I wonder if the Egyptian potters had the same min-maxing attitude to sales as modern-day businesses if there would have been more homogeneity? Some of those pots look easier to pour water with than others, if we're talking purely about practicality. Was there a more popular form of pot that people would buy over others?
Enjoyed the read though, praying for a return to more variety in form.
I think it has to do with mass production, it is more efficient to have a mold and sell all of the same in diff color. Glad you enjoyed and I'll join you in praying for more variety.
Enjoyed the installment as always! I think the cause of so much self-similarity in designed objects today is that what it takes to be functional has expanded. The clay pots had to carry water, be relatively easy to make, and a probably do a handful of other things (as Egyptians will tell you, they improve water quality! https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382267000_Exploring_the_use_of_clay_pots_as_sustainable_storage_containers_to_improve_water_quality). That’s a decent number of constraints, but I’d argue that functionality today stretches from whether your design contains carcinogens all the way to whether it has a robust supply chain, not to mention its ability to actually do something. Point perhaps being that the bounds of what we call functionality are subjective, or at least determined by our cultural circumstances. And circumstances that permit a narrower definition of functionality (such as older societies, or even the modernist movement with its self-imposed simplifications) often produce more elegant and satisfying designs. Maybe because we can conceive of the problems they solved, or they evoke a set of design problems that we somehow find appealing.
Thank you for leaving this engaging comment. I agree that functionality has changed from "object achieves function" to "how this object contributes to this person identity" and a million other things in between. I still wish for more variety and change in design, I feel we have the resources to achieve that, even if it is at a very small scale.
I love this series. I'm thinking of doing something similar but for film, music, poetry, and whatever else I feel like writing about.
Would love to read yours! Mine is also about whatever I feel like writing, it’s a good excuse to write and share things.
I wonder if the Egyptian potters had the same min-maxing attitude to sales as modern-day businesses if there would have been more homogeneity? Some of those pots look easier to pour water with than others, if we're talking purely about practicality. Was there a more popular form of pot that people would buy over others?
Enjoyed the read though, praying for a return to more variety in form.
Or maybe it's more to do with mass production? You would still find a variety of forms with handcrafted pottery today.
I think it has to do with mass production, it is more efficient to have a mold and sell all of the same in diff color. Glad you enjoyed and I'll join you in praying for more variety.
Enjoyed the installment as always! I think the cause of so much self-similarity in designed objects today is that what it takes to be functional has expanded. The clay pots had to carry water, be relatively easy to make, and a probably do a handful of other things (as Egyptians will tell you, they improve water quality! https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382267000_Exploring_the_use_of_clay_pots_as_sustainable_storage_containers_to_improve_water_quality). That’s a decent number of constraints, but I’d argue that functionality today stretches from whether your design contains carcinogens all the way to whether it has a robust supply chain, not to mention its ability to actually do something. Point perhaps being that the bounds of what we call functionality are subjective, or at least determined by our cultural circumstances. And circumstances that permit a narrower definition of functionality (such as older societies, or even the modernist movement with its self-imposed simplifications) often produce more elegant and satisfying designs. Maybe because we can conceive of the problems they solved, or they evoke a set of design problems that we somehow find appealing.
Glad you enjoyed!
Thank you for leaving this engaging comment. I agree that functionality has changed from "object achieves function" to "how this object contributes to this person identity" and a million other things in between. I still wish for more variety and change in design, I feel we have the resources to achieve that, even if it is at a very small scale.
Brazilians will agree with the paper and the improvement in water quality: https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/sqs4tu/a_brazilian_clay_water_filter_considered_one_of/