Millman Faults Market Efficiency, Power Plays for Drab Modern Design

米尔曼批市场效率与权力博弈导致现代设计单调乏味 设计师黛比·米尔曼（Debbie Millman）指出，无摩擦的市场优化与算法注意力激励剥夺了物理空间的人性化尺度，导致政治左翼缺乏连贯的视觉策略来抗衡保守派的审美怀旧。 埃兹拉·克莱恩（Ezra Klein）与黛比·米尔曼（Debbie Millman）探讨了现代审美危机，将刻意博人眼球的粗俗（如特斯拉 Cybertruck）与现代“单调崇高”设计所带来的麻木千篇一律区分开来。他们研究了效率、市场金融化和一次性消费主义如何剥夺器物的灵魂，用短暂易逝的平板包装家具和用于投机的“灰褐色”翻修房屋，取代了极具个性的传家宝与色彩丰富的住宅。对话还剖析了美学的政治武器化，对比了美国右翼通过拥抱古典建筑来彰显权威，与左翼不愿推行单一视觉信条之间的差异。在讨论中，米尔曼主张真正的美需要深思熟虑的意图、比例的和谐与公共关怀，而非仅仅是纯粹无摩擦的实用性。 黛比·米尔曼认为，现代审美困境不仅在于单纯的丑陋，更在于日益加剧的粗俗与麻木；超大插建房和特斯拉 Cybertruck 等设计在缺乏功能合理性的情况下强行侵占共享景观，助长了这一现象。 (1:37) 住宅建筑中普遍存在的“色彩衰退”与平淡雷同直接源于房地产金融化，住房被视作高流动性的可交易资产，而非永久的栖息之所。 (35:37) 埃兹拉·克莱恩与米尔曼批评了纽约地铁等公共空间充斥过度商业广告的现象，指出广告仅占大都会运输署（MTA）运营收入的约1%，却在视觉上破坏了共享的公民生活。 (48:12) 当代政治右翼将清晰、古典的美学政治武器化以展示权威与秩序，而自由派左翼则难以针对未来提出明确且连贯的审美愿景。 (52:47)

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 频道《The Ezra Klein Show》于 2026 年 10 月 2 日发布。节目简介指出，面对现代世界愈发平庸单调、住宅充斥灰色以及右翼政治势力提出明确古典美学理论的现实，主持人 Ezra Klein 邀请了著名品牌设计师、《Design Matters》播客主持人 Debbie Millman，共同探讨“世界是否正变得越来越丑”以及背后的设计与政治动因。 ## TL;DR 对谈围绕现代物质环境的“变丑”展开，区分了具有侵略性的粗鄙设计与极度扁平、均质化的“单调崇高”。Debbie Millman 与 Ezra Klein 剖析了科技极简主义、算法同质化、大规模工程优化及房地产金融化如何逐步剥离物品的个性与灵魂，并讨论了公共空间沦为商业广告囚徒的困境。此外，节目还深入探讨了当代保守派（如特朗普推行的新古典主义指令）与科技右翼（如 Cybertruck 的硬核锐角）的美学政治，揭示出审美表象背后关于权力、怀旧与控制的博弈，最后以 Millman 改变人生的文学作品推荐温暖作结。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话兼具深度的知识思辨与松弛的人文温度，既有敏锐犀利的文化批判，又穿插着幽默生动的日常生活趣事。Ezra Klein 以其标志性的探究式提问层层剖析系统性结构，而 Debbie Millman 则凭借深厚的设计行业积淀，从浴帽、空调外机到家族餐桌信手拈来，赋予抽象美学以细腻的触感与情感厚度。两位对谈者在严肃审视当代社会精神麻木与政治美学的同时，始终保持着对真实世界复杂性与人情味的真诚眷恋。 ## Bulletin - [08:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=521s) 现代视觉环境正沿着两条路径同时退化：一是以特斯拉 Cybertruck 为代表的侵略性、失调的“粗鄙”设计；二是以千篇一律的平板家具与建筑为代表、彻底抽离情绪起伏的“单调崇高”（The Drab Sublime）。 - [18:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=1088s) 现代工业对空气动力学数据、燃油效率、电车能耗与碰撞安全的极致工程优化，构成了无形的工程枷锁，客观上将不同品牌的现代汽车逼向了几乎同一套最优气动流线形态。 - [35:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=2137s) 房产金融化与高流动性引发了全美住宅的“色彩衰退”（color recession），大量房屋因短期转售套现或业主委员会（HOA）统一规范，普遍退守至缺乏个性的中性灰色与灰褐色（greige）。 - [55:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=3354s) 现代保守阵营通过行政命令强制联邦建筑采用新古典主义风格，其核心动力并非纯粹的建筑品味，而是借古典欧洲遗产将传统统治威权具象化；相较之下，自由派在构建未来公共视觉语法上显得相对失语。 ## Key takeaways - [01:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=97s) 米尔曼将“丑陋”与“粗鄙”严格区分开来：丑陋可以包含激进、前卫的刻意意图，而粗鄙则是缺乏敬畏心与自省的无意灾难；审美的底层逻辑很大程度上建立在基于数学的“比例感”之上。 - [05:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=358s) 人类感知世界并建立认同高度依赖符号系统，从旧石器时代的洞穴岩画、部族图腾，到现代的耐克球鞋、奢侈手袋及整容手术，外在物品始终充当着群体认同与阶层界限的密码。 - [08:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=521s) 好设计的本质是让使用者感受到尊重与顺畅，而坏设计往往源于贪婪与无礼（如洛杉矶机场混乱的多通道安检系统）；相较于彻底让人麻木的哑默设计，带有个人强烈意志的极端造型反而更能激起情绪震颤。 - [14:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=864s) 注意力经济催生了极繁吸睛造型，但算法分发又导致全球都市空间（精品咖啡馆、机场等）全面同质化；苹果在 2001 年借由 iPod 纯白耳机开创的技术极简范式，曾垄断科技界审美长达近 25 年。 - [18:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=1088s) 现代造物遵循“先解决功能，再进化美学”的规律，当前的汽车和建筑千篇一律是由于必须优先满足复杂的安全与节能物理约束，待工程技术成熟后设计才会迎来基于美感的差异化反弹。 - [22:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=1354s) 现代技术追求的“无摩擦”便利（如流媒体、电子书、麦克豪宅）在提升效率的同时抽离了生活的“灵魂”，而黑胶唱片的翻面、实体书的触感等身体阻力反而沉淀出更深的人物情感联结。 - [27:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=1627s) 大规模廉价量产（如窗式空调外机）常常造成对公共景观的视觉霸凌，但平价设计并非注定丑陋，Target 与无印良品等案例证明低成本日常器物同样可以通过良善的设计意图赋予使用者体面与尊严。 - [33:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=2006s) 现代快消家具的“预设淘汰”机制让日常用品沦为短暂停留的过客，瓦解了以往全家积蓄添置一件优质实木家具、并将其承载的数十年生活记忆代际传承的情感纽带。 - [35:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=2137s) 市场逻辑追求无阻碍的交易流通，导致个性化特质被系统性稀释；当近三分之一的购房者纯粹为了投资炒房而买房时，为了保障二次转售价值，整个社会的建筑色彩迅速退化为无聊的安全灰色。 - [45:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=2708s) 纽约地铁中粗制滥造的齐兹莫尔医生广告因数十年高度一致的重复出现，反而演化为提供安全感与亲民记忆的文化符号，印证了品牌塑造中“熟悉感”对公众心理的强大锚定作用。 - [47:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=2861s) 以纽约地铁为例，尽管广告收入仅占运营预算的约 1%，但商业广告的无度入侵将市民降格为“视觉囚徒”，彻底侵蚀了公共空间本应具备的去商业化庇护所功能与平等尊严。 - [55:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=3354s) 右翼政客通过抨击现代主义建筑的冰冷与“去人性化”，将美与人的神圣尊严直接绑定；但保守派推崇的希腊罗马柱式美学，其内核实则是对历史强人统治与威权力量的迷恋与具象化投射。 - [01:01:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=3661s) 当代“科技右翼”催生出以 Cybertruck、加密货币为代表的硬朗锐角美学，带有鲜明的男性化编码色彩，与苹果飞碟总部等强调流动感和弧度的当代建筑形成了关于未来视觉主导权的博弈。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=0s) 单调、雷同与政治美学：世界正在变丑吗？ Ezra Klein 在节目开场抛出了一个困扰许多现代人的疑问：为什么如今的一切看起来都如此灰暗单调（drab）且千篇一律？街头的独立咖啡馆仿佛共享着同一套模板，建筑设计高度标准化且缺乏色彩，公路上行驶的汽车也变得面目模糊、互换性极高。然而在另一端，前总统唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）与当代右翼却展现出了截然不同的视觉追求——金碧辉煌的白宫椭圆形办公室、构想中的巨大纪念拱门、对国家广场倒影池的奢华重构愿景，以及强制要求特定联邦建筑采用古典传统风格的行政命令。Ezra 指出，无论外界对特朗普作何评价，他和现代保守派确实拥有自己明确的“美学理论”（theory of beauty）；尽管这绝非 Ezra 认同的美学，但它至少是一种有力的主张。 近几年来，大量文章与视频纷纷追问“世界是否正变得越来越丑”。这一现象促使 Ezra 思考：为什么现代社会的器物与空间要么极度沉闷乏味，要么走向喧闹浮夸？当右翼对这种公众情绪给出清晰的美学答案时，左翼是否拥有任何回应？带着这些问题，Ezra 邀请了知名设计专家戴比·米尔曼（Debbie Millman）。米尔曼任教于纽约视觉艺术学院（School of Visual Arts），主持长寿设计访谈播客《设计至关重要》（*Design Matters*）逾二十年，曾为汉堡王（Burger King）、七喜（7 Up）和哈根达斯（Häagen-Dazs）等标志性品牌重塑视觉形象，并于近期在《时代》周刊发表了专栏文章《世界正在变丑吗？》。 ### [01:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=97s) 粗鄙还是丑陋：从 Cybertruck 到被蚕食的街区比例 对谈正式开始，Ezra 直截了当地询问米尔曼：世界真的在变丑吗？米尔曼笑着表示“这取决于你问谁”，但在她自己的专业审视下，现代世界更准确的演变方向是“变得更加粗鄙”（vulgar）。米尔曼在此对“丑陋”与“粗鄙”做出了关键区分：丑陋在某些语境下可以是非常具有意图性（intentional）的设计选择，甚至能在特定潮流下被解读为前卫、颠覆、性感或迷人；而粗鄙则往往是无意造成的灾难（accidental），因为“没有人会真正蓄意去制造粗鄙之物”，粗鄙的结果永远是令人反感的。 米尔曼举出了一系列现实中的粗鄙化例证： - 特斯拉的 **Cybertruck**：“根本没有任何必要让一辆车看起来如此具有压迫感，如此臃肿膨胀（bloated）。” - **居住空间的蚕食**：原本尺度适宜、带前后院和侧巷的住宅被拆除，取而代之的是被强行塞进整块地皮的超大房屋（McMansions 式建筑），以至于房屋墙基与人行道之间仅剩下六七英寸的可怜草坪。 - **Z 世代潮流**：虽然服饰时尚常有出格之处，但米尔曼指出时尚具有天然的“保质期”与周期性，会随着时间被搁置或回潮；但住宅、汽车、飞机等大型实体器物一旦落成，其外观形态与运转机制在几十年内都极难转变，因而粗鄙化带来的伤害更加恒久。 当 Ezra 追问审美的客观性何在、为何有人会将这种粗暴视作“很酷的赛博朋克卡车”时，米尔曼指出，审美的基石很大程度上源于“比例”（proportion），而比例的本质是数学。人类天生具备感知比例失衡的直觉，无论是面对一座高楼、一辆汽车还是一个马克杯，一旦比例失调，就会带来一种强烈的失衡与心烦意乱感（discombobulation）。环境与物品时时刻刻都在对人类的情绪施加隐秘的塑造。 ### [05:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=358s) 符号、品牌与部落认同：人类感知物体的演化史 针对物品如何唤起情绪，Ezra 提到了数年前风靡全球的近藤麻理惠（Marie Kondo）整理热潮。他认为近藤的真正天才之处在于赋予了普通人一套微观感知实践，教会人们留心身边的物品究竟带给自己怎样的情绪震颤；但 Ezra 同时提出了一个美学悖论：许多如今被奉为经典的杰作，在最初建成或面世时往往因比例出格、激进而遭受恶评，那么人们在当下感受到的不适究竟是否可信？ 米尔曼由此回溯了人类演化的深层机制。作为社会性哺乳动物，人类感知世界的一切方式都建立在器物与符号之上。早在五万年前，旧石器时代的祖先就在洞穴岩壁上绘制符号来标注现实；进入部落时代后，人类发明标志来昭示归属与信仰，依靠共有符号维系庞大社群的安全与凝聚力，避免部落内部自相残杀。从远古图腾到现代商业品牌，这种心理机制从未改变： - 穿戴特定款式的球鞋意味着加入耐克（Nike）所象征的群体部落。 - 手提罗迪欧大道（Rodeo Drive）购入的奢侈手袋，是在向外界高调 telegraph 自己属于富裕阶层。 - 在当代整容与身体改造领域（如隆鼻、丰唇或提臀手术），审美符号甚至刻写在了肉体上，用以向同类传递“我知道你知道我也认可这种外貌标准”的阶层与文化密码。米尔曼强调，审美标准、体量大小与时尚潮流，自古以来就与当时的政治结构、宗教观念及社会化进程紧密捆绑。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 人类通过符号与物体建立认同的演化路径 accDescr: 流程图展示从旧石器时代的洞穴壁画，到部落图腾，再到现代商业品牌与身体改造的符号认同演化脉络。 subgraph Prehistoric["史前演化"] A["洞穴壁画与原始标记<br/>（5万年前锚定现实）"] --> B["部落图腾与宗教符号<br/>（划定群体边界与安全认同）"] end subgraph Modern["现代物化演变"] B --> C["消费品牌与器物代码<br/>（Nike、奢侈手袋等身份阶层象征）"] C --> D["身体与外貌改造<br/>（整容手术作为群体审美与价值互认符号）"] end ``` ### [08:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=521s) 什么是好设计？洛杉矶机场的噩梦与“单调崇高” 面对 Ezra 关于“何为好设计与坏设计”的提问，米尔曼给出了清晰的主观与客观分界：好设计能够让人对自己正在做的事情、使用的工具产生愉悦感，使个体在世界中穿行时感受到顺畅与尊重（respectful）；而坏设计不仅在功能上带来阻碍，其内核更是无礼、贪婪（greedy）且缺乏道德（immoral）的。为了直观展现何为坏设计，米尔曼分享了自己在洛杉矶国际机场（LAX）安检时的真实经历： > “那套耗资数十亿美元的多通道传送系统遍布全球机场，却是我见过最糟糕的设计灾难。三个队伍的乘客挤在一条线上抢着往盒子里塞行李，没有任何先来后到的清晰指引，所有人都在争先恐后、互不相让。我甚至当场问工作人员：‘这到底是谁设计的？’” ``` ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 当代视觉环境退化的双重路径 │ ├──────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┤ │ 路径一：粗鄙与刺眼（Vulgar / Ugly） │ 路径二：单调崇高（The Drab Sublime） │ ├──────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤ │ • 具有侵略性、失调的形体（如 Cybertruck）│ • 扁平化家具、极简家电、千篇一律的界面 │ │ • 激发强烈的负面情绪体验（不良感受） │ • 均质化、缺乏深思，让世界宛如数字渲染图 │ │ • 空间挤压、过度膨胀、打破环境生态 │ • 彻底抽离情绪起伏（让人产生“虚无与麻木”） │ └──────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────────┘ ``` Ezra 结合自身近期的阅读思考总结道，关于“世界变丑”的文化批评其实暗含两条完全不同的主线：一条正如米尔曼所批评的，是设计变得越来越有侵略性、让人产生负面感受的粗鄙化；另一条则是越来越普遍的“单调化”（drabness）——即环境并不一定刺眼，而是彻底均质化，让人心生麻木、毫无感觉。 Ezra 特别引用了文化刊物《n+1》在 2023 年一篇里程碑式文章中提出的核心概念——**“单调崇高”**（The Drab Sublime）。这种美学将平板包装家具、消费电子产品、市政基础设施及商业平面设计统统吞噬，制造出一片漫无边际、缺乏深思熟虑的雷同器物海洋，使现实世界看起来宛如未经雕琢的数字渲染图。正因如此，Ezra 坦言自己反而对饱受争议的 Cybertruck 抱有一丝复杂的好感：尽管自己绝不认为它美观、甚至看着让人感到不快，但相比公路上那些毫无生气的流水线无聊汽车，Cybertruck 至少让人“切实感受到了一些情绪”，至少它代表了某种强烈的个人设计意志。 ### [11:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=716s) 特斯拉 Cybertruck 与“自私的丑陋”：侵入公共空间的视觉暴力 访谈由对特斯拉 Cybertruck 的审美争论切入。埃兹拉·克莱恩与黛比·米尔曼一致认为，虽然总有人买单、觉得它好看，但它的根本问题在于“侵占并粗暴割裂了公共景观”（infringes on the landscape）。米尔曼指出，Cybertruck 的造型背后充斥着令人不安的意图：它究竟是为了吸引眼球，还是为了纯粹的威慑与恐吓？顺着这种设计，她提出了更深层的追问：世界的变丑，究竟是因为我们做出了糟糕的设计决策，还是因为我们变得自私透顶，根本不在乎任何人的感受？当这种“只要我能这么干，为什么不呢”的自私与粗鄙行为在公共空间被默许并得逞，它必然会顺流而下，迅速侵蚀并蔓延至全社会的日常行为与审美标准之中。 面对米尔曼的分析，克莱恩笑着亮明立场：“我也必须承认，这车确实丑得厉害。”随后他提出了评估设计与感受的二维坐标轴：一端是“它是否激起了你的情绪、情绪有多强烈”，另一端则是“这种感觉究竟是好是坏”。在克莱恩看来，当今环绕在我们周围的绝大多数事物——比如千篇一律的崭新公寓楼或家用轿车——甚至都算不上“丑”，而是“毫无冒犯性”（inoffensive）。它们给人的感觉是一片死寂与麻木，对观察者而言是完全“哑默”（mute）的。米尔曼对此深表赞同，并强调这种毫无意图、缺乏策略与目的、对周边环境毫无敬畏之心的建筑与物品，其恶劣程度远甚于单纯的丑陋，甚至比俗气（vulgar）更加可怕。现代生活正在经历一场全面的美学“扁平化”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 美学感受与设计维度的双轴模型 accDescr: 展示设计在情感强度与情感正负两个维度的分布，以及无感设计与极端设计的危害 subgraph 情感维度 A["情感激发强度 (高 vs 哑默无感)"] B["情感体验性质 (愉悦美感 vs 粗俗丑陋)"] end subgraph 现实设计困境 C["安全而扁平的无感设计 (新公寓楼、普通汽车)<br/>—— 缺乏敬畏与意图，导致感知麻木"] D["极端吸引眼球的暴力设计 (Cybertruck、镀金内饰)<br/>—— 破坏公共景观，侵蚀社会审美"] end A --> C B --> D ``` --- ### [14:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=864s) 算法的千篇一律与粗俗极繁的反弹：从白色耳机到全球同质化 在审美的极度扁平化之后，社会正迎来剧烈的逆向反弹。克莱恩提到，黛比·米尔曼在文章中敏锐地捕捉到了这种走向粗俗、浮夸与极繁主义（maximalism）的趋势：从唐纳德·特朗普偏爱的镀金椭圆形办公室，到 Z 世代极度张扬吸睛的穿搭风格，再到网络上风靡的容貌内卷（looksmaxing）。米尔曼在文章中写道，我们正身处一个注意力经济时代，而注意力总是奖赏极端；设计越是被鼓励追求即时可见、高辨识度与易于社交传播，它就越容易丧失比例感、初衷以及与周围人类共存的温度。然而，注意力经济的硬币反面是算法分发导致的全面雷同。正如作家凯尔·柴卡（Kyle Chayka）所观察到的，如今在纽约、洛杉矶、墨西哥城、布宜诺斯艾利斯或东京，街角的精品咖啡馆几乎长得一模一样，甚至连世界各地的现代机场都已面目模糊、无法区分。 谈及这种全球技术美学的起源，米尔曼将时间线拉回到了 2001 年——在“9·11”恐怖袭击发生仅六周后，苹果公司发布了第一代 iPod，并随机附送了极具标志性的纯白耳塞式耳机。克莱恩惊讶地表示自己此前从未把这两起历史事件的时间节点联系在一起。米尔曼回忆道，那是一段极具开创性的美学历史：iPod 本身藏在衣服口袋里看不见，但那条醒目的白色耳机线却成了一种静默的视觉暗号，宣告着“我知道你知道，我们都是追求卓越的早期尝鲜者”。在那个充斥着嘈杂视觉噪音的时代，苹果用极致的极简主义脱颖而出。然而，这一视觉范式在随后的二十多年里被所有科技巨头竞相复制，使得整个科技行业陷入长达四分之一个世纪的审美定式，大家都戴上了“卓越就必须长成这样”的枷锁。直到最近，三星引入了设计大师毛罗·波尔奇尼（Mauro Porcini）担任设计主管，这种坚冰才开始显现出被打破的迹象。 - **iPod 问世节点**：2001 年秋季（“9·11”事件后仅 6 周），以纯白耳机建立了颠覆性的极简主义视觉语言与群体身份认同。 - **美学垄断周期**：苹果定义的科技极简范式统治了行业长达约 25 年，迫使竞品为标榜“高端卓越”而陷入长期模仿。 - **全球空间趋同**：算法与社交媒体不仅塑造了线上审美，更重塑了实体空间，使全球各大都市的咖啡馆、酒店及机场呈现出惊人的同质化。 --- ### [18:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=1088s) 制造意义与功能至上：现代工程优化如何抹平了设计差异？ 当克莱恩问及米尔曼“设计是意图的深思熟虑表达”（deliberate expression of intention）这一论断的含义时，米尔曼将话题回溯到了“品牌”的本质。她直截了当地指出：品牌就是“被制造出来的意义”（manufactured meaning）。面对克莱恩关于“你竟然把基督教也称为品牌”的打趣，米尔曼笑着解释道，十字架本身可以代表任何东西，正是因为千百年来人们达成了一种神圣共识，它才具有了救赎与信仰的意涵（尽管印度教和耆那教的符号历史更为久远）。因此，在米尔曼看来，设计的终极定义正是“对差异化的沟通表达”（the communication of differentiation）——它借由制造出来的意义，向外界传递独特的存在感。 然而克莱恩提出，现代设计面临的真正困境并非品牌不想寻求差异，而恰恰是当下被赋予的“功能性意图”实在太多了。许多人怀念三四十年前的老车（例如经典的福特野马），觉得它们比现在的汽车漂亮、富有灵魂得多。克莱恩指出，这并非单纯是当代设计师江郎才尽，而是因为现代科学掌握了极其精确的空气动力学数据，加上严格的燃油效率法规、电车能耗要求和碰撞安全标准，这些现实的工程约束如同一副副无形的枷锁，将不同品牌汽车的轮廓强行推向了几乎一致的最佳气动流线型。现代建筑同样如此，它们必须优先满足严苛的节能指标和抗震结构，而过去那些被后人顶礼膜拜的古典审美时期，根本无需为如此繁多的现实功能进行极致优化。因此，世界的同质化在某种程度上是工程技术与物理规律理性优化的必然代价。 米尔曼对克莱恩的分析表示认同，但她乐观地认为这只是一个必经的历史阶段。她指出，人类的造物规律通常是“先解决功能，再追求美感与渴望”：一旦工程界彻底吃透并掌握了这些符合人体工学与物理限制的新建造技术，下一步的自然演进必然是借助美学来实现更高维度的差异化竞争。为了说明这一点，米尔曼打了个生动的比方：她回想起外祖母那一辈女性穿的传统橡胶紧身胸衣（girdle），那件器物极其丑陋、穿起来费劲，但塑形功能极其高效；而如今的时代，我们有了 Spanx 这样将人体工学功能与现代审美设计完美融合的成熟产物。功能与灵魂的冲突，终将在技术的成熟与设计的进化中找到新的平衡。 ### [22:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=1354s) 无摩擦生活的代价：便利与灵魂的拉锯 Debbie Millman 先前提到塑身衣品牌 SKIMS，认为它在实现塑形功能的同时更加性感和优美。这种演进在商业系统中是必然的，因为人们总在追求改良与超越。然而，Ezra Klein 指出了一种隐秘的代价：在准备这期节目时，他的一位制作人提到自己住在一栋外观极其优美、门口立着大树的老房子里，整栋建筑充满了“灵魂”。但这位制作人私下里却很羡慕那些住“麦克豪宅”（McMansions，指千篇一律的廉价大型郊区住宅）的人——那里虽然毫无灵魂，但内部空间专为育儿优化，有宽敞的动线和中央空调。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 无摩擦便利与实体体验的冲突 accDescr: 对比数字化无摩擦便利与实体物理触感带来的不同心理价值 subgraph Convenience["无摩擦体验（功能优化）"] A["中央空调 / 麦克豪宅"] B["Kindle / Spotify 海量存储"] C["高度便利，抹平生活阻力"] end subgraph Soul["实体摩擦（情感与灵魂）"] D["老房子独特性"] E["黑胶唱片翻面 / 纸质书触感"] F["需要倾注注意力，建立深层联结"] end Convenience -->|代价| G["扁平、同质化的冷漠感"] Soul -->|回报| H["充满生机与个性表达"] ``` Ezra 认为，当生活被彻底“抹平摩擦”（frictionless）时，事物往往会丧失某种生机。尽管某些产品的功能和质量无可挑剔，但这种过度顺滑的体验反而将世界压缩成一种冷漠的服务： - **黑胶唱片与 Spotify**：Ezra 坦言自己不收藏黑胶，但许多发烧友沉迷黑胶正是因为那种“麻烦的实体感”——必须站起来给唱片翻面、小心翼翼地放下唱针。那种对物理物件的依恋，绝非 Spotify 媒体库所能比拟；所谓“音质更温暖”只是借口，核心在于这种身体层面的触觉互动。 - **纸质书与 Kindle**：Kindle 可以随身携带几十本书并同步划线，但当人们真正深爱一本书时，依然会去买纸质版，因为“拥有它本身”具有不可替代的意义，哪怕它的便携功能在客观上稍逊一筹。 - **便利性与个性的交易**：Debbie 总结道，当前时代的核心张力就在于“便利与个性（individuality）”的博弈。人类正为了极致的便利不断出卖个性甚至隐私。虽然折中并非坏事，但若滑向任何一个极端都会错失良机。她坦言自己既享受口袋里揣着 45 本电子书的轻松，也热衷于蜷缩在沙发里翻看实体书，甚至至今无法割舍带有乐队照片和歌词的实体唱片内页（liner notes）。 ### [27:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=1627s) 空调外机的启示：大众制造与美学的冲突 Ezra 引入了博主 Shan Quirk 制作的一段 YouTube 视频。视频中，Shan 走在伦敦街头，对比维多利亚时代带着奇特鱼形浮雕的路灯、排水系统与如今建造的公共设施——现代路灯功能完善，却死气沉沉。紧接着，视频聚焦在遍布街头的窗式空调外机上：这项奇迹般的发明改善了数十亿人的生活，但它冰冷而丑陋，毫不掩饰对“日常之物亦可兼具美感”的蔑视。Shan 尖锐地指出，现代社会宁愿选择多赚钱，也不愿投入少许时间和心力去把东西做美。 这段讨论引发了 Debbie 和 Ezra 强烈的共鸣与辨析： - **“它不是无聊，是视觉霸凌”**：针对视频称空调外机是“无聊”，Debbie 激烈反驳道：“它根本不是无聊，而是突兀（obtrusive），是在迎面霸凌（assaulting）行人的视觉。”她现场开玩笑向知名工业设计师 James Dyson 隔空喊话：“Dyson 先生把所有创新都放在了空气上——吸尘器、吹风机都被他做得那么漂亮，还有谁比他更适合来重新发明空调？James，我们真的需要你！” - **成本与阶级的现实考量**：Ezra 补充了现实维度的冷酷一面。窗式空调外机通常挂在老式建筑上，或者由无力安装中央空调的人群使用。一旦产品必须以极低成本进行超大规模的量产（mass production），它往往就会走向平庸或丑陋。 - **审美是否是一种精英主义？** 历史上能留存下来的旧建筑往往不是当年穷人挤压的廉租房（tenement buildings），而是乔治城（Georgetown）那些造价高昂的精美联排排屋。大众量产让曾经的奢侈品飞入寻常百姓家，但也不可避免地剥离了物品的个性与考究。 ### [30:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=1849s) 尊严在日常细节中：设计并非富人专属 面对大众消费品必然丑陋的宿命论，Debbie 坚决反驳，认为这完全取决于生产者的“意图”（intention），设计不应该也不必然沦为特权阶层的专利： - **平价设计的先例**：多年前 Target 零售店推出的“Design for All”系列，邀请了 Isaac Mizrahi 等优秀设计师操刀，打造出兼具低廉价格与考究细节的基础线产品；而无印良品（Muji）同样证明了平价日常物件也能拥有悉心打磨的体面。 - **关于“洗澡帽”的执念**：Debbie 分享了一个自己十多年前的趣事。当时她对市面上所有洗澡帽感到绝望——“它们简直丑陋得像某种真菌，令人作呕”。经过一番搜寻，她发现了一家名为 SHOWER CAP 的公司，设计出宛如复古包头巾（turban style）的浴帽。虽然它比超市三元一包的塑料薄膜浴帽贵一点，但做工极其耐用精美。Debbie 感慨，这种设计之所以重要，是因为它意味着“有人认为你在这一刻的生活体验里值得被尊重（you deserve more respect in that experience）”。 ### [32:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=1950s) 廉价时代的“断舍离”危机 随着讨论深入，Ezra 提出了一个与“为美付费”完全相反但同样真实的现代悖论：当下许多东西之所以变丑，恰恰是因为它们变得太廉价、太容易被替代，以至于人们不再对物品倾注心血。 这一现象在美国家庭的家具代际传承中体现得淋漓尽致： - **祖传家具的黄昏**：在过去的世代里，继承祖父母的卧室套件或餐桌（hand-me-down furniture）是一件极具仪式感的大事，Debbie 也笑着附和自己曾得到祖母的餐桌。 - **被年轻人拒绝的心血**：如今随着老一辈离世或搬进小户型养老（downsizing），他们满怀深情想把呵护了一辈子的精良实木家具留给下一代，却屡遭年轻人拒绝。其根本原因在于现代流水线生产（如快时尚家具）让家具价格大幅跳水，购买一套全新的卧室或餐厅家具不再是全家倾尽积蓄的重大投资，物件与人之间的深厚情感纽带也随之彻底瓦解。 ### [33:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=2006s) 物品的生命周期、预设淘汰与情感传承 如果一件家具购自宜家（IKEA），人们通常不会对其倾注过多心力，因为大家都心知肚明这只是一套过渡性的“入门房”，过几年很可能就会换掉。过去在物资相对匮乏的时代，人们被迫认真对待自己添置的每件日常用品；然而，当所有人都意识到眼前的物品仅会使用区区几年，其“预设淘汰”（planned obsolescence）早已被制度化安排好时，物品就变成了家庭中来去匆匆的“过客”，再也无法承载或表达使用者的精神内核。为之感到惋惜的黛比·米尔曼（Debbie Millman）强调，物品的自我表达价值完全无关金钱，而在于其中沉淀的灵魂。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 物品生命周期的两种截然不同路径 accDescr: 对比了现代快消品流水线与家族代际传承物件在情感价值和存在逻辑上的根本差异。 subgraph FastConsumerism["现代快消逻辑"] A["宜家等廉价快消家具"] --> B["预设淘汰 / 短期过渡"] B --> C["缺乏情感倾注与自我表达"] C --> D["频繁更替 / 沦为临时过客"] end subgraph GenerationalContinuity["世代传承逻辑"] E["家族祖传实木餐桌"] --> F["承载60年生活记忆与聚散"] F --> G["跨代接力传递给后辈"] G --> H["赋予生命连续性与存在意义"] end ``` 这种灵魂在世代流传的家族家具中体现得尤为深刻。米尔曼分享了自己家中的真实故事：六十年前，她的祖母曾日日围坐在一张餐桌旁；后来因妻子想要换新餐桌，米尔曼虽然用不上它，却无论如何不忍将其丢弃，只得常年收存在地下室里。最近，她的外甥女需要一张餐桌，米尔曼便决定将这张桌子打包寄送过去——这意味着一位年轻女孩将迎来她曾祖母的餐桌。在米尔曼看来，这种代际传承堪称“生活的奇迹与意义所在”（magic, a reason for living）。餐桌是全家人欢聚、进餐、哭泣与争吵的见证物，它所凝聚的情感记忆是无价的；作为一名连妻子都公认的“囤积狂”（packrat），她坚信附着在物件上的温情、情绪与记忆，正是人类生存过最无可替代的铁证。 ### [35:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=2137s) 市场逻辑的侵蚀：“灰调狂潮”与房产金融化 现实生活中的各种结构正被截然不同的逻辑所主导，而市场逻辑正像吞噬一切的巨兽般蔓延。市场的本质是极度厌恶摩擦（frictionless）、追求绝对的可交易性（tradability）与远距离的高辨识度，因此它从根本上排斥个体的独特性与具体性。祖传餐桌在 eBay 上或许只值一个冰冷的标价，但其承载的祖辈生命延续感却远远溢出了市场的算盘。当下社会的普遍“变丑”，正是因为不可阻挡的市场逻辑正在剥离一切个性。 最典型的例证莫过于住宅色彩的变迁。华盛顿特区的一项严谨研究显示，全美房屋被粉刷成灰色的比例急剧上升，这种现象被称为“色彩衰退”（the color recession）。究其根源，2021年全美近三分之一的房屋交易买家根本毫无入住打算，房子纯粹变成了投资品或“炒房”（house flipping）的周转筹码。 | 住房观念维度 | 栖居之所（生活逻辑） | 金融资产（市场逻辑） | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **预期居住年限** | 数十年甚至终身扎根（如 50 年） | 短期过渡（4-5年流动工作）或即时转售 | | **色彩与外观倾向** | 个性化、特立独行（如黄绿撞色） | 极度中性化（大面积灰色、灰褐色 greige） | | **社区规范驱动** | 邻里风貌自发生长、百花齐放 | 业主委员会（HOA）强制统一以保周边转售价 | | **空间设计后果** | 滋养创造力与独特个体审美 | 空间单调均质、剥夺公共空间与空气感 | 如果一个人将住宅视为三五年后就要变现的交易工具，或者受限于流动性极强的工作调动，将其漆成展现个人怪癖的亮黄色或绿色就会直接折损长期的二次转售价值（resale value）。更有甚者，美国普遍存在的业主委员会（HOA）出台严苛规定，严禁住户随心所欲粉刷外墙，理由是标新立异会拖累整条街区房产的资本估值。为了追求资产变现的顺畅，社会系统地稀释掉了所有古怪却动人的特质。 ### [40:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=2403s) 极简穿搭、身份投射与政治符号的隐喻 在美学表达的坐标轴上，人们常常在“试图引发何种情绪”与“是否渴望被察觉”之间拉扯。埃兹拉·克莱恩（Ezra Klein）谈到一位女性朋友，她的衣着极其鲜艳夸张，旨在向周遭世界播撒喜悦与奇想；而克莱恩自己的穿衣哲学——乃至播客从纯音频转向视频录制时带给他的焦虑——则是追求绝对的隐形。他希望自己的衣着看起来得体，随后便迅速从众人的视线中淡出，不引发任何审视。当代人似乎越来越无法承受被评判的风险，只想让自己显得“合规”以避开公众目光。 但米尔曼指出，彻底避开审视只是一种幻想，“选择不显眼本身也是一种刻意的态度与声明”。她讲起自己父亲的一件荒唐趣事： - 父亲多年以前宣布不再穿拉夫·劳伦（Ralph Lauren）的 Polo 衫，因为他不甘心沦为品牌的“人肉移动广告牌”。 - 为了不浪费旧衣服，父亲竟异想天开地找出一枚美国国旗徽章，端端正正别在胸前的马球标志上。 - 米尔曼当场戳穿他：“爸，你不过是用一个图腾置换了另一个图腾；现在你不再代表服装品牌，而是直接在胸口代表整个美利坚合众国。” ```text [父亲的逻辑] 拉夫·劳伦马球标 (企业品牌 / 消费主义) ==[ 贴上国旗徽章遮盖 ]==> 消除商业赞助痕迹？ [现实的效果] 无意间换上了意识形态符号 (国家图腾) ===> 在公共视野中形成了更强烈、更明确的政治站位宣告 ``` 米尔曼坦言自己在过去二十年中也几乎只穿纯黑衣服，其他任何颜色都会让她觉得自己像一盏荧光灯般刺眼；尽管被外甥吐槽“太古怪”，但对她而言全黑穿搭省去了所有决策成本。小到衣服、运动鞋、手袋，大到汽车与住宅，每一处外在选择都在替我们向世界发言。克莱恩补充道，符号的语境决定了其重量：在后“9·11”时代，佩戴国旗徽章带有极其鲜明且具排他性的政治站位；而在不同政治体制的历史切片中，家中悬挂富兰克林·罗斯福（FDR）肖像，或是挂毛泽东、斯大林的画像，其背后代表的主动权与社会隐喻也千差万别。当企业界的品牌运作逻辑彻底渗透至公共精神领域，非商业的图腾也无可避免地被卷入了身份博弈之中。 ### [44:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=2650s) 公共与私密领域的趋同：从宗教符号到品牌消费 Ezra Klein 回忆起自己的童年经历：小时候他曾佩戴过一枚代表犹太教符号的金质“Chai”（חי），那段时期他非常虔诚，甚至立志成为一名拉比。他指出，当时佩戴宗教符号所代表的个人与精神意义，与数年后他为了融入同龄群体而穿上第一双耐克（Nike）鞋的感受截然不同。宗教符号表达的是一种私密而神圣的信仰（即使它同时也展现在公共空间），而商业品牌表达的则是世俗的归属感。然而在当下，人们似乎将所有符号都放在了同一个平面上去审视，导致原本应当分立的两种逻辑与感知世界的方式逐渐混淆、趋同。这种公共领域与私密领域的界限模糊，引出了关于美、丑与设计的深层讨论。 ### [45:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=2708s) 齐兹莫尔医生的地铁广告：丑陋但深入人心的长效设计 话题转向 Debbie Millman 曾提及的一个经典案例：纽约地铁里著名皮肤科医生齐兹莫尔（Dr. Zizmor）的广告。这是一组公认“丑陋”却极为成功的视觉设计。齐兹莫尔医生当年几乎包揽了纽约地铁车厢内的广告牌，海报设计粗制滥造：充斥着刺眼的黄绿色、橙色、极其劣质的彩虹图案、糟糕的字体间距（kerning）、严重失真的水平与垂直拉伸以及拙劣的人物剪影。广告语大肆宣扬齐兹莫尔医生能彻底根治痤疮、重塑面容。然而，正是这种数十年如一日的高度一致性，使其地位堪比1970年代著名的“疯狂埃迪”（Crazy Eddie）廉价电器广告，彻底融入了纽约城市文化的肌理。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Dr Zizmor Ad Familiarity Flowchart accDescr: 展现齐兹莫尔医生广告从视觉糟糕到成为公众情感纽带的转变逻辑 subgraph Design["视觉呈现"] A["刺眼配色与糟糕排版"] --> B["数十年高度一致反复曝光"] end subgraph Perception["大众认知"] B --> C["成为纽约地铁文化象征"] C --> D["平价、亲民、无丑闻的个人形象"] end subgraph Outcome["品牌沉淀"] D --> E["跨越审美局限<br/>建立安全感与情感依恋"] end ``` Millman 分析指出，这一现象揭示了品牌塑造（branding）的核心法则：只要一种视觉符号被重复看到的次数足够多，它就会演化为一种大众熟悉并产生情感共鸣的纽带。齐兹莫尔医生收费低廉、面向大众且从未曝出丑闻，因而人们对这些广告产生了真切的喜爱。这也解释了为什么如今品牌更换 Logo（例如纯果乐果汁包装更换事件）会引发公众的强烈反弹——公众抗议往往不是因为旧设计有多么完美，而是因为在充满不确定性的现代生活中，剥夺那份深入骨髓的“熟悉感”会让人感到恐慌与极度缺乏安全感。 ### [47:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=2861s) 沦陷的公共空间：纽约地铁里的广告入侵 Klein 从齐兹莫尔医生的广告引申出另一个视角：这些设计之所以迷人，正是因为它们散发着真实个体的人情味，而非出自大型公关设计公司那些经历层层立项会议与官僚流程的冰冷产物。但他话锋一转，提到自己迁居纽约三年间一直想写却因担心舆论反弹而搁置的一篇专栏文章——关于公共空间过度商业化的悲哀。纽约地铁本是美国现代生活中极其罕见的伟大公共空间，具有高度的平等性，各个社会阶层在此汇聚交织。然而，置身其中的乘客却不得不时刻暴露在追逐交通事故索赔的律师广告（ambulance chasers）、Tinder 交友软件、整容手术，甚至是电影《驱魔人》（The Exorcist）重启版海报上两个女孩口吐血水的恐怖画面之下。 Klein 调研发现，纽约大都会运输署（MTA）来自广告的收入仅占其运营预算的 1% 左右。即便在市政当局试图推行公车免费政策的背景下，保留广告可能被视作支持公共财政的务实之举，但将公共空间出卖给商业势力的做法依然令人沮丧。广告将市民变成了“视觉囚徒”（visual prisoner），让本应作为逃离市场规训的避难所变成了被商业捕获的领地。Klein 赞赏纽约地铁偶尔展示诗歌（Poetry in Motion）和公共艺术的做法，认为这种带有老派进步主义色彩的审美滋养才应该是公共空间的本色。 Millman 赞同现代人对视觉空间被掠夺的耐受度令人吃惊，并列举了两个反思公共视觉污染的案例： - **巴西圣保罗的户外广告禁令**：圣保罗曾推行过彻底拆除全市户外商业广告牌的试验，彻底重塑了城市的视觉景观。 - **艺术家埃德·鲁沙（Ed Ruscha）的创作**：他曾创作过一系列空无一物的纯白广告牌作品，在没有商业标语的城市背景中展现出震撼人心的纯净与反思。 Millman 补充道，商业广告的无孔不入已经到了荒谬的境地——从男厕小便池正上方的视线焦点，到直接打在超市鸡蛋壳上的企业商标，几乎没有任何公共物理空间能逃脱资本符号的标记。 ### [53:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=3191s) 右翼的美学政治：从特朗普到卡尔森的“去人性化”指控 谈话随之深入到政治领域。Klein 指出，近年来美国右翼发起了一场引人注目的“美学复兴”运动，试图夺回关于“美”的话语权。唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）比以往任何一位美国总统都更频繁地使用“美丽”（beautiful）这个词，并极力倡导海湖庄园（Mar-a-Lago）式的镀金美学与新古典主义建筑指令。虽然其品味见仁见智，但他确实将美学置于核心地位。 Klein 随后播放了一段右翼媒体人塔克·卡尔森（Tucker Carlson）的视频片段。卡尔森在节目中直言： > “这是美国政治中的另一条高压线：你绝不能指出我们的建筑是怪异且去人性化的。它们为什么糟糕？因为它们丑陋。而丑陋会剥夺我们的人性。具体而言，去人性化就是让人们确信自己无足轻重、确信自己微不足道、确信自己不是拥有独特灵魂的独立个体，不是上帝的造物，而仅仅是某种庞大力量手中的玩偶泥巴。” Klein 评价道，虽然卡尔森声称“大众不被允许讨论建筑丑陋”是夸大其词的受害者修辞，但这确凿地反映了右翼阵营正在通过抨击现代主义与极简设计的冰冷丑陋，来构建一套将美与人的尊严、神圣性直接绑定的政治叙事。 ### [54:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=3286s) 右翼的美学政治与特朗普的白宫改造 对话转向了右翼政治对美学的重塑。Debbie Millman 提到，自己生平第一次发现自己居然在某种程度上同意 Tucker Carlson 的观点，即美不应在公共目标中退居次席；但她随即反驳称，现实中右翼的所作所为根本与“追求美”背道而驰。如果右翼真的在乎美，那么当唐纳德·特朗普对白宫、东翼（East Wing）大兴土木、增建拱门、改动倒影池（reflecting pool）并让华盛顿特区变得越来越难看时，保守派内部理应爆发强烈的抗议，然而现实中却一片沉寂。 Ezra Klein 提出疑问：难道特朗普和他的支持者不正是觉得自己正在让世界变得更美吗？特朗普难道不认为他改造的倒影池光彩夺目、金碧辉煌吗？Millman 笑称，现实中根本没人会看着改造后的白宫椭圆形办公室赞叹“这看起来真棒”，除了特朗普本人之外，右翼阵营里也没有人在认真鼓吹“让我们大力投资金色细工浮雕（gold filigree）吧”，这种土豪金审美幸运地并没有演变成一种广泛社会风潮。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 美学主张与政治立场的投射对比 accDescr: 对比右翼基于过去与权力的复古美学与左翼面向未来的开放多元美学 subgraph Right["保守右翼的美学逻辑"] R1["回溯过去：古典柱式、罗马/希腊建筑"] --> R2["权力与威严的象征投射"] R2 --> R3["清晰明确的审美规范与复古叙事"] end subgraph Left["自由派/左翼的审美困境"] L1["面向未建构的未来"] --> L2["抗拒由单一权威定义美"] L2 --> L3["缺乏全社会一致认可的视觉语法"] end ``` ### [55:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=3354s) 古典复兴：品味、风格还是权力的具象化？ Ezra Klein 进一步为保守派的举措提出一种更为严肃的挑战性解读。他指出，现代美国右翼作为一种带有浓厚复古与反动（reactionary）色彩的运动，重新发掘了古典建筑与罗马石柱。因为立足于过去，他们能够轻而易举地确立一个极度具象、清晰的“美”的锚点——即欧洲遗产与古老事物。相比之下，广义上的左翼（涵盖温和派、自由主义者和左派）在美学上则面临失语，这并非因为左翼不重视美，而是因为左翼不愿居高临下地去规定“什么是美”，秉持着“我凭什么去裁定他人审美”的非二元态度。当保守派试图将美学拉回政治争论的核心时，左派却拿不出能够凝聚共识的全新未来视觉语法（visual grammar）。 Debbie Millman 则对这一观点提出了强烈异议。她强调必须严格区分品味（taste）、风格（style）与权力（power）： > “我不认为右翼阵营里有谁回看罗马、希腊建筑或凡尔赛宫时，心里想的是‘哇，那真是壮丽无比的建筑’。我认为他们真正在表达的是：‘这是那种建筑所代表的权力，而这种权力正是我们渴望统治世界的方式。’” 针对 Klein 辩护称“即便包含权力要素，他们也确实发自内心地觉得海湖庄园（Mar-a-Lago）式的美学是美的”，Millman 进一步阐明，她绝不否认每个人主观上的审美偏好，但关键在于“他们为什么会觉得那很美”——这种对古典或奢华的迷恋，本质上是因为它具象化了某种强人领袖与霸权结构，审美感受与权力崇拜在他们心中早已无法割席。 - **政治美学的分水岭**：Klein 指出乔治·W·布什或米特·罗姆尼时期的共和党从未拥有明确的“美学政治”，而如今右翼甫一上台便通过行政命令强制联邦建筑采用新古典主义或古典风格。 - **怀旧的便利性**：“让美国再次伟大”（MAGA）在美学上具有天然优势，只需退回过去既定的行为、社会结构与建筑规范，绝不可能去费心为未来创新一套前卫的建筑语言。 ### [01:01:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=3661s) 科技右翼的硬朗锐角与性别美学隐喻 Klein 将讨论引向了当代右翼的另一分支——“科技右翼”（Tech-right）。与追溯古典的传统保守派不同，科技右翼催生出了一套属于未来的独特数字视觉语言，例如赛博皮卡（Cybertruck）、加密货币（crypto）、NFT 乃至大量 AI 生成图像（从数字垃圾 AI slop 到先锋艺术）。这种美学具有极高的辨识度，也构成了关于未来的另一种视觉宣示。 Millman 承认这代表了当代设计中一股不可忽视的力量，但她同时列举了 Apple Park 的飞碟大楼作为抗衡力量。她细致对比了两种设计取向的形态差异：赛博风（cyber chic）极度线性、充满锋利边缘；而苹果园区、毕尔巴鄂古根海姆博物馆（Bilbao）以及惠特尼美术馆的新设计，则充斥着大量的圆角、弧度与有机流动感，双方正处于一场争夺主导地位的视觉张力之中。 两人随之触及了隐藏在美学背后的性别隐喻与文化张力： - **性别化编码**：Cybertruck 展现出极具侵略性、棱角分明的男性化（male-coded）硬核设计；而苹果大楼与当代建筑则带有更多感性与曲线特征。 - **权力展现高于性别对抗**：Klein 询问这是否折射了当下白热化的政治“性别战”（gender war），Millman 则坚持认为，这本质上依然是一场关于权力表达的博弈——即“我们认为权力究竟应当如何被可视化和传递”。 当 Klein 追问左翼或不认同特朗普威权美学的人是否能给出一套既不庸俗傲慢、又足以鼓舞人心的公共美学方案时，Millman 坦诚地表示自己是一个立足当下与过去的分析家，而非未来学家或乐观主义者，面对未来她只能抱以审慎的“希望”。 ### [01:04:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=3856s) 终章推荐：三本人生挚爱与一本生命之书 在访谈例行的荐书环节中，Debbie Millman 透露自己为此深思熟虑了很久，决定推荐三本贯穿其人生的挚爱之作，并额外“夹带”一本在过去十年中彻底重塑了她生命的书籍。 Millman 推荐的第一部作品是著名诗人海登·卡鲁斯（Hayden Carruth）编选的 20 世纪诗歌选集《我们心中伟大的声音》（*The Voice That Is Great Within Us*）。她深情地提到，正是这部卓越的现代诗选，让她在早年的人生阶段第一次读到了自己此生最爱的一首诗。 ### [01:04:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=3894s) 改变人生的三部经典之作 在节目尾声的书籍推荐环节，Debbie Millman 分享了深远影响其人生的三部文学经典。第一部是查尔斯·奥尔森（Charles Olson）的诗歌《马克西姆斯致自己》（Maximus to Himself），她甚至幽默地提到自己的爱犬正是以诗名中的“马克西姆斯”（Maximus）命名的。第二部则是加西亚·马尔克斯（Gabriel García Márquez）的巨作《霍乱时期的爱情》（Love in the Time of Cholera），Debbie 赞誉这是“有史以来最伟大的爱情故事之一”，并且书中拥有文学史上最惊艳的终局之笔，但读者唯有一路读到最后一页才能真正领略那句话的震撼力。 第三部作品是詹姆斯·乔伊斯（James Joyce）的意识流名作《尤利西斯》（Ulysses）。Debbie 从大学时期就深深痴迷于这本书，并一直怀揣着未来能为其打造视觉化版本的梦想。为了向这部作品致敬，她甚至特地前往爱尔兰参加“布卢姆日”（Bloomsday）的庆祝活动——这一天正是书中主人公利奥波德·布卢姆（Leopold Bloom）一整天漫游经历的时间切片。她在爱尔兰参加了步行游览，并亲自造访了小说中著名的场景桑迪蒙特海滩（Sandymount Strand）。 - **查尔斯·奥尔森《马克西姆斯致自己》**：Debbie 最钟爱的诗作之一，也是其爱犬名字的来源。 - **加西亚·马尔克斯《霍乱时期的爱情》**：被盛赞为史上最伟大的爱情小说，拥有无可匹敌的经典结尾。 - **詹姆斯·乔伊斯《尤利西斯》**：大学时期即为之倾心，曾亲赴爱尔兰循着布卢姆的足迹展开“布卢姆日”漫游，梦想未来能将其视觉化呈现。 ### [01:05:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=3954s) 缘定《饥饿》：与 Roxane Gay 的浪漫邂逅 除了上述三本经典，Debbie Millman 特别补充了第四本对她而言具有不可替代意义的现代之作——罗克珊·盖伊（Roxane Gay）的回忆录《饥饿》（Hunger）。2017 年，当 Debbie 第一次阅读这本书时，便在未曾谋面的情况下，仅凭文字就无可救药地爱上了作者本人。 这段文学之缘随后演变成了一段戏剧性的浪漫故事：Debbie 最初尝试联系 Roxane，邀请她做客自己的播客节目《Design Matters》，但遭到了拒绝；随后 Debbie 试图保持联系，对方依然态度游移、防备心很重。直到后来，通过一位共同好友的牵线搭桥，Roxane 才终于确信 Debbie“不是个怪人”。2018 年，Debbie 鼓起勇气邀请 Roxane 约会，两人感情迅速升温，最终于 2020 年正式步入婚姻殿堂。听完这段由一本书牵出的浪漫佳话，Ezra Klein 笑着称赞这是一份美妙绝伦的推荐，并对 Debbie 的到来致以真诚的感谢。 ## Notable quotes > [01:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=97s) 根本没有任何必要让一辆车看起来如此具有压迫感，如此臃肿膨胀。 — Debbie Millman > [08:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=521s) 那套耗资数十亿美元的多通道传送系统遍布全球机场，却是我见过最糟糕的设计灾难。三个队伍的乘客挤在一条线上抢着往盒子里塞行李，没有任何先来后到的清晰指引，所有人都在争先恐后、互不相让。我甚至当场问工作人员：‘这到底是谁设计的？’ — Debbie Millman > [11:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=716s) 我也必须承认，这车确实丑得厉害。 — Ezra Klein > [27:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=1627s) 它根本不是无聊，而是突兀，是在迎面霸凌行人的视觉。 — Debbie Millman > [27:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=1627s) Dyson 先生把所有创新都放在了空气上——吸尘器、吹风机都被他做得那么漂亮，还有谁比他更适合来重新发明空调？James，我们真的需要你！ — Debbie Millman > [40:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=2403s) 爸，你不过是用一个图腾置换了另一个图腾；现在你不再代表服装品牌，而是直接在胸口代表整个美利坚合众国。 — Debbie Millman > [53:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=3191s) 这是美国政治中的另一条高压线：你绝不能指出我们的建筑是怪异且去人性化的。它们为什么糟糕？因为它们丑陋。而丑陋会剥夺我们的人性。具体而言，去人性化就是让人们确信自己无足轻重、确信自己微不足道、确信自己不是拥有独特灵魂的独立个体，不是上帝的造物，而仅仅是某种庞大力量手中的玩偶泥巴。 — Tucker Carlson > [55:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc&t=3354s) 我不认为右翼阵营里有谁回看罗马、希腊建筑或凡尔赛宫时，心里想的是‘哇，那真是壮丽无比的建筑’。我认为他们真正在表达的是：‘这是那种建筑所代表的权力，而这种权力正是我们渴望统治世界的方式。’ — Debbie Millman ## Mentioned Ezra Klein, Debbie Millman, Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, Roxane Gay, Shan Quirk, James Dyson, Kyle Chayka, Mauro Porcini, Marie Kondo, Ed Ruscha, Isaac Mizrahi, Hayden Carruth, Charles Olson, Gabriel García Márquez, James Joyce, Tesla, Cybertruck, Apple, iPod, Apple Park, Samsung, Burger King, 7 Up, Häagen-Dazs, Nike, Target, Muji, IKEA, SKIMS, Spanx, Spotify, Kindle, Tinder, SHOWER CAP, Design Matters, Time, The New York Times, n+1, The Voice That Is Great Within Us, Maximus to Himself, Love in the Time of Cholera, Ulysses, Hunger, The Exorcist, Crazy Eddie, Dr. Zizmor, School of Visual Arts, MTA, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, Whitney Museum ## Video description President Trump and the modern right have a theory of beauty. You see it in Trump’s gilded Oval Office, his imagined arch and his executive order requiring classical and traditional styles for certain federal buildings. This isn’t my theory of beauty, but it is a theory. And it’s a response, in part, to something that a lot of people have been feeling, and not just on the right: that the modern world is ugly, or getting uglier. I’ve seen at least a dozen articles or videos over the last few years asking, “Is the world getting uglier?” They point to the drabness of new apartment blocks, the sameness of new cars and the reign of “greige” in homes and fashion. So I’ve wanted to do an episode on this for a while. Why does the world seem to be getting uglier, or drabber? And at a moment when the right has a clear answer to this feeling, does the left have any answer at all? Debbie Millman teaches at the School of Visual Arts in New York City and hosts the long-running podcast “Design Matters,” where she talks to creative people about design. In her long career as a brand designer, she revamped the logos for companies like Burger King, 7 Up and Häagen-Dazs. She’s also written a number of books on design, and recently wrote an article for Time magazine, “Is the World Getting Uglier?” 00:00 Intro 01:37 Is Everything Getting Uglier? 03:59 Shared Beauty 05:58 Symbols, Brands and Meaning-Making 08:41 What Is Good Design? 14:24 Algorithms Made Everything the Same 15:54 Tech Minimalism 19:53 Form vs. Function 22:53 Convenience vs. Soul 34:32 Sentimental Objects 35:13 Greige Homes 44:39 Dr. Zizmor Subway Ads 52:47 The Right’s Politics of Beauty 55:29 Power, Taste and Architecture 01:00:37 Tech Aesthetics and the Gender Divide 01:03:31 Book Recommendations Read the full transcript here: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/02/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-debbie-millman.html Watch more on @EzraKleinShow Thoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com. You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.html [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fb8aNqFSLc)

[1:37] Debbie Millman: 根本没有任何必要让一辆车看起来如此具有压迫感，如此臃肿膨胀。 [8:41] Debbie Millman: 那套耗资数十亿美元的多通道传送系统遍布全球机场，却是我见过最糟糕的设计灾难。三个队伍的乘客挤在一条线上抢着往盒子里塞行李，没有任何先来后到的清晰指引，所有人都在争先恐后、互不相让。我甚至当场问工作人员：‘这到底是谁设计的？’ [11:56] Ezra Klein: 我也必须承认，这车确实丑得厉害。 [27:07] Debbie Millman: 它根本不是无聊，而是突兀，是在迎面霸凌行人的视觉。 [27:07] Debbie Millman: Dyson 先生把所有创新都放在了空气上——吸尘器、吹风机都被他做得那么漂亮，还有谁比他更适合来重新发明空调？James，我们真的需要你！ [40:03] Debbie Millman: 爸，你不过是用一个图腾置换了另一个图腾；现在你不再代表服装品牌，而是直接在胸口代表整个美利坚合众国。 [53:11] Tucker Carlson: 这是美国政治中的另一条高压线：你绝不能指出我们的建筑是怪异且去人性化的。它们为什么糟糕？因为它们丑陋。而丑陋会剥夺我们的人性。具体而言，去人性化就是让人们确信自己无足轻重、确信自己微不足道、确信自己不是拥有独特灵魂的独立个体，不是上帝的造物，而仅仅是某种庞大力量手中的玩偶泥巴。 [55:54] Debbie Millman: 我不认为右翼阵营里有谁回看罗马、希腊建筑或凡尔赛宫时，心里想的是‘哇，那真是壮丽无比的建筑’。我认为他们真正在表达的是：‘这是那种建筑所代表的权力，而这种权力正是我们渴望统治世界的方式。’

[11:56] Debbie Millman: If somebody can get away with doing this, well then why can't I do it? [18:08] Debbie Millman: the communication of differentiation [29:42] Debbie Millman: truly grotesque [52:47] Tucker Carlson: Dehumanizing is the act of convincing people that they don't matter, that they are less significant than the larger whole, that they are not distinct souls, that they are not unique, that they are not created by God, that they are merely putty in the hands of some larger force. [54:46] Ezra Klein: Who am I to say? [57:44] Debbie Millman: I think they think it's beautiful because it represents a certain type of leader and a certain type of power and those things you can't always separate. [61:01] Debbie Millman: I want to say I hope so. [64:54] Debbie Millman: the greatest last line of all time in a book

[0:00] Why is everything so drab right now? [0:02] [music] Why is it all so same same? You [0:05] got these coffee shops. They all look [0:07] the same. Architecture looks [0:08] standardized. Buildings are colorless. [0:10] The cars are interchangeable. [0:13] Then on the other side, you have Trump's [0:15] gilded oval office, his imagined arch, [0:19] his garish vision for the reflecting [0:20] pool. Say what you will about Donald [0:22] Trump. He and the modern right, they [0:25] have a a theory of beauty. Not [music] [0:27] my theory of beauty, but a theory. For a [0:30] while now, I've been wanting to do an [0:32] episode on this question that I've seen [0:33] a lot of other people ask, and that has [0:35] bothered me, too. [music] Is the world [0:37] getting uglier? And if so, why? [music] [0:40] Why do we seem to design so much that [0:42] looks so boring or on the other side [0:45] [music] so loud? And in this moment when [0:48] the right has a clear theory of beauty, [0:49] does the left have any answer at all? [0:52] Debbie Milman teaches at the School of [0:54] Visual Arts in New York City. [music] [0:55] She's a longtime graphic brand designer. [0:57] She revamped the logos for companies [0:59] like Burger King, 7Up, [music] and [1:00] Hogen. And for over 20 years, she's [1:03] hosted a podcast called Design Matters, [1:05] where she talks to creative people about [1:07] design. She joins me now. [1:12] [music] [1:17] >> Debbie Milman, welcome to the show. [1:19] >> Thank you, Ezra. It's great to be here. [1:20] So over the past couple of years, I feel [1:22] like I've read or watched I mean a dozen [1:25] essays on why everything is getting [1:27] uglier. And then I just read a piece [1:29] from you with the title is the world [1:31] getting uglier. So is it? [1:33] >> Depends on who you ask. [laughter] [1:36] >> I'm asking you. [gasps] [1:38] >> My opinion it's getting more vulgar. [1:43] In some ways ugliness can be very [1:46] intentional. [1:48] Vulgar is accidental because it doesn't [1:52] have intention. Nobody really sets out [1:55] to make something that's truly vulgar. [1:58] Certain ugly can be seen through the [2:02] lens of a trend as being really [2:05] glamorous or sexy or interesting or [2:08] subversive. [2:10] But vulgar is always pretty awful. And I [2:14] think that is the real word about where [2:17] we're moving. [2:18] >> Give me some examples of this vulgarity. [2:21] [snorts] [2:22] >> Well, the cyber truck, there's really no [2:25] need for a car to look that imposing and [2:28] that bloiated. Um, housing where houses [2:34] are now being raised that fit sort of [2:36] sweetly on their lots with a front yard [2:38] and a backyard and maybe little alleys [2:41] on either side. and now they're being [2:43] squeezed into the property so that [2:46] there's maybe 6 or 7 in of grass between [2:50] the house and the sidewalk. We're seeing [2:52] it in clothing, particularly in Gen Z [2:56] fashion, which I know that the New York [2:57] Times has been writing about quite a [2:59] lot. [2:59] >> And if there's anything I'm an expert [3:00] on, it's Gen Z fashion. [3:02] >> But that but Gen Z fashion [3:05] is not forever. Fashion [3:10] by nature is [3:13] a type of expression that has an [3:17] expiration date in it or certainly a [3:19] pause date. It might come back but for a [3:22] while it goes out of style. Some of it [3:25] is forced obsolescence. Some of it is [3:27] just trends in style. Whereas houses, [3:31] cars, vehicles, airplanes, things like [3:33] that tend not to transition very often [3:37] in the way that they fundamentally look [3:40] and work. [3:41] >> How do you distinguish, and I know this [3:43] is like the oldest, hardest question in [3:45] taste, but one woman's vulgarity [3:50] is another woman's interesting ugly is [3:54] another person's, "Oh, that's a cool [3:56] cyberpunk truck. [3:59] I think a lot of it has to do with [4:01] proportion [4:03] and a lot of proportion has to do with [4:05] mathematics. [4:07] And so there are things that are just [4:09] more lyrically beautiful because they [4:11] are in proportion. And generally [4:13] speaking, humans can assess when [4:16] something is out of proportion not [4:18] knowing anything about the math of it, [4:20] whether it be a building or a car or a [4:24] coffee mug. And so if something is out [4:27] of proportion, it will give us a sense [4:30] of discomobulation. [4:32] And it could be the disproportion of a [4:34] handbag, a skateboard, it could be the [4:36] disproportion of anything. But things [4:38] essentially make us feel things. [4:41] Everything makes us feel something. And [4:44] when something is out of proportion, it [4:47] changes the DNA around us. I'm very [4:50] interested in the way that we notice [4:54] what the environment around us or the [4:56] objects around us are making us feel. [4:59] >> I always thought a big reason you had [5:00] that Marie Condo craze some years back [5:03] was that there was a real genius [5:06] to her giving people a practice [5:09] >> of noticing what their objects made them [5:12] feel. [5:12] >> Exactly. [5:13] >> People had previously told people to [5:15] tidy up. What she offered was a way to [5:18] say you can tune in to the way your [5:20] environment is making you feel. [5:23] But but there too I think you run into [5:25] this question of much that we now [5:28] consider beautiful. When it was built, [5:30] when it was designed, it was out of [5:33] proportion. [5:34] It was brash. [5:36] It was aggressive. And so the early [5:39] reviews of it were very negative. So [5:42] then you get into this interesting [5:43] question of can you trust what you're [5:45] feeling in the moment. [5:47] >> There's so much to talk about just from [5:49] that sentence. [5:51] I want to go back to the first part of [5:53] what you were saying about how things [5:56] make us feel. [5:58] We are social mammals and every single [6:02] way in which we've been socialized to [6:06] experience the world around us is based [6:10] on objects and things around us. And [6:13] that goes all the way back. That goes [6:15] back 50,000 years ago when we started to [6:19] create symbols to designate [6:22] our reality. So the very first marks was [6:26] what we were seeing around us. So we [6:28] started to draw on the walls of caves. [6:32] After that we started to advance and [6:35] move into tribes. What was the first [6:38] thing we did when we moved into tribes? [6:40] We designated where we belonged and what [6:43] we believed in with a symbol. I belong [6:46] to this religion. You belong to that [6:48] religion. We signify and telegraph that [6:51] through the use of this symbol. And it [6:54] means as much for the people that are [6:56] part of the same tribe as those that [6:58] aren't. And that safety in numbers, that [7:01] security in we all believe the same [7:04] thing. So we're not going to go off and [7:06] kill each other because we all believe [7:08] in this. [7:09] It allowed us to prosper and create [7:12] bigger, stronger social ties when we're [7:15] in those groups. So that's the whole [7:17] sort of how do we feel around symbols? [7:19] We've been trained, socialized to [7:23] experience the world through symbols, [7:26] objects, and now brands [7:28] since prehistoric times. [7:31] So if you're wearing a certain type of [7:33] sneaker, you're part of a Nike tribe, a [7:36] certain handbag, and that is [7:39] telegraphing that you're a wealthy woman [7:42] who bought her handbag on Rodeo Drive. [7:45] We're even doing that now. [7:48] This is really, really interesting to me [7:50] with plastic surgery. [7:52] So, we can reconstruct a nose or [7:55] reconstruct lips or reconstruct our [7:58] butts to look a certain way to signify [8:02] to others that those values that that [8:05] thing we think looks good [8:08] looks good to me and to you. And you [8:10] know that I know that you know that I [8:12] know that we both did that and we both [8:13] look good. Now, it also does the same [8:16] thing for the people that don't like a [8:18] big butt or um a certain type of veneer. [8:23] So, I think that we have to look back at [8:25] the trajectory of our evolution because [8:29] looks, size, fashion, hair, all of those [8:34] things have so much to do with the [8:37] politics of our time, with religion, and [8:39] with socialization. for you. What is [8:42] good design and what is bad design? [8:45] >> Good design makes me feel better about [8:49] whatever I'm doing and whatever I'm [8:51] doing it with. It's entirely subjective [8:55] for me. What what my specific definition [8:58] of good design is for me. It makes me [9:01] feel better for the world. I think good [9:04] design makes the world better. the [9:07] experiences that people have, the way in [9:09] which they're able to move through the [9:11] world, it's easy, it's respectful. When [9:15] I was coming to New York, I was in LAX [9:20] and I was in a sneaky line where I had [9:25] to scan behind a bunch of people in [9:28] three lines that were all waiting to put [9:31] their things in a container to then push [9:34] onto a line. There's no rhyme or reason [9:37] about where the three are. So even if [9:39] you're in that position, you're not [9:41] first. It's whoever got there first and [9:43] somebody's managing it. And then you [9:44] have to sort of really fast push your [9:47] things through so that it gets through. [9:49] And I said to the guy, cuz I knew I was [9:50] coming here today, I said, "Who designed [9:52] this? This was this is a billion-dollar [9:56] system that's in airports all over the [9:58] world and it is the worst design system [10:03] I have ever witnessed where people are [10:06] fighting to get their containers into [10:08] the into the queue. They're fighting to [10:11] go next. They're the whole thing was [10:14] just a design disaster. [10:17] I think design that's disrespectful. I [10:20] think design that is greedy, I think [10:23] that design that is [10:27] immoral is bad design. [10:30] >> One thing I've been thinking about as [10:32] I've been, you know, reading and [10:34] thinking about these essays over, you [10:36] know, some period of time, you know, my [10:37] team and I have wanted to do a show on [10:38] this for a little bit, is is the world [10:41] getting uglier as a genre? [10:45] It has sort of two different lines of [10:47] critique happening in it at once. One is [10:49] a critique sort of you're offering here [10:51] which is that it's getting uglier. It [10:54] the world makes you feel something and [10:56] the thing it makes you feel is bad. It's [10:58] a negative feeling tone in the Buddhist [11:00] terminology. [11:02] And the other is that the world is [11:05] getting not what I would call uglier [11:07] though people often use that word [11:09] draber. Uh it is getting more drab. It [11:12] is making you feel nothing more often. [11:15] So, one of the I think foundational [11:17] essays here is an N plus1 essay from [11:18] 2023. [11:20] And in that they talk about the Drab [11:22] Sublime. The Drab Sublime unites [11:25] flatpack furniture and home electronics, [11:28] municipal infrastructure and commercial [11:30] graphic design. An ocean of stuff so [11:33] homogeneous and underthought [11:35] that the world it is inundated can feel [11:38] like a digital rendering. One reason I [11:41] sort of like the Cybert truck is I don't [11:43] find it beautiful. What it makes me feel [11:46] is not good, [11:47] >> but it makes me feel something compared [11:51] to so much else on the road right now. [11:53] It reflects somebody's vision. I believe [11:56] somebody somewhere found it beautiful. [11:58] >> Yeah, there are people that buy it. So, [12:00] I think a lot of it comes down to taste [12:02] and then also how well do things go with [12:05] other things. The thing about the cyber [12:07] truck is that the cyber truck infringes [12:13] on the landscape. [12:15] >> Maybe there's a strategy behind it, but [12:17] I'm not entirely sure what that strategy [12:20] is. Is it to command attention? Is it to [12:24] intimidate? What is the intention of [12:26] this? And when I think about the world [12:28] getting uglier in its purest form, is [12:33] the world getting uglier because we're [12:35] making bad design decisions? Or is the [12:38] world getting uglier because we don't [12:40] care about what anybody else thinks but [12:42] ourselves? [12:44] And is the world getting uglier because [12:47] we're behaving in ugly ways? Once you [12:52] start to see people behaving in ugly [12:54] ways, it's inevitable that that is going [12:58] to trickle down into everybody else's [13:00] behavior because we see if this could [13:02] happen here. If somebody can get away [13:04] with doing this, well then why can't I [13:06] do it? [13:07] >> Well, to I I want to really position [13:08] myself here because I think this type of [13:10] truck is interesting to argue for but [13:12] around but I want to really agree that [13:14] it's ugly. [laughter] [13:16] >> It's not my taste. [13:18] But but you see that's important for you [13:19] to to declare. [13:20] >> There's a trend here, right? [13:22] >> So I feel like you could imagine two [13:24] axes here. So there's [13:27] whether something makes you feel [13:29] anything at all, how much it makes you [13:31] feel, and then there's whether or not [13:33] that feeling is good or bad. But there's [13:35] so much that surrounds us now. So many [13:36] apartment buildings, I don't find them [13:38] ugly. What I find them is inoffensive. I [13:40] feel nothing when I look at them. They [13:42] are mute to me. [13:44] >> So many cars that they're mute to me. [13:47] When something doesn't have any real [13:50] intention to it, when it's built without [13:53] any sense of purpose or strategy or [13:58] respect for its surroundings, and that I [14:01] think is is worse than ugly and and [14:04] maybe even worse than vulgar. I think we [14:07] have been in a period where a tremendous [14:11] amount of the world around us from the [14:13] fashion to the way apartments are [14:15] designed to the way cars are designed to [14:17] the way places we stay are designed [14:20] people describe this in many different [14:21] ways but it has been a a flattening but [14:24] now what I'm seeing is a reaction to [14:27] that right you're talking about this I [14:29] think a little bit in your essay you [14:31] talk about this move towards vulgarity [14:33] towards a bloiating style you can think [14:35] about Donald Trump foning the Oval [14:37] Office in gold. You can think about this [14:38] very attentiongrabbing fashion style in [14:40] Gen Z. You can think about the Cyber [14:42] Truck. There was recently, I mean [14:44] covered in other places, a move towards [14:46] more maximalist design. We've gone from [14:49] maxing. [14:49] >> Yeah. Look, yeah, looks maxing is [14:51] another one actually, but but I actually [14:52] meant in decor and and so you write that [14:55] we're living in an attention economy and [14:56] attention rewards extremity. that the [14:59] more design is rewarded for being [15:00] instantly visible, recognizable and [15:02] sharable, the easier it becomes to lose [15:04] sight of proportion, purpose, and the [15:06] people have to live alongside it. But I [15:08] think maybe the other side of it is that [15:10] we do live in an attention economy and [15:12] the more everything is served to us by [15:13] algorithm, the more also things like [15:17] feel the same everywhere. You go to [15:19] coffee shops, I mean this is a point the [15:21] writer Kyle Sha's made. You go to coffee [15:22] shops in New York and LA and Mexico City [15:26] and Buenoseres and Tokyo and they're all [15:29] kind of the same coffee shop and all of [15:31] a sudden [15:32] >> people can't even differentiate airports [15:34] anymore. [15:34] >> You go into an airport and it could be [15:36] any airport in any city of the world. [15:39] >> So, how do you think about the [15:40] relationship and the tension between [15:42] those two things? It's a feeling of [15:44] sameness maybe that people rejecting, [15:46] but then it creates this it's creating I [15:48] think a move towards what you're [15:49] describing as a kind of a vulgar or [15:51] obliating answer to that. [15:54] >> Well, I mean, if you look back to the [15:57] original visual language of the iPod, [16:00] you know, 6 weeks after 9/11, [16:03] Apple introduced the first iPod and that [16:06] came with the white earbuds. [16:07] >> I did not know that was 6 weeks after [16:09] 911. Those are two events I had not put [16:11] together in my head. [16:12] >> Yeah. Yeah. [snorts] And [16:15] there was a really interesting period of [16:17] time where [16:19] as people began to acquire the iPod, [16:24] they were able to showcase their [16:27] allegiance with these white earbuds. It [16:29] was actually really brilliant because [16:30] the iPod wasn't sitting around, you [16:32] know, outside of your clothing. It was [16:34] in a pocket, but the earbuds gave you [16:36] away. And there was this sense of like I [16:38] know that you know that we're the early [16:40] adopters here. And people were very [16:42] proud of that. Super minimalist. Super [16:45] minimalist to really be able to cut [16:48] through all the cacaphony of that time. [16:52] There was still a real sense of [16:53] minimalism to it. And it's now what 26 [16:56] years later and that is still primarily [16:59] the language. So much so that every [17:02] other tech company has taken on that [17:05] same vernacular. So they all look a [17:08] certain way because people have an [17:10] expectation of what excellence should [17:12] look like. All of the tech companies [17:15] until recently, I think Samsung is [17:17] beginning to move a little bit further [17:19] away from that visual language because [17:21] they brought in for the first time ever [17:24] a president of design, Moro Portchini. [17:26] So he's making some of those changes. [17:28] But up until then, we're talking about [17:30] 25 years of tech looking a very specific [17:34] way because everybody wanted to seem [17:37] like the very best. And so it'll be [17:40] interesting to see how that now changes [17:43] with new people at the helm, both at [17:45] Apple and at Samsung. [17:48] >> If you're not a subscriber to the New [17:50] York Times, we have some news for you. [17:52] You can now explore the Times for free [17:54] without any pay walls at all during your [17:55] first month in the New York Times app. [17:58] >> [music] [18:08] >> You say that design is a quote [18:11] deliberate expression of intention. [18:14] Tell me about that. [18:16] >> So it I in order to do that I have to go [18:19] back to well what what is a brand? [18:23] A brand is manufactured meaning. [18:26] We agree that a crucifix stands for [18:31] something. You and I both agree. We [18:33] might not agree. [18:34] >> Okay. Calling Christianity a brand. [18:36] >> Well, [laughter] it's just because I [18:37] want to bring it down to like the most [18:39] the foundation, [18:41] the very one of the first brands. [18:43] Although [laughter] although Hindu and [18:45] and Jane were were well before that, but [18:47] in any case, let's just go with [18:49] something that a lot of people know. It [18:51] is manufactured meaning. That cross [18:55] could stand for anything. We agree that [18:58] this crucifix, this symbol that people [19:01] wear and pray to and worship signifies [19:04] something. [19:06] Design is what communicates that [19:09] differentiation. [19:11] That is what design is for me. That is [19:14] the ultimate design definition. It is [19:17] the communication of differentiation. [19:20] that is made through meaning [19:22] manufacture. [19:23] >> So I was interested to see you go on [19:25] that question of intention directly to [19:27] branding because I I do take your point [19:29] that the way the brand or the reputation [19:32] or the meaning of something across great [19:35] scale is constructed is indeed [19:37] constructed. [19:39] But one of the things that I think is is [19:41] operating here and I'm I'm curious to [19:43] explore this a bit is that I mean brands [19:45] want to differentiate from each other. [19:47] >> They have to. And I think I think a [19:49] frustration people have is often that [19:52] they are underdifferiated now. So I [19:54] think it is widely felt. [19:56] >> We can argue whether it's true, [19:58] >> but it's widely felt that cars were more [20:00] beautiful and interesting in the way [20:03] they were designed 30 or 40 years ago [20:06] than they are today. I had a friend [20:07] recently had a 40th birthday and and as [20:09] a present for him, his partner rented [20:10] him like a classic car. He got to ride [20:12] around in an old Mustang. I think people [20:14] like the old Mustangs more than they [20:16] like the new Mustangs. I think that's [20:17] common. But one reason so many cars look [20:20] similar is that we've learned a lot [20:22] about how to make them aerodynamic. [20:24] >> Mhm. [20:24] >> Like we know things about how objects [20:27] move through space at speed that we did [20:30] not know to the same level of certainty [20:34] then and we've put pressure on those [20:37] things through fuel regulation standards [20:39] and electric vehicle incentives and [20:41] other things to push car companies in in [20:44] a certain direction. And so now the cars [20:47] look more streamlined because that is [20:49] very very important for their uh fuel [20:52] efficiency and their safety and their [20:54] other different things that are [20:55] operating here. And it pushes everything [20:57] in a certain direction. And and so one [20:59] thing that I thought when I read your [21:01] definition of design is a deliberate [21:03] expression of intention [21:05] is that the intentions we have now [21:10] include, you know, many other things [21:12] than just beauty or or just aesthetics, [21:15] right? We know more about how to make [21:16] buildings energy efficient. We know more [21:19] about how to make sure they don't fall [21:20] down during earthquakes. and all these [21:22] things impose strictctures that in some [21:25] of the periods in the past that we often [21:27] you know lionize for their uh superior [21:31] aesthetics [21:32] they didn't have to optimize for as [21:35] much. And it's so one reason the world [21:36] is feeling a little bit more same to [21:38] people in the construction of material [21:42] objects [21:43] is actually this like well we're [21:45] optimizing on things that actually do [21:47] force us sameness. We we know things [21:49] about the world that have led us to [21:51] design things in ways that are more [21:53] consistent across across different [21:55] brands. [21:55] >> Yeah. And I think that's just a matter [21:58] of time because once we begin to master [22:03] these new ergonomic ways of building, [22:07] the next natural step will be to [22:10] maximize the value via beauty because [22:12] you will want to differentiate. First, [22:14] we're looking at function and then we'll [22:16] look at aspiration. And that's I while [22:19] you were talking, I had the funniest [22:20] example come to mind, which may or may [22:23] not make sense, but I think back to the [22:26] days when my grandmother used to wear [22:27] girdles. Really ugly, really efficient, [22:31] really, really ugly. Now we have Spanx [22:34] and SKIMS. essentially doing the same or [22:37] better work to help shape a woman but [22:41] far sexier and far more beautiful. So I [22:44] think it's just a matter of time because [22:46] that is the system we live in. We're [22:49] always looking to improve and create [22:51] something better than it was before. [22:53] >> One of the interesting questions that [22:55] came up when my producers and I were [22:58] preparing for this episode was my [23:00] producer lives in a much older home and [23:03] it's really beautiful. It's like you, [23:05] you know, take a picture from it from [23:06] the outside. It's got this beautiful [23:07] tree in front of it. I felt something. [23:09] I've never seen her home cuz we live [23:11] somewhere else. It has soul to it. [23:14] And also she was saying that part of her [23:16] really envies people who live in these [23:19] somewhat more soulless McMansions that [23:22] are better designed for kids that have a [23:24] lot more space in them in the way the [23:26] space is used that have you know central [23:28] air that have a lot of that have been [23:33] optimized for other purposes and I just [23:36] think a lot of things in life are like [23:37] that. I think that when you make life [23:40] frictionless, [23:42] it begins to lose something even if [23:44] everything else is equal. Even if [23:46] sometimes like the quality of the [23:47] product is is higher and so I grant [23:50] completely that you can have and and I [23:53] have experienced this places, homes, [23:56] cars, everything, right? You can have [23:57] places where somebody's idea of beauty [24:00] and their idea of function have come [24:01] into a beautiful union. But I actually [24:04] think some of the drabness that we're [24:05] talking about comes from [24:09] people living in a world that has been [24:12] smoothed for them [24:15] such that it on the one hand works [24:17] really well and on the other hand it [24:20] doesn't feel alive to them. It just sort [24:24] of has been like flattened into a kind [24:28] of soulless service. Like what? Like [24:31] could you I'd love to to know what you [24:33] consider that to be. [24:35] >> I'm not myself a vinyl collector, [24:37] >> but I know many people who are. And it [24:41] is in part [24:44] like the physicality, the annoyance. You [24:46] have to get up and turn it over. You [24:48] have to put the needle correctly. And [24:51] those record collections mean more to [24:53] people. Oh yeah. [24:54] >> Than their Spotify libraries. And people [24:56] will say, "Oh, the sound is warmer." [24:58] Sure, it's a little warmer. I don't [25:01] think that's what's really doing the [25:02] work. The work is that you end up in a [25:05] physical tactile [25:07] relationship where [25:09] >> reading books versus a Kindle. [25:11] >> Exactly. Like I have a big Kindle [25:12] library and I have a big physical book [25:13] library. Same. [25:14] >> So there there are places where the fact [25:16] that the world asks things of you that [25:18] are, you know, perhaps like a little bit [25:20] less convenient. [25:22] >> You know, the fact that my Kindle's [25:23] always with me and I can like look up [25:24] all my highlights on my phone, it is [25:25] more convenient. [25:26] >> Yeah. And when I really love a book, I [25:28] often just go buy it physically. I mean, [25:31] now I've actually moved more to physical [25:33] books in general because having it is [25:36] meaningful to me. Yeah. Even if its [25:37] function is actually objectively [25:39] somewhat worse. [25:40] >> Yeah, I 100% agree. [25:42] >> So, how do you think about those those [25:44] spaces though where there's that [25:45] conflict? [25:47] Well, I think we're living at a time [25:49] where the big tension is between [25:53] convenience and [25:56] individuality [25:57] and we are giving up so much of our [26:00] individuality and our privacy for [26:02] convenience. [26:04] That's something that [26:07] we have to opt into. I don't know that [26:11] there's anything wrong with having a bit [26:12] of both, but I do think that perhaps if [26:15] you're extreme on one way or the other, [26:17] you're really missing out on a great [26:20] deal. I mean, I love being able to read [26:24] anything anywhere, have all my [26:26] highlights in one place, and have 45 [26:30] books in my pocket, but I also love [26:32] curling up with a book and filling the [26:34] pages and being able to look throughout. [26:37] I also really miss liner notes, [26:42] those little booklets that used to come [26:43] with band photos. I mean, I also have a [26:46] vinyl collection, so I I that that will [26:49] go with me [laughter] somewhere. [26:51] I need a really big tomb where I'm going [26:54] to put all that stuff with me that [26:56] nobody else wants, but I can't get get [26:58] rid of even on my deathbed. Um, so I [27:01] think it's it's a matter of of where do [27:04] you where do you live on that continuum? [27:07] >> So there was this YouTube video by Shan [27:10] Quirk about why things are getting [27:11] uglier and he's walking through London [27:14] looking at, you know, lamposts and sewer [27:17] systems built in an earlier era and then [27:20] comparing it to to what's being built [27:22] now. [snorts] And it's not that the new [27:24] ones are bad. They work as lamposts, but [27:27] they are drab. And the old ones have [27:29] these sort of weird fish on them and and [27:31] the new ones are just very functional. [27:33] And I was watching it and this part on [27:36] air conditioning units. [27:37] >> Oh my god. [27:38] >> Really struck me. So I want to show you [27:40] this because I think it maybe gets at [27:41] some of the things we're talking about. [27:43] >> Look at this air conditioning unit. [27:46] >> I think it says more about the modern [27:48] world than anything else, more than [27:50] phones or social media. It's a [27:53] miraculous technology. one that has [27:55] changed the world and improved billions [27:58] of lives. Hence, we stick them literally [28:01] everywhere. But it's ugly. Ugly because [28:04] it doesn't seem to express any belief [28:06] [music] in the idea that ordinary things [28:09] can also be beautiful. But worse [music] [28:12] than ugly, it's boring. Now, it would [28:15] certainly be a bit more expensive to [28:18] make it prettier, take a little time and [28:20] care and attention, but these days it [28:24] seems that we would [music] rather make [28:25] more money to make things look pretty. [28:28] And maybe that's okay. [28:30] >> First of all, this is an open call to [28:34] James Dyson. [28:36] >> Uh-huh. [laughter] I interviewed James [28:37] Dyson last year and one of the things [28:40] that I learned in my research was James [28:43] Dyson all of his innovations have been [28:45] with air vacuums, hair dryers, etc. [28:50] Who better to innovate an air [28:53] conditioner than James Dyson? He's made [28:56] the most beautiful vacuum cleaners, the [28:58] most beautiful hair dryers. James, we [29:00] need you. [laughter] [29:02] But I don't think that these are boring. [29:03] I disagree. I think that they're [29:05] obtrusive. [29:06] boring. You sort of fall away from [29:08] seeing obtrusive. It's in your face and [29:11] it's assaulting. It's they assault you. [29:14] >> One thing I thought about with that [29:16] though is where he ends on cost. [29:18] >> I agree with you. One thing people [29:19] dislike about window AC units is they're [29:22] obtrusive. [29:23] But window AC units tend to be put onto [29:26] older buildings or they tend to be for [29:28] people with uh who don't have the money [29:31] to put in central air. You can get ones [29:34] that are nicer and less nicel looking. I [29:38] mean, I haven't seen any that are truly [29:39] beautiful, but but cost actually matters [29:42] here. [29:42] >> And so, this is a place where I think [29:44] there often really is attention where [29:48] you can, you know, you can put money [29:51] into the design of things, but if you [29:54] need to produce things in a very mass [29:55] way, they often look boring or they can [29:58] look very obtrusive. [30:01] And there is a [30:05] tension on many products at least [30:08] between [30:10] their form and their function. And so [30:13] one critique you'll often hear of this [30:15] conversation or the kind of conversation [30:16] we're having is that it's a it's a bit [30:18] elitist that yeah beauty is a nice to [30:21] have. But um there's a reason you know [30:25] what kind of survives from old housing [30:27] stock is usually not the like the [30:30] tenement buildings that the poor lived [30:31] in like those have largely been knocked [30:33] down and you get these nice row houses [30:35] in Georgetown because like you know [30:37] people put a lot more money into it. So, [30:38] how much is what we're talking about [30:40] here the mass production of what was [30:43] once luxury and when you make things [30:46] mass-produced, it tends to lose [30:47] character. I think again it really [30:49] depends on intention. [30:52] years ago, Target had a wonderful line [30:55] that they launched called Design for [30:58] All, and they worked with Isaac Misrai [31:02] and really wonderful designers to create [31:05] sort of bridge lines that you could buy [31:08] at Target that would be less expensive [31:10] but would still be made with care. I [31:13] think that Muji is also another or [31:16] another company where you can go into a [31:18] Muji and things are made with care and [31:21] they're not overly expensive. There are [31:24] alternatives. Years and years and years [31:26] ago, probably at least 10 years ago, I [31:29] became obsessed with the fact that all [31:31] shower caps were heinous. [laughter] [31:34] I mean, truly grotesque. And I went [31:36] online to look for alternatives and I [31:39] found a company called Shower Cap. S H O [31:42] W E R C A B and they made these turban [31:47] style [31:48] shower caps. And yes, they are a little [31:51] bit more expensive than your sort of [31:52] standard threepack plastic effant type [31:56] shower cap, but they last forever and [31:59] they're gorgeous. And suddenly you go [32:02] from having this piece of sort of fungus [32:05] on your head that's been sitting in your [32:07] stall for however long to having this [32:10] beautifully crafted, beautifully [32:12] designed object that is not that [32:15] expensive, but signifies that somebody [32:18] thought that you deserve more respect in [32:20] that experience and somebody that wanted [32:23] more respect in that experience found [32:25] them. So you are able to find these [32:27] things. They're not everywhere, but you [32:29] do have to look. [32:30] >> There's something interesting about that [32:31] because you actually sometimes get this [32:34] completely opposite explanation for why [32:37] many things feel and look worse today, [32:40] which is that they have become cheap and [32:43] so we don't attend to them as much. We [32:44] we were talking in my team as we were [32:47] getting ready for this about how it used [32:49] to be handme-down furniture was a really [32:53] important thing. people got their [32:55] grandparents' bedroom sets all [32:57] >> my grandmother's dining room table and [33:00] >> and now I think many families have had [33:02] the the issue it's like the you know the [33:04] elders pass on or downsizing their home [33:07] and they want to give what they have [33:09] what they cared about so much what was [33:11] so important to them you know down to [33:13] their children their children don't want [33:14] it and one reason they don't want it is [33:17] it we have made furniture much cheaper [33:19] and so it's not as incredible an [33:22] investment for a family to get a bedroom [33:24] set or to get a dining room table and [33:26] you can get one from IKEA and you don't [33:28] have to think about it that much [33:29] necessarily because you maybe know that [33:31] this is your starter home and in a [33:33] couple years you'll probably change it. [33:35] And so in a weird way when there was [33:37] more more scarcity, people had to attend [33:41] to what they were getting to sort of [33:43] give that attention you were just giving [33:44] to that shower cap more often. But when [33:47] people know that they're only going to [33:49] have the thing for a few years, when [33:51] they know that its obsolescence is [33:53] planned for them, [33:56] >> then maybe they don't treat it that way [33:59] because, you know, in the back of your [34:00] mind, well, it's a temporary investment. [34:02] It's a temporary visitor in my home, so [34:05] it doesn't need to express as much about [34:06] me. I feel bad for people that feel that [34:09] way because why not have everything [34:11] around you express something about you [34:13] in some way that doesn't necessarily [34:15] need to be how much something costs. But [34:18] I also feel in the case of handme-down [34:21] family furniture. There's a soul that's [34:24] embedded in that. At one point 60 years [34:28] ago, my grandmother sat at that table. [34:31] Now, I didn't need that table anymore [34:35] because I for a lot of different [34:38] reasons, my wife wanted a different [34:40] table, but I didn't want to get rid of [34:41] it. And so, I had it in my basement. And [34:45] my niece needs a dining room table. So, [34:48] I am shipping her the table. And now, [34:51] she is going to have her great [34:53] grandmother's dining room table. To me, [34:56] that is magic. To me, that is a reason [34:59] for living. that kind of continuity [35:02] where you can pass something down that [35:05] has been in a family that's a dining [35:07] room table where people gathered, where [35:08] they ate, where they cried, where they [35:10] fought, where they did any kinds of [35:12] things that that has so much meaning [35:15] embedded in it. And that's what I [35:18] treasure most about objects. I tend to [35:20] be a bit of a packrat. My wife would say [35:22] I'm absolutely a packrat, but things [35:25] have sentiment. They're embedded with [35:26] sentimentality, with emotion, with [35:30] memory. They're it's evidence of living [35:33] that to me is more important than almost [35:36] anything. [35:37] >> In the back of my mind, while we've been [35:39] talking, I've been thinking about how [35:41] different structures in our life operate [35:44] by different logics. [35:46] And there's a logic of markets. And [35:49] markets like a logic that is [35:51] frictionless. Markets hate friction. [35:54] Markets like things to be tradable. They [35:55] like things to be legible across great [35:57] distances. I was very moved a second ago [36:00] when you said that giving this table to [36:02] your niece, I think it was, is a reason [36:04] for living. That participating in that [36:06] ancestral continuity has a meaning far [36:09] beyond the worth of the table if you, [36:12] you know, put it up for sale on eBay or [36:14] something. And I think a critique I I [36:17] kind of buy is that one thing just going [36:20] on in life is that market logic is [36:22] eating more and more and more and more [36:24] and markets don't as I was saying [36:26] markets don't really want specificity. [36:29] So I was thinking about homes. One thing [36:31] that has been measured is that people [36:35] are painting their homes gray more [36:38] often. [36:39] >> There's a study about this from [36:40] Washington DC. A sharp rise in the [36:42] number of gray homes. Uh this has been [36:44] described as the color recession [36:47] and it's not unknown why it is. Uh so [36:51] nearly a third of American home sales in [36:53] 2021 went to people who had no intention [36:56] of living in them. The homes were an [36:57] investment vehicle or the homes were [36:58] going to be flipped [36:59] >> in 2021. [37:00] >> In 2021. [37:01] >> Wow. [37:02] And so if you're seeing your home not as [37:05] a place you will live for 50 years, but [37:09] either as a place you're trying to sell [37:10] to someone else and then maybe sell to [37:12] somebody after that and sell to somebody [37:13] after that, or just as a place you're [37:16] only going to live for a few years [37:17] because you yourself are more mobile and [37:19] you only expect to be in this job in [37:20] Washington DC for, you know, four or [37:22] five years and then you're going to move [37:23] back to Asheville, North Carolina or [37:25] something. [37:27] Moving that home towards particularity, [37:30] right? Painting it yellow and green [37:32] because you're an idiosyncratic person [37:34] who loves yellow and green is not good [37:37] for the long-term resale value of the [37:38] home. [37:39] >> Absolutely. [37:39] >> And even more than that, I mean, I grew [37:41] up in a place with very strong [37:42] homeowners associations uh where you [37:44] were not allowed to paint your home a [37:46] lot of different colors because it might [37:49] change the resale value of the homes [37:50] around you. It wasn't even about you, [37:51] right? [37:52] >> It was about everybody wanted to make [37:53] sure their home was an effectively [37:55] tradable asset. [37:56] >> Yep. And so there's this market logic [37:59] that can infect more and more and that [38:02] that is, you know, uh again part of the [38:07] the the trend towards sameness. I'm I'm [38:08] I'm curious how that resonates or [38:10] doesn't for you. Well, in many ways it [38:12] sort of brings us back to the whole [38:14] notion of somebody raising their house [38:17] and creating a house that's so big that [38:19] it infiltrates in the sort of air and [38:22] space of others because that's exactly [38:25] what is being controlled here and and [38:28] that's why it's ugly. Now, I I'm I'm sad [38:33] that there is so much that is being [38:36] diluted now to [38:40] eliminate some of what [38:43] some of what is strange but also really [38:45] beautiful or also really specific to a [38:48] person. [38:50] And look at all the auctions that go on [38:52] when celebrities die that somebody wants [38:54] their desk or their hat or you know [38:57] Diane Keaton had an auction her family [38:58] had an auction and all her clothes went [39:00] on auction and people were clamoring for [39:03] her bolo hats. So I think that there's [39:06] this really interesting [39:10] really interesting thing that I want to [39:12] do some research now on in that we still [39:15] want these really expressive ways of [39:17] differentiating ourselves [39:19] but within a certain parameter. So if we [39:24] are [39:25] being urged to to gray down our color [39:29] palettes, [39:31] what does that mean about how much color [39:34] we can actually express? [39:37] And when we hold back from that, [39:42] what does that do to our creativity? [39:45] >> And what does it do to or what does it [39:48] reflect about the way we want to move [39:50] through the world? So, one of going back [39:53] to our our earlier axis of both there's [39:56] something that do you feel anything at [39:59] all versus what do you feel? [40:03] >> I have a friend who the way she dresses [40:06] is meant to make other people feel [40:08] things [40:09] >> like [40:10] >> she uh joy, whimsy, [40:14] >> but it's loud. [40:15] >> Mhm. like you walk around with her and [40:18] people are noticing and she is trying to [40:20] get them to notice [40:22] >> and the way I dress and when we move [40:25] this podcast to video caused me a lot of [40:27] stress [40:28] >> is sort of meant to not have people [40:31] notice. I don't want you to be thinking [40:32] about how I do like I want you to think [40:34] it looks nice and then not give it any [40:36] further thought. [40:36] >> Right? And there is this um [40:40] dimension where are you willing to have [40:44] people have views about you, right? What [40:47] your house looks like, what you're [40:49] dressed like, how things are decorated. [40:52] Um or recognizing that some people might [40:55] love it and other people might hate it, [40:57] right? that fashion can be polarizing [40:58] and design can be polarizing versus do [41:01] you have a society that in some cultural [41:03] way has become less comfortable with [41:05] that, right? People in it do not want to [41:08] expose themselves to judgment. They want [41:11] to be looked at, judged as acceptable [41:13] and and have the gaze fall off of them. [41:16] >> I don't know if that's possible, Ezra. [41:19] And even when someone takes a stance [41:22] against [41:23] being obvious or [41:26] loud, that choice is still a choice. [41:29] It's still a deliberate decision. Years [41:32] ago, my father decided that he was no [41:35] longer going to wear Ralph Lauren polo [41:38] shirts because he didn't want to be a [41:40] walking billboard for the brand. Okay. [41:44] What did he do? [41:46] I can't even say this with a straight [41:48] face. He put a flag pin over the logo. [41:52] I'm like, "Dad, you just exchanged one [41:54] logo for another. Now you are [41:56] representing the United States on your [41:58] shirt, on your polo shirt." He didn't [42:00] want to buy new ones. So, he replaced [42:02] the logo the he put the he covered up [42:04] the logo, the polo logo with a flag. As [42:07] soon as you see that flag, it signifies [42:09] something. I have always in in the last [42:13] 20 or so years been kind of afraid of [42:16] wearing color. I only always wear black. [42:19] Always always. It's anything else feels [42:22] too fluorescent. I feel like I'm being [42:24] looked at. I sort of this everything [42:26] goes with everything. It blends. [42:28] >> Remember my nephew first first realizing [42:30] it many many years ago. He said, "Hey, [42:32] why do you always wear black?" I'm like, [42:34] "Oh, it's just easier. I don't have to [42:35] decide about too much. Everything goes [42:37] with everything." He goes, "That's [42:39] weird. [42:40] >> [laughter] [42:40] >> And yeah, it is a little bit weird, but [42:42] it's easy for me. And I also feel like [42:44] you in the podcast world to have to then [42:46] suddenly go into video is terrifying. [42:49] But I do think that every decision we [42:51] make is deliberate. We're revealing [42:53] ourselves in ways that allow us to be [42:55] perceived in a certain way. And clothing [42:58] and objects and cars and houses and [43:01] sneakers and handbags all express that. [43:04] In a way, I'm not sure people mean that [43:05] much by the Ralph Lauren brand, so it [43:07] may not be a great example, but when [43:08] people put a flag pin on now, like [43:11] particularly in like the post 911 world [43:13] and in that period, it it was a very [43:16] very very specific kind of statement [43:18] about yourself that maybe it wouldn't [43:20] have been at other times when it was [43:22] just a, you know, people had American [43:23] flags or they had an FDR picture hanging [43:25] in their house or separately what it [43:27] meant to have a Mau or a Stalin picture [43:30] in those societies meant something [43:32] different than in societies where it's [43:33] much more of a choice. whether or not [43:34] you hung those. [43:35] >> You're talking about the sort of [43:37] emotional resonance being different [43:40] between Ralph Lauren and a flag pin. No, [43:44] what I'm what I'm talking about here, [43:45] what I think I'm talking about here uh [43:47] is that the logic of branding, [43:53] we have become so used to thinking of it [43:56] as branding as corp like the the thing [43:58] corporations are trying to do with it [44:00] that even when the symbol is coming out [44:03] of a non-commercialized sphere, [44:07] >> a sphere that would understood to be [44:10] representing very different things about [44:11] somebody, We almost now sort of see them [44:14] all on a all in the same plane. You [44:17] know, when I was a kid, I um wore a uh [44:21] gold kai, which is a Jewish symbol. [44:23] >> Yes. [44:24] >> And I wore that at a time when I was [44:26] quite religious as a kid. I went through [44:27] a period where I wanted to be a rabbi. [44:29] And and what that meant to me wasn't [44:32] what it meant to me some years later [44:35] when I like got my first Nike shoes or [44:38] when I was trying to dress to fit in [44:39] with other kids, right? like I was [44:41] expressing something that was more [44:43] private. I mean, it was existing [44:45] publicly, too, but it wasn't. And and I [44:47] think these are different. And so, it's [44:50] funny because it's not where I thought [44:51] our conversation would go, but I think [44:52] it's a very interesting place for it to [44:53] go, which is places where maybe um [44:58] logics or ways of accessing the world [44:59] that should remain separate actually [45:01] begin to converge. And and I want to get [45:05] into the public and private spheres [45:06] here. And maybe a good way to do it is [45:08] this. We had sent you an email asking [45:10] you for an example of something ugly [45:11] that you thought was good design and you [45:14] talked about these ads that used to be [45:15] on the subway from Dr. Zamore. Is it [45:18] >> more? [45:19] >> So, can you can you describe them for [45:21] you know listeners in audio here? [45:23] [laughter] [45:26] >> Yes. [gasps] [45:27] Dr. Zizmore was a dermatologist. He I [45:31] don't know if he's still alive but he's [45:32] definitely not in practice anymore. And [45:35] for many many many years he essentially [45:39] took over the billboards in the New York [45:42] City subway system and had really garish [45:47] chartreuse orange lots of rainbows. [45:51] Dr. Z was will will fix your face. You [45:55] know all about what your um high hopes [45:59] could be to eradicate acne. They were [46:03] really hideous. really really hideous. [46:07] But over time [46:09] they were enormously consistent. [46:13] They used the same visual language over [46:15] and over. It's [46:16] >> like rainbows. [46:17] >> Rainbows and really badly current type [46:20] and terrible vertical and horizontal [46:23] scaling and bad silhouettes. [46:27] But they became sort of like the Crazy [46:30] Eddie ads of the ' 70s. [46:32] >> Prices. Crazy Eddie. his prices are [46:35] insane. [46:37] >> Part of the tapestry of the New York [46:40] City subway system. And so they became [46:42] really familiar and ultimately really [46:45] beloved. Now, this is something that's [46:48] really important to branding. Even when [46:51] something is ugly, if you see it enough [46:54] times, it becomes something that you [46:56] recognize and you begin to associate [46:58] with something. That thing could have [47:00] good feelings. It could have bad [47:02] feelings. Again, back to the feelings. [47:04] And in the case of Zizmore, [47:06] because he seemed like a nice guy and [47:08] there were no scandals and he seemed to [47:10] do good work and he was somewhat [47:12] inexpensive and he talked to the [47:14] populace, [47:15] people love these ads. They love them. [47:19] What people get so upset about now when [47:21] you change logos, it's not so much that [47:24] the logo that is being changed is any [47:26] good. It's that it's taking us away from [47:29] the thing that we're most familiar with. [47:31] And in a day and age where everything [47:33] feels so tenuous, [47:35] taking that familiarity away, even if [47:37] it's a juice carton, makes people feel [47:40] really insecure. [47:41] >> So, I want to take this in a different [47:43] direction. So, I was looking at those [47:44] ads and I think they're wonderful. And [47:46] one reason they're wonderful, although [47:48] ugly and weird and crowded and [47:51] >> is that they feel like a person was [47:54] behind them, not a committee. Yes. They [47:56] don't feel like they came out of a [47:57] sophisticated branding agency that had, [47:59] you know, a kickoff meeting and a [48:01] scoping meeting and, you know, you can [48:02] you can feel the the the sort of [48:06] bureaucratic [48:08] energy behind, you know, very [48:10] sophisticated campaigns. But to go back [48:12] to this point of maybe the market eating [48:17] a lot of other spaces and imposing its [48:19] logic on them, a column I have wanted to [48:24] write and not written in part because [48:26] I've been afraid of the reaction to it [48:28] is that as a newcomer to New York City, [48:31] I moved here three years ago. [48:34] I find the presence of the advertising [48:39] on the New York City subway and on the [48:41] buses [48:44] really sad. [48:45] >> And not that it doesn't exist in other [48:47] places. It does. We're not, you know, [48:49] the MTA is not the only um transit [48:51] authority that raises some money through [48:52] advertising. [48:54] >> But that is a public space. It is [48:56] actually one of the most remarkable [48:57] public spaces I think in American life. [48:59] The New York City subway, for whatever [49:01] its flaws, is incredible. It is [49:03] egalitarian. It is all stratas of [49:06] society mixing with each other. It is [49:08] people going in all kinds of places. [49:10] [sighs and gasps] [49:10] And yet it is all happening beneath the [49:13] glare of these ambulance chasing [49:16] attorneys [49:18] >> and Tinder ads and plastic surgery ads. [49:23] For a long time, the subway system I [49:25] would walk into with my kids, [49:28] >> it had an ad for the reboot of The [49:30] Exorcist [49:31] >> above where we would walk in, and it was [49:33] black and white. It was these two girls [49:35] faces, and they're like spitting blood [49:37] icker. It was this horrifying, grotesque [49:39] ad. And [49:42] I looked into this. Um, the MTA gets [49:44] about 1% of operating revenue from [49:45] advertisements. [49:47] And on the one hand, I know that the mom [49:50] administration is trying to make buses [49:51] free. And isn't it a little bit elitist [49:54] to say you should spend that money on [49:56] making the subways non-commercial rather [49:58] than making the buses free? And on the [50:00] other hand, as I've thought about [50:02] writing this piece, it seems to me that [50:04] maybe public spaces should not be [50:06] commercialized in that way. Maybe this [50:08] should be a space of oasis [50:11] >> from constant advertising from your [50:13] attention and your uh you know visual [50:16] field being captured by the market. [50:21] These ads make the New York City subway [50:23] much uglier than it could be. [50:25] >> Yes. [50:25] >> So, what I love on the New York City [50:27] subways is sometimes they'll use the [50:29] spaces they use for ads and put poetry [50:31] there. Like that's really beautiful. [50:34] They occasionally have art on them. I [50:36] think that's really cool. It has like a [50:37] very old style progressive movement like [50:39] the enriching of the citizenry. You can [50:41] imagine a world where that was the only [50:42] thing that existed that was, you know, [50:45] non-utilitarian visuals there. And I [50:49] think it'd be really beautiful if the [50:50] ads were gone. It's like the market has [50:53] eaten something that is for the public [50:56] and the market is the dominant visual [50:58] language in something that they are not [51:00] the dominant player paying for it. They [51:03] don't pay for most of it. [51:04] >> You're a visual prisoner. [51:05] >> Yes. And and we used to I mean if you go [51:08] back to the 50s and 60s people worried a [51:09] lot about how the visual field is being [51:13] taken over by advertising. Yes. And [51:15] we've come to accept it in a way that is [51:18] a little surprising and a little sad and [51:20] represents a diminishment [51:22] of our ambitions [51:25] for public space or the built [51:26] environment. [51:27] >> Well, [snorts] part of it is that the [51:28] ads are really ugly. If they were [51:30] interesting, if they were provocative, [51:32] if they were something that made you [51:34] think or inspired you, then it might be [51:37] a little bit different. But if you're [51:38] writing this article, two things that [51:40] you might be interested in. S Paulo for [51:42] for a while took all their billboards [51:45] down. I don't know if they still Yeah, I [51:47] don't know if that's still the case, but [51:49] they did that as a test and it really [51:51] changed the visual environment. [51:53] >> And then Ed Rcher, the artist, has a [51:55] whole series of pieces. He did a whole [51:57] series of pieces of blank billboards [52:00] >> and it's beautiful. no messages, just [52:03] the white plain billboard in in an urban [52:07] environment and it's really quite [52:09] provocative. [52:11] >> That's so interesting about S. Paulo and [52:12] I mean you go to I mean I've been to [52:14] other countries and their subway systems [52:15] and you don't always have advertising [52:17] everywhere. So to me it gets to [52:19] something we're talking about which is [52:21] we have begun to accept the logic of the [52:24] market in a lot of spaces you might have [52:26] not expected the market to be. We've [52:27] begun to see things that are not market [52:29] based like religions in market terms. Y [52:32] >> and you know the market I think has [52:34] certain desires. It's not that the [52:35] market hates beauty. It would love to [52:36] sell you something beautiful. But the [52:39] intentionality of the market is to sell [52:41] product. [52:41] >> We see ads now in over urinals in public [52:45] bathrooms. I mean really that's when you [52:48] want to get somebody's attention. I mean [52:51] there's virtually no space that is left [52:54] free from a corporate mark. You have [52:57] logos on eggs, on the actual egg. [53:02] [music] [53:11] Uh, as we're getting into politics here, [53:13] I I want to ask you about there's been a [53:16] real movement on the right in recent [53:19] years to [53:22] in in a in a very certain way [53:26] resuscitate an argument about beauty. [53:29] >> And you've seen it in I mean Donald [53:31] Trump uses the word beautiful. [53:33] >> Yes. [53:33] >> More than any president I think probably [53:35] ever. And certainly his idea of beauty [53:37] is not my idea of beauty, but he cares [53:40] about it. Yeah. And there's now even a [53:42] term for it. Let's not forget Mara Lago [53:44] is actually a term in our culture right [53:47] now. [53:47] >> And you know they are building things [53:50] and going back to neocclassical you know [53:52] architecture in different ways. And and [53:54] it's not just him. It's sort of all the [53:56] people around him. I I thought this from [53:57] from Tucker Carlson. This clip I'm going [53:59] to show you was genuinely interesting. [54:01] >> This is another third rail in American [54:03] politics. You're not allowed to note [54:05] that our buildings are grotesque and [54:08] dehumanizing. [54:09] Why are they bad? Because they're ugly. [54:12] And ugly dehumanizes us. And by, let me [54:16] be more precise about what I mean when I [54:17] say dehumanizing. [54:19] Dehumanizing is the act of convincing [54:23] people that they don't matter, that they [54:25] are less significant than the larger [54:27] whole, that they are not distinct souls, [54:30] that they are not unique, that they are [54:31] not created by God, that they are merely [54:34] putty in the hands of some larger force. [54:37] him starting by saying you're not [54:38] allowed to talk about this is strange [54:39] because you're definitely allowed to [54:40] talk about this. But you do see a move [54:43] on the right to say that we have allowed [54:46] like beauty to become subordinate as a [54:48] public goal. Um I'm curious what you [54:51] thought of it. [54:52] >> Well, it's the first time I think I've [54:53] ever agreed with Tucker Carlson ever. [54:57] But I don't think it's true. I don't [54:58] think that's true about the right at [55:00] all. If that were the case, then there [55:02] would be much more of an uproar about [55:05] what the president is doing to the White [55:07] House, to the East Wing, to the arches [55:13] that he's putting up, to the reflecting [55:15] pool. I mean, there's so much damage [55:18] that is making Washington uglier. [55:23] I don't I don't see how that is being [55:25] protested by the right. [55:27] >> Well, don't they think they're going to [55:28] make it more beautiful? Doesn't Donald [55:30] Trump think his reflecting pool is [55:32] luminous? [55:33] >> I don't know anybody that's like, you [55:34] know, that that the Oval Office that [55:37] looks really good now. [55:38] >> Trump, the person who thinks that is [55:40] Trump. But I mean that very seriously. [55:42] >> But no, I do too. There's nobody on the [55:43] right saying, you know what, let's [55:45] invest in gold filigree. [laughter] No [55:48] one's talking about that. That's not a [55:50] trend that's catching on in any way, [55:52] thankfully. Well, let me make not the [55:54] argument for what they're doing, but I [55:55] think the challenge they are posing that [55:57] is interesting for liberals and people [56:00] on the left to to try to take seriously [56:03] the rights rediscovery [56:05] of classical architecture of Roman [56:08] columns. [56:08] >> Yeah. [56:09] >> The right because it is a more part of [56:12] the modern right in America is a much [56:13] more reactionary movement. [56:15] It is able to locate a very clear moment [56:18] of beauty which is old things and you [56:22] know in ways where if you read the white [56:24] nationalist right they're very explicit [56:25] about this you know what they understand [56:27] is like the the the European inheritance [56:31] and I think that the left and and the [56:35] term the left is tricky because [56:37] obviously you know you've moderates and [56:38] liberals and leftists [56:40] but has more trouble knowing [56:43] what it wants to answer this with not [56:45] because it doesn't think beauty is [56:46] important, but because it doesn't want [56:48] to dictate what the beautiful should be. [56:51] Who am I to say? [56:52] >> And it's not binary. [56:54] >> And it's not binary. And so you have an [56:56] interesting thing where I I do think [56:57] that the right is doing something [56:59] interesting in trying to move ideas of [57:01] beauty back to something more centrally [57:04] contested in politics. [57:07] And I'm not sure I've really seen an [57:10] answer [57:11] um or even like a willingness to to to [57:14] argue about it with them uh among people [57:16] on the the left in part because [57:19] if you understand the past to be full of [57:22] problems and you want to move to a [57:24] future that is not yet built well what [57:28] what visual grammar what visual language [57:31] can everybody agree on for that? Well, [57:34] nobody will ever agree. Not not one. [57:38] There will never be one way of assessing [57:40] beauty. But I I do want to make a [57:44] distinction [57:46] between taste [57:49] and style and power. [57:53] And so I don't think that anybody on the [57:56] right is looking back to Roman and Greek [58:00] architecture [58:01] or the architecture of Versailles and [58:04] thinking now there was some really [58:08] magnificent architecture. I think what [58:10] they're actually saying is this is the [58:13] type of power that's represented. this [58:16] this architecture is representing a [58:19] certain power and that power is the way [58:22] we want to lead. [58:23] >> I don't agree. I don't think that's [58:26] I don't agree with that. I think they [58:27] really do think it's beautiful or at [58:29] least I think it's worth trying to grant [58:31] them that they think it's beautiful. [58:32] >> But I think they think it's okay. I [58:34] agree there. I think they think it's [58:36] beautiful because it represents a [58:38] certain type of leader and a certain [58:40] type of power and those things you can't [58:42] always separate. M [58:44] >> it's like Mara Lago face being beautiful [58:47] for a certain reason. Those people think [58:48] it's beautiful. You and I might not, but [58:51] they think it's beautiful. I'm not [58:52] questioning somebody's [58:55] own sense of what is beautiful to them. [58:58] But what I think is more important than [59:00] what they think is beautiful is why. Why [59:03] do they think it's beautiful? What does [59:04] this represent to them? So I I think I [59:07] agree that the set of the tributaries of [59:12] why we think a thing is beautiful are [59:14] very complicated. Going back to what [59:15] you're saying even at the very beginning [59:16] about proportionality and the [59:18] mathematics and I mean you'll get into [59:19] these things like what is the perfect [59:21] figure or you know the looks maxers in [59:23] the men's movement now are sitting there [59:25] like measuring the the proportional [59:26] distance of their [laughter] [59:28] whatever to their whatever. Um, and why [59:33] people have come up with what they think [59:34] is beautiful is is obviously contested [59:36] and then as you also said changes over [59:38] time. But I take the right as or at [59:42] least this part of the right as [59:47] even if power is part of it believing [59:49] like now having a kind of politics of [59:52] beauty that I don't think George W. Bush [59:54] had that I don't think Mitt Romney had [59:56] that I think is a sort of a new entrant [59:58] into politics right the immediate [59:59] executive orders on you know [60:01] neocclassical or classical architecture [60:04] and I guess one of my questions because [60:06] I do think people including on the left [60:09] which is where a lot of the articles [60:10] about everything becoming ugly that [60:12] we're talking about are coming from I do [60:14] think people have a a feeling that the [60:16] world is becoming less beautiful to them [60:19] and I think they want this represented I [60:21] think that there is a yearning for [60:24] beauty to be a publicly held value [60:26] again. But I think the right always has [60:28] an easier time with this because they [60:29] can sort of just reach back, [60:31] >> right? That's the make America great [60:33] again. Well, if you're making America [60:34] great again, you're going back to things [60:36] that were once considered a certain way. [60:39] That could be behavior, that could be [60:41] social structure, that could be [60:42] architecture, art, music, politics, etc. [60:46] So, I think that's all part of it. It [60:48] would be shocking to me if Make America [60:51] Great Again or the current president was [60:53] like, let's let's innovate a new style [60:56] of architecture to represent our future. [60:59] That's not going to happen. [61:01] >> So alongside this new right, which I [61:03] think is reaching backwards in its [61:05] design aesthetic, you also have the [61:06] techright. We've talked about the [61:08] Cybertruck a bunch in this conversation, [61:10] but crypto and NFTTS had a very legible [61:15] visual language. [61:17] you have a certain amount of AI from [61:21] slop to art, but but you do have a a [61:25] kind of emergent language [61:28] of what the kind of digital design of [61:31] the future is supposed to look like. [61:33] It's certainly a theory of the future. [61:35] I'm curious how you think about that as [61:37] like a contestant [61:39] and what you think it is communicating. [61:43] I think it's one faction of design that [61:47] is apparent now because I could also [61:50] point to Apple Park and the beauty of [61:52] the building there and the buildings [61:54] there which are truly extraordinary [61:58] as a counterpoint to some of that. [62:01] Interestingly, a lot of the cyber chic [62:05] is very linear, very sharp edges, [62:08] whereas Alb Park is all rounded edges. [62:10] You see that in Bill Bao. You see that [62:14] in some of the way the Whitney was [62:15] redesigned. So I think that that's there [62:18] also. But like everything else, I think [62:21] that we're in this space of tension [62:23] between which visual language is going [62:26] to win out. There's always more than [62:28] one. [62:29] >> We we haven't talked about this very [62:30] much, but a lot of what we're talking [62:31] about, I think, in a sometimes subrosa [62:34] sometimes very explicit way is masculine [62:36] and feminine coded. M [62:38] >> I mean Cybertruck is a very male design. [62:41] Say say what you will about it. Uh and [62:44] you were just talking about like [62:45] sensuality and curves. I mean how much [62:48] is some of the fight we're having here [62:50] about the sort of larger political like [62:53] gender war dynamic that we've been in? [62:56] >> I'm going to go back to what I said [62:57] before. I don't know that it's a gender [62:59] war so much as a power play. Mhm. [63:02] >> How do how do we believe power should be [63:05] communicated and visualized? [63:08] And that's I think what we're seeing [63:10] now. [63:11] >> So do you think about in a sort of [63:13] modern way as a kind of answer to what [63:15] the Maraago world has come up with for [63:17] their beauty? Do you think there is an [63:21] an answer to that? You know, you can say [63:23] yes, the world has become uglier. I [63:25] mean, I think it's something you're [63:26] saying and and and what you're sort of [63:28] saying is what they are doing is ugly [63:30] because it is garish, because it is [63:32] vulgar, because it is out of proportion, [63:34] because it is about power, because it is [63:35] about intimidation. [63:36] >> And I'll be very honest, it represents [63:39] politics that I don't believe in. [63:40] >> Yes. And so, do you think there's a an [63:43] an answer to that you do believe in? And [63:46] that that does allow though, you know, [63:48] people whose politics you do agree with [63:50] to speak about beauty in a a way that is [63:52] more legible and inspiring to people. [63:55] >> Um, Ezra, I'd like to say yes. I'd like [63:57] to say yes. In my practice, I am an [64:01] analyst. I look at the time and back to [64:04] try to make sense of what's happening [64:05] right now. I'm not a futurist. I'm not [64:08] even sure I would claim to be an [64:10] optimist, [64:12] but I hope so. I want to say I hope so. [64:14] >> All right. But I think that's a place to [64:16] end. So then always our final question. [64:17] What are three books you'd recommend to [64:19] the audience? [64:20] >> So I've been giving this a lot of [64:21] thought. [laughter] [64:23] Um going to name three of my favorite [64:27] books over the course of my life and [64:29] then I'm going to push in one more [64:31] [laughter] [64:32] that I discovered in the last decade or [64:34] so that changed my life. So I'm going to [64:38] if that's okay with you, [64:39] >> please. [64:39] >> Okay. So number one, it's a book of [64:42] poetry called The Voice That is Great [64:44] Within Us. It's by Hayden Kuth and it is [64:46] a remark remarkable collection of 20th [64:49] century poetry. That's where I first [64:52] became aware of my favorite poem of all [64:54] time which is a poem by Charles Olsen [64:57] called Maximus to Himself. P.S. I name [65:00] my dog Maximus. [snorts] That's number [65:02] one. Number two is what I think is one [65:06] of the greatest love stories of all [65:08] time. It's a book written by Gabriel [65:10] Garcia Marquez called Love in the Time [65:12] of Kalera, which has the greatest last [65:15] line of all time in a book. And so, you [65:18] have to read it all the way through [65:19] before you get to that. And then my [65:22] third book is a book that I hope one day [65:24] to be able to do a visual version of. [65:28] Um, I fell in love with this book in [65:29] college. Um, it's James Joyce's Ulyses. [65:33] I even went to Ireland for Bloom's Day, [65:35] which is the day that uh the day in the [65:40] life of Leopole Bloom that James Joyce [65:42] wrote about in Ulisses and took a [65:44] walking tour of Ireland and went to [65:46] Sandy Man Strand. And those are my three [65:49] favorite books, books that have [65:51] profoundly changed my life. But more [65:54] recently, in 2017, I started reading a [65:57] book called Hunger by Roxang Gay. And [66:01] when I read that book, [66:04] I fell in love with the author, [66:07] sight unseen, just reading her words. So [66:10] much so that I reached out to her. I [66:12] wanted to get her on my podcast. She [66:14] said no. I tried to stay in touch. She [66:17] was very squirly about it. And then [66:19] through a mutual friend, she got wind [66:22] that I was actually not a crazy person. [66:24] And then I asked her out on a date in [66:27] 2018. [66:29] And in 2020 we got married. [laughter] [66:33] So my book Hunger by Roxang Gay. That [66:37] that is a wonderful fourth [66:38] recommendation. Debbie Milman. Thank you [66:40] very much. [66:40] >> Thank you Ezra. [66:44] [music] [66:52] [music]