by fun_yunchables » Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:22 pm
I disagree with that statement, there is nothing "weird" about deriving satisfaction from how some objects age.
"Weird" implies some sort of absolute cultural norm, which I think is a pretty destructive perspective--I'd much rather use something akin to "different." Allow me to explain:
Aging objects is something that is cherished in many cultures (even some western ones). The very idea of impermanence is central to Zen Buddhism, and arises in an object context through the philosophy of "sabi," which I'm sure many people are familiar with (the sabi half of wabi-sabi). It is not so much the object itself that is cherished as so much how the object changes with age, it is a perfect reminder of the ephemeral quality of life that Zen Buddhism embraces. Even materials other than leather are very much cherished. Jade, for example. The value of jade (also known as a "living" stone) is partially due to because of how it changes color over time. Cast iron, ceramic, paper, wood, brass, silver, gold-- these are all materials that are valuable to people because of how they age. Aging objects tell rich and illustrious stories.
As I understand, the idea of an aging object is particularly strange for you. I think some difference in opinion arises from a more fundamental perspective about impermanence, so I accept that the satisfaction of seeing something age is different. I, however, am not a fan of the language used to describe that feeling! I don't mean this as an attack in any way but I just don't like how that phrasing comes about.
coolest lame guy u'll ever meet