Partner sounds like a fashion victim. If social media consumption is making one's taste fond of low quality flashy crap I'd say grow some critical thinking skills.
Many furniture stores have a section with old timey stuff, I guess targeted at the 60+ market: ruffles and pleats and doily type shit. You can't expect anyone younger than a mummy to be enthused about buying that stuff new, whether or not it is better quality, and it's probably all the same cheap crap under the ruffles.
And in slightly younger but still old the iconic Laz-y-boy look is associated with boomer dads with more money than taste so I'd be shocked to see anyone not of retirement age excited to buy one new either.
I mean… not really. Quality and style generally are pretty correlated, with higher quality pieces traditionally being more “old school”. And that was basically GP comment’s point.
One can value form over function, especially if there’s a specific style that the rest of your house uses. If your entire house is decorated in a contemporary style, then a traditional sofa is just going to stand out like a sore thumb.
This whole thread is about overpriced crap that sells because people don't know better. And if one's partner prefer flashy crap to quality stuff by calling quality stuff "antiquated" because it doesn't conform to styles peddled in social media and are devoid of fundamental quality well... that's not a conflict of taste, that is a story about choosing flashy crap for the sake of flashiness. Which doesn't seem defensible to me.
I already said “One can value form over function”. Each person has different needs and wants out of their furniture. Just because you don’t value form doesn’t mean it’s some unbelievable or “indefensible” concept.
I don’t want my house to look like it came out of the 1920s. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
If you think otherwise, then more power to you, but don’t hoist your beliefs and preconceptions on others.
You're playing off a false dichotomy. Furniture doesn't have to look bad to be of quality.
GP said
> I think the problem I've noticed is - the furniture that is built to last very frequently fails the partner test - "that looks like old fart stuff".
This is a problem of taste alignment, not of preference. A person having a taste for the generally poor quality well marketed bit of goods available.
So, like I said. If one develops a taste for a certain type of trendy furniture that is poorly made, it's a personal limitation.
I very clearly articulated the general correlation already and never claimed it is a dichotomy. That is entirely on you.
Just because you don’t agree with someone’s preferences does not mean they’re wrong. I hope one day you’re able to understand that, because you clearly don’t.
You're right. This is pointless because we're talking past each other.
I say it's wrong to buy expensive crap because it's flashy and well marketed, and equally wrong to dismiss things that don't fit the aesthetics peddled under this model. It's wasteful consumerism, one of the most wrong things with society right now. It's killing the planet. In a word, indefensible. There absolutely are fashionable, beautiful, durable options.
You say I am a bad person for having this opinion. "Hoisting" my opinion on others. You used underhanded tactics like false dichotomies. "I don't want my house to look like it came from 1920". Than, caught on a fallacy, you resorted to ad hominem, pretended to have a high moral ground and rode into the sunset in your high horse.
