On the Aesthetic and Practicality of Modern Production

Take a moment to pause wherever you are, whether that's at home, in a café, or anywhere else that feels special to you. Look at the objects around you. They could be works of art or crafted items. How old do you think they are? Are any of them new? Do the patterns, shapes or colours evoke an emotional response?

I enjoy reflecting on this topic whenever it crosses my mind. The subject is broad enough to be explored through almost any physical object. I intend to focus on items and themes that have a shared meaning in society.

Using two seemingly opposing concepts in a title can create the impression that one might overshadow the other. Although my emotions may lean in that direction while I am writing, I believe this topic can be examined through emotional and logical lenses. However, the more objectively we approach it — me as the writer and you as the reader — the sounder our reasoning and conclusions will be. So, let's begin.

---

Everything we see has a history. Some objects are new, while others bear the marks of time. It is these differences that make me ponder the impact of time on objects. Please note that I will not mention any specific brands or names in my examples. You may find it helpful to think of an example from your own experience as you read.

Over the past year, I’ve come across several social media posts noting how buildings from the past have become colourless or monochrome. The same applies to the stores and logos of well-known companies. While it’s easy to judge these changes, I first considered the other side of the argument. Logos naturally evolve over time, periodically adopting different fonts, colour schemes and visual styles. But why should such profound changes apply to the physical structures of brands?

Most companies' logos or digital icons typically use two or three colours. Anything more is usually expressed through shades of the same colour or primary colours. These colours are used in the brand’s designs, advertisements, and products, making the brand recognisable through them. Changing these colours is a radical decision because significant alterations could disrupt the brand's established image, thereby devaluing past advertising and sales efforts. It's more than just a simple change — it risks erasing the legacy etched in people's minds.

Nevertheless, companies can undertake certain transformations independently. So, let's ask this: Is change necessary? Probably, yes. The real challenge lies in how it should happen. That’s the crux of the matter.

Completely changing a company's name, colour or logo can seriously harm it. There is no guarantee that these changes will be relevant. On the other hand, minor changes often lack significance, and unnecessary moves can damage a brand’s reputation.

Despite these risks, many companies still choose to make these transformations. They probably rely on the confidence that comes with having chain stores or market dominance.

Think of a place you frequently visit and receive services from. You can choose examples from your own experiences—a café, a restaurant, or a familiar brand.Suppose the quality of this place's products deteriorates quickly: its colours fade, its slogan changes and its staff lose their enthusiasm. At first, we might not notice, but over time, through hearsay and personal experience, we become aware of the change. Our connection with that brand is no longer the same, and its identity fades in our minds. Perhaps the company is trying to attract new customers or is mistakenly convinced that its policies are correct.

If this is a traditional brand, the nostalgia we associate with it begins to fade. As the warm atmosphere diminishes, we become just another customer receiving a service. We question why the brand would alter its appealing appearance, the services it provides or the feelings it evokes. There are, of course, several reasons for this.

One reason might be the desire to increase profits. You might wonder, 'How can they increase their profits while having a negative impact?' However, large companies typically embark on such changes after careful consideration.

Another reason could be a desire to adapt to current trends in order to stay competitive in the industry and avoid standing out in an awkward way.

To me, the most significant reason is practicality. However, you may have different insights.

Photo by Vadim Burdujan on Unsplash

Above all, I believe that the prioritisation of practicality overshadows the aesthetic qualities we admire in brands. This belief stems from the factors I mentioned at the outset. Fading colours, grey buildings, bland architecture, factory-like dining areas and stores, exaggerated advertisements and misleading product claims all weaken the bond between brands and the public, shifting the focus towards a customer-centric approach. How unfortunate.

This is why I emphasised time. Almost all of us agree on one thing: 'Things were better before.'

Day by day, we’re drawn into a more profit-driven system. What we buy isn’t really ours; we often only use it temporarily, as if we were renting it. Moreover, many products aren’t physical at all, but digital, and we can never truly own them.The things we do purchase are usually mass-produced copies of one another and are often average or below average in quality. We buy them without questioning how they are produced because we are conditioned to accept what is on offer. Producers seize this opportunity. So why do they do this?

The answer is likely, once again, the desire to maximise profits. However, I believe another significant reason is the shift in human perception. This attitude is fundamentally tied to time.

Our acceptance of, and reluctance to seek alternatives to, the objects, products and services available to us today, has distanced us from what we once had. The artistic and craftsmanship value of items such as desks, technological devices and coffee cups is gradually diminishing. This is why I asked the question at the beginning: To what extent are the objects around us affected by this fading human attitude?

Indeed, we are experiencing an aesthetic deficit, and the reason for this is that our possessions suffer from the same problem. We are caught in a self-perpetuating cycle that pushes us towards simpler products and services.

I believe that the distinction between artistic and crafted works, and mass production, is closely tied to human emotional connection. The time invested in a piece is the essence of labour, and its value is best understood by the creator. Even when the primary goal is functionality, individual producers care about the aesthetic appeal of their work and hope that buyers will recognise its value. Appreciation for handcrafted items stems from this understanding. However, mass-produced items are soulless. No emotional bond is formed with them; they are purely functional.

Our cups are usually standard mugs or common boutique products. Do they have unique patterns, colours or designs? It is difficult to compare coffee cups from thirty years ago with those of today. The older ones added meaning to conversations and made a lasting impression. Can mass-produced products create the same effect today?

We mentioned the shift in human perception. Now, let’s look at the approach of profit-driven producers. Rather than seeking quality, they focus on products that are purchased repeatedly or continuously, require frequent repairs, appear new without updates, or are marketed as collectibles. This cannot be explained solely by profit motives; there is also an ethical dimension to consider. Producers with this approach prioritise profit, often neglecting product quality and their relationship with society. They do not prioritise highlighting aesthetic value, creating meaningful memories for customers or fostering creativity. At best, they focus on the product’s practicality and functionality.

Photo by Haley Lawrence on Unsplash

Now, let's consider the issue from a different perspective. Is it not equally harmful for an object, brand or service to lose the nostalgic feeling it evokes in customers, abandon its artistic value or resist change just to satisfy the expectations of certain customers? Let's think about this together.

We’ve examined the topic from one angle. I don’t intend to focus on this perspective too much. Everyone can develop different viewpoints based on their experiences. My aim is to encourage reflection on this topic and enrich the discussion by inviting a variety of viewpoints. This will enable us to gain new insights, broaden our thinking and determine what is right or wrong.

Of course, it would be unfair to say that practicality is entirely worthless or driven only by capitalist interests. Functionality is often a fundamental element that improves our quality of life.

Practical products are valuable because they are accessible. For example, choosing a simple, easy-to-clean, mass-producible mug over a flashy one can save time and money. Society's access to certain products is often enabled by practicality rather than aesthetics.

Another key aspect of practicality is how easily products can be accessed. Historically, most products were accessible to the public and standard products or services weren’t considered luxuries — they could be obtained through prudent spending and saving. However, this has changed today. While economic challenges in our country and the abstract concept of finance play a major role, I also believe that the nature of the products being manufactured contributes to this change.

As societies succumb to mass production, uniformity becomes prevalent. Producers, aware of this, act accordingly by offering personalised products — or at least claiming to do so. However, as these products become widespread, their original value is lost and new 'limited edition' or 'premium' features, services or products are introduced.

It can be difficult to distinguish between genuinely useful products and those that are not. However, it's clear that aesthetics are used as a design tool. Products that stand out from mass-produced items and look different are perceived as superior. While some of these products are crafted with great effort, they are not usually intended to convey artistry or cultural significance. We know this.

In other words, aesthetics can sometimes merely indicate social class. Elegant designs from the past may symbolise heritage or traditional identity, but practical products can foster social connection. In this sense, simplicity can be seen as a form of inclusivity, reflecting the mindset of the new generation. However, the emergence of new styles over time can complicate this balance.

Nevertheless, let's not overlook the fact that: Not every product needs to be visually appealing. While aesthetics can foster a connection, functionality is paramount, particularly for crafted items. Take a desk, for example. Smooth edges or a textured surface might catch the eye, but we must also consider objects in terms of their purpose. If a desk fulfils its function, then it serves its purpose. This approach may seem cold, but is it wrong? An item that performs its function correctly meets a key quality criterion. For most people, appearance is secondary, and human perception can also be shaped in this context.

Finally, I want to touch on the practicality of products. A minimalist approach highlights the product’s purpose while creating a distinct aesthetic. Some people prefer simplicity, and a clean, uncluttered look can be more effective than we realise. Reducing aesthetic concerns in production simplifies the process, enabling us to focus on improving quality. Excessive ornamentation and complex designs can undermine functionality.

You might not consider this to be very valid, but I see a connection between this situation and the increasingly individualistic nature of our lives. In an era of falling birth rates and fading family values, the focus is on the individual, and visual expressions are becoming simpler and clearer. We are drawn to products that are free from material concerns, as if we are being pushed towards this way of thinking. This is how the spirit of the times operates today.

However, not all aesthetic concerns are universal because they are tied to cultural codes and are therefore highly relative. Functionality and utility, on the other hand, are human-centric and appeal to nearly everyone in the same way, making them universal.

---

When I delved deeper into this topic, which I had initially approached one-sidedly, I realised the influence of the era in which we live. In summary, aesthetics are not entirely essential, nor is practicality entirely devoid of emotion. Perhaps the real issue lies in those rare moments when these two factors converge. Naturally, different perspectives will emerge based on individual viewpoints, and that’s how it should be. This enables us to collectively identify any points we might have overlooked.