And bottled water is a massively profitable industry—I’m not sure whether to give fancy water brands kudos for creating demand through impressive branding or be skeptical of them as charlatans pandering to people with more money than sense. See below:

[via Wine Enthusiast Magazine]

Earlier this week the Financial Times hosted its third annual ‘Business of Luxury’ conference in Venice. The event brought together some of the world’s most senior luxury executives, financiers and corporate decision-makers to discuss emerging trends and business models in the global luxury sector. Reuters was able to ask some of these executives what luxury meant to them and their answers were quite interesting, mostly relating to time, exclusivity and choice. A few of my favorites:

Federico Marchetti, chief executive and founder of online boutique YOOX: “Time. Time is luxury. In a fast-paced era, where technology is accelerating everything and everyone, that is true more and more. ‘Time is money’ is less important.”

Michele Norsa, chief executive of Salvatore Ferragamo: “Exclusivity. Being alone on a beach with a few close people. It’s more places than objects.”

Stanislas De Quercize, chief executive of jeweller Van Cleef & Arpels: “A piece of eternity on earth. We all would like to be eternal. We are not … we are all longing for something to stay for us. And for me, luxury is that. It’s a piece of eternity on earth because if you have beautiful jewellery or beautiful works it’s going to outlast you.”

Luc Vandevelde, founder and managing director of Change Capital Partners, previous chairman of Marks & Spencer: “There are two types of luxury to me. Having the freedom to do what you want to do in life is the ultimate luxury to me. Most of the time that would be measured by whatever financial needs you have but not always.”

“Luxury in terms of a material sense, it’s the kind of things you feel good with … it doesn’t necessarily have to be expensive …. Feeling good with a product or identifying yourself with a product, is what luxury is all about.”

We’ve talked about this idea of an emotional connection with luxury on Janus before. Check out all the respondents’ answers here.

With regard to philosophy generally, we have a tendency to mix the “what” with the “why” and “how” questions. For example, a Rabbinical college that I chair is known to be unique in the way it forms its students. Nevertheless, no one has ever tried to identify where this uniqueness comes from. While we know that the students interact and learn at a very high intellectual level, not all of them are geniuses; overall they reflect a certain average intelligence of all Rabbinical colleges.

As it is clear that something is done differently at this Rabbinical college, I asked the dean to try to define what this uniqueness is. This is a clear “what” question but the answers I got had a “how” characteristic. The dean told me many stories and brought many examples of “how things are done over here” but all I wanted to know was what happens over there and eventually, why things happen the way they happen. I did not get the answer.

On the other hand, people will readily answer “what,” in their opinion, luxury is. However they have difficulty in expressing why some product or service or behaviour is a luxurious one or where this luxury is embedded. The recent insert in the blog shows that the six facets identified by Dubois and his colleagues are valid; hence, we know what constructs luxury. These are dimensions such as rarity, high quality and expensiveness. However, the question remains how we define these dimensions. We know that luxury is subjective as for different people different products or services are luxury, but is there one common denominator that is similar to all?

People also are quick to say that luxury is something that we don’t need. This is not a very good definition as it does not explain why we need what we do not need. The need for luxury goes into our deepest layers of personality and we do not wish to associate those important needs with our day-to-day needs. Thus, luxury is important for us. The question remains: why is it so?

Relying on luxury to satisfy our needs is shrouded with social pressure. However, let’s experiment. If we are to be put on an isolated island with no restaurants to indulge in and no shopping arcades for spending, how then is luxury going to be expressed? Is the need for luxury going to evaporate or is it going to take a different dimension?

Luxury serves a good purpose. It implies choice and free will, something that is unique to mankind. This freewill is what differs man from beast. Thus, using luxury properly and consciously would improve us as human beings. However, are we really consciously aware of the positive qualities that luxury has and do we use luxury for the right purpose?

Following Isaac’s post questioning whether we use luxury for the right purpose, today the Associated Press published a story about the booming luxury market and skyrocketing prices for unique luxury items.

Exclusivity is in—logos and brands are important, but not as important as the quality and uniqueness of an item. Items cited in the article include a $700,000 Montblanc pen (covered with rubies, diamonds and sapphires), a $40,000 Louis Vuitton handbag (a limited number were sold out in pre-orders) and a $10,000 Coach crocodile handbag.

Attaining the “highest” level of luxury appears to getting increasingly difficult. But should it be? It might be worthwhile for people to take a step back and remember that luxury is subjective. It doesn’t need to be a $1000 pair of shoes. And if $1000 shoes are the only or most prominent ideal of luxury, that’s “a terrible ideal for young people,” according to John Vogel, faculty director at the Allwin Initiative for Corporate Citizenship at Dartmouth.

We need luxury, but we also need to know what luxury is, for ourselves.

Isaac’s Mostovicz’s philosopy of luxury challenges us to examine the ‘Why?’ of luxury…rather than just the ‘What’, or the ‘How’….

Don’t ask ‘What’s luxury?’.
Ask Why do we seek luxury?

Isaac is very clear that luxury is a good, not an evil thing. Thinking about his philosophy of luxury… it seems clear that taking a ‘What-based’ view of luxury is causing us to make expensive decisions which will be deeply unsatisying….

What we need is more ‘Why-based Luxury’, which understands users real luxury needs and creates individualised luxury experiences to address them…

Here’s one way to bring this luxury philosophy to life…

Try this little thought experiment, removing the scaffolding from a ‘What-based’ worldview…

1. Imagine yourself alone on a desert island…now ask yourself: what is luxury?

Here are some thoughts to get you started:

a) By removing the social dimension of luxury you’ve already moved towards a more personal definition…rather than a piece of social exhibitionism

b) By removing people, you’ve also removed any quality dimension. You’ve assumed that nothing has been crafted as there is no-one else to craft it. When there is no craftsmanship, All that remains is the beauty constructed by nature.

c) Finally, by removing people you’ve also removed the social conditioning/upbringing that creates an appreciation of such beauty – albeit you have to assume that you are born or at least placed on the island with no prior memory.

What is luxury now?

2. Now assume that the island contains an infinite self-replenishing supply of everything you’ll ever need.

Here’s some food for thought:

a) In doing this, you’ve now removed the scarcity dimension of luxury - so nothing can be luxurious by virtue of exclusivity or rarity or unusualness.

b) And you’ve also removed the waste/gratuity dimension of luxury – by assuming that all resources are self-replenishing.

What is left of luxury now?

3) Now, finally, imagine you will live forever on your abundant self-replenishing island.

a) Eeek! now we’ve removed the time-incorporation element of luxury that considers that things that have taken a long time to make are luxurious –

b) We have also removed the aspects of luxury which are a defence or a reaction against death - a vivid expression of our aliveness…

With all the ‘What’s’ eliminated, all we are left with is the desire - the ‘Why?’…

SO ASK YOURSELF - WHY DO YOU REALLY NEED LUXURY? AND WHEN YOU CURRENTLY USE LUXURY, ARE YOU USING IT WELL?

How much money, time and anxiety have you wasted on ‘What-based luxury’…

Two articles in the Financial Times today remind us about how the rich keep getting richer, financially anyway. From the first article:

> The buying power of the richest people in London, compared to the average citizen, is the greatest it’s been since the 1930s.
> In 1991, the top 1% of earners made 57,000 GBP or more. By 2004-5 the top 1% made 117,000 GBP or more.
> 30,000 people now make more than 500,000 GBP.

How are Londoners spending their “platinum pounds”? The second article offers up Harrods as an example.

Harrods, the fancy department store, has recently revamped its “By Appointment Only” personal shopper service. It now actively courts “cash-rich, time-poor” customers by offering free personal shoppers and a concierge service that will find not just the perfect apparel and gifts but will also find a driver, nanny or housekeeper. They will also call customers to remind them of anniversaries and the birthdays, and suggest gifts for the occasion.

This seems like an awful waste of luxury. Harrods is surely finding demand for such an involved service, but by suggesting which gifts to get and doing so much for these time-poor shoppers, they seem to be taking away any chance for the buyer to appreciate what is being purchased. They’re removing the emotional component, which in the long run hurts buyers and reduces luxury.

This article over at slate is getting a lot of web pick-up.

The story has been blogged by the Captain and Ezra and Constitution Club among many others…

Most commentators seem obsessed with De Beers cartel or by the suggestion that diamonds are not rare- both of which are myths (De Beers has just 40% of the market these days, and the diamond industry spends billions, mostly unsuccessfully trying to find viable diamond deposits).

The other argument, though, is that it’s somehow patronising or sexist to offer and receive a gift as a symbol of commitment…or that a cubic zirconia or manufactured moissanite would do just as well.

The premise of many of these pieces is that somehow social value, emotional value or spiritual value are less meaningful, than something functional. Surely Maslow tells us otherwise!

It’s a naive argument. The question is not whether or not whether De Beers created this market, but whether it is a ‘good’ market for those that choose to participate. Whether diamond engagment rings fulfil a human need - to commit, and to feel a moment of transcendence beyond our own lives…

In short. It is. And they do.

But the luxury in these cases is not the ‘What’ of the diamond, but in the ‘Why’ of engagement. The gift is a symbol is in choosing make a personally costly commitment by giving something eternal, pure, and natural and individual…

If you can find a better symbol which is more ‘Why-level’ luxurious’ for the giver and receiver alike, then go ahead exchange it.

Is a diamond-encrusted Mercedes a sign of progress, conspicuous consumption, or extraordinary gaudiness? This Mercedes-Benz SL550 apparently appeared at a Dubai Auto Show recently. It’s unclear whether the diamonds are real or fake, but in either case, the effect isn’t subtle.

It’s the sort of car you wouldn’t find in J.K. Rowling’s garage. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, lives what she calls a very “mundane” lifestyle despite having earned over a billion dollars in royalties and merchandise from the Harry Potter books and films. In this profile from last year, she explains ‘I’ve got a mental amount I can’t spend beyond. I limit myself to what I think I would be justified in spending on frivolity.’ Sensible indeed (though it should be noted she has a healthy travel budget).

The reason she hasn’t entirely blinged out seems to be that she came into her wealth later in life. She also knows what it’s like to have nothing, living on 70 pounds a week state benefits for a period earlier in her career. Now she can likely afford the diamond-encrusted Mercedes, but she doesn’t want it.

Luxury is knowing what you want and why you want it.

[Diamond Benz via Spluch]