What is Bling?

Is bling a crude, tawdry exhibition, an aggressive socio-economic and cultural statement, or merely a simple and joyous celebration? Is it ironic? Or aspirational? Is it innocent? Or hostile? Is it playful? Or serious? Immature? Or artistic? Obnoxious? Or Fun?

Is it spiking the ball in the end zone, or could it be singing because you're happy?

How, exactly, is it related to glamour? Where is it situated within the realm of the aesthetic?

Is it a neighborhood within the province of luxury? Or is it on another part of the map?

Is it inherently visual, or could even the blind enjoy some bling?

I've blogged recently about the broad concept of luxury, a couple of times. And it suddenly occurred to me that I should ponder the contemporary phenomenon of bling.

Why not?

So I began today's post with the philosophical question, or set of questions. What exactly is it? Is there one answer? And here's a follow up question: Is it bad, or is it good?

And if it's bad, then how bad? But if, by contrast, it's good - how good?

Can it be either? And if so, depending on what?

What do you think?

And if you're the rare individual who has to go to Bing and type in Bling, then maybe this is just not ... your Thing.

In case you'd like more than questions today, maybe I should venture my own answers to what's already been asked. I'd say, "Yes" to almost all the queries that allow for such an answer, however apparently opposite, and to the options within the questions, and simply explain that it all depends on the individual, the intention, and the context. But then again, that's true of lots more, as well.

This is an interpretive guide to many expressions, actions, and displays: Consider, if you can, the individual, the intention, and the context. That's usually all it takes. The intention is always the toughest to know, and sometimes, even in your own case.

What's your bling? How would you define it for yourself?

My bling is a bright yellow watch on a matching yellow band that I wear to the gym most days. When people say, and it happens often, "Whoa! I like that watch!" I enjoy responding, "Thanks! Four dollars and ninety five cents," and relish seeing the reaction.

It's just my own little transmuted bling with a bang.

The Necessity of Luxury

I have a suggestion that will strike you as either modest or outrageous. I hope you agree, but l'll certainly welcome any airing of a contrary perspective.

Traditionally, philosophers have distinguished between our wants and our needs. But the two categories are not exclusive. Most of the things we need, we also want, as long as we know we need them, and no contrary desires get in the way of the natural effect that knowledge would otherwise have. And if some needs are wants, it follows that some wants are needs. But there is a side of this that goes beyond what's logically demanded.

I contended in the book If Aristotle Ran General Motors, that we all need Truth, Beauty, Goodness, and Unity - a sense of connectedness - in our lives, whether we happen at any moment to feel that we want all these things or not. But I'd like to suggest today an interesting extension of this.

Consider the two categories: Necessity and Luxury. Yesterday, I ventured to surmise that luxury is at its core about refined enjoyment and uncommon ease. In different social and economic contexts, different things can fall into this category. For people living very simply, there are simple luxuries that can be just as satisfying, in their context, as more rarified luxuries in another setting - your experience of a vase of flowers picked in the wild, a warm bath, cold water on a hot day, someone taking over a difficult task you were dreading, and lifting that burden from you, can count, when attended to properly, as luxuries.

Here's my modest suggestion today - or my crazy, outrageous idea, depending on your perspective: Some measure of luxury is a necessity in life. It's necessary for a full and flourishing human experience.

So, if I'm right, as you seek first to take care of the necessities of life, remember that among them  are at least a few luxuries. And when you indulge, you can explain that your philosopher told you to.

A Simple Luxury: Everyday Beauty

Every morning, we get these push notifications from social media - this person has requested or accepted a LinkedIn connection, that person has endorsed you, there is a new comment on your post, and you have new followers on Twitter. Going through the first run of emails for the day, I usually brush by these quickly. But today, a name caught my eye. I have a new Twitter follower who is the founder and CEO of one of the world's most interesting companies, and one that I especially admire. 

In 1988, Peter Stas and his wife Aletta Bax launched the Swiss watchmaking firm of Frederique Constant. Their vision was simple and brilliant: craft beautiful, elegant watches that would be useful works of art, and accessible to more people than the already existing high-end timepieces for which Switzerland had long been known.

If you are fortunate enough to have artwork in your home that you love - paintings, drawings, sculpture, beautiful rugs, china, or pottery - I hope you enjoy each piece nearly every time you pass it, or sit near it. And if you have easy access to a great museum, or gallery, you can visit to enjoy whatever is on display, sometimes created by the most talented of artists in history, or perhaps in your region of the world. But what about the rest of your time? Are you in touch with beauty in an ongoing way? I've come to believe quite firmly that there is a deep aesthetic dimension to our experience of the world, every day, and that we need frequent contact with beauty, in many of its various forms, in order to be our best, feel our best, and flourish in the most complete ways.

A beautiful watch is a small work of art, inside and out, that can go with you nearly everywhere, available throughout the day to add just a spark of the aesthetic to your experience. But the most beautiful watches, for the past half century, have become exorbitantly expensive, and have, in many circles, turned into rare luxuries whose value has subtly shifted, from intrinsically valuable works of art, to often primarily social signifiers - signs that set their wearers apart as members of the cultural elite, the "one percenters" with power, money, and status. Too many people who purchase such amazing, small handmade machines of intricate elegance that sit on the wrist and provide some of the most important information we can gain, do so these days primarily for show, to prove something, to indicate their level of financial attainment and membership in a rarified club of peers. Luxury, in step with this, has become almost synonymous with inaccessibility, the unaffordable and out of reach for the majority of people who could genuinely enjoy that experience of using the goods and services typically thought of as luxuries.

Peter rightly saw that this has gotten all out of joint. Luxury, at its heart, is meant to be primarily about ease and enjoyment, not social display and status achievement. So he and Aletta set out to create beautiful watches, useful works of art that could travel with you throughout your day, and be accessible luxuries, valued primarily for their mastery of craftsmanship and aesthetic qualities, not simply for their brand symbolism, flash, or bling. But of course, beauty has its own flash and bling. And now their brand, Frederique Constant, has become known for its purity of concern with luxury in its original sense, providing ease and enjoyment, which, of course, for most of us must involve reliability, something else they view as of peak importance. They significantly underprice their competition, not by cutting corners on quality, but by focusing on what really matters, and on what they most want to accomplish. And they provide beauty to more of the world, as a result.

Welcome to my little philosophy family, Peter! You believe in the right things!

You can follow Peter on Twitter, where he exists as @pcstas.