1. Why do working-class people vote conservative based on Thorstein Veblen’s conservatism ?

Thorstein Veblen believed, as stated in his earth shattering  publication, The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), ‘that the leisure class has the power to exploit and that as society matures that their conspicuous exploitation lead to conspicuous consumption’. Furthermore, the proletariat classes of a society (the hunter rather than the gatherer), become obsessed with the conservation of the wealthy’s funds. “The conservatism of the wealthy class is so obvious a feature,” says Veblen, “that it has even come to be seen as a mark of respectability”  This holds especially true because of the history of this situation in democracy where the proletariate sees this conspicuous consumption and attempts to imitate it without actually understanding what they are supporting. In other words, ‘Conservatism’s nestling into the comfortable niche of respectability has put the movements of the left into peril for decades’.


This reading was highly influenced by the above link which was a good read.

  1. Why is ideation difficult for humans considering that only humans can do (based on the last week’s reading, and Veblen’s conservatism)?

Although not stated in the article, ideation is increasingly difficult for humans due to a number of factors. As an allusion towards music, the vast majority of songwriters do not, or rather cannot write original music. What is the reason for this? Well the answer is two-fold. It is a combination of the pseudo-creator copying and ‘reiterating’ previously created ideas to an audience that has most likely experienced and is used to such an information overload that a) they cannot pay attention and b) they are satisfied by something that sounds similar to what they are used to. To go even further, consumers actually don’t have the attention span to pay attention to something that they are not familiar with. Of course, this translates to every medium where new ideas are created. Thus, ideation has fallen victim to laziness on the consumer as well as the producers’ end. Ultimately, it may be up to the machines to serve as the middle man. Actually they already are. This, in turn, brings up another question… Can the reiteration of a previous idea in a new light in combination with a computational algorithm create new iderations? Uniquivocally, I think yes.

  1. How are these questions related to the lighting design process?

This answer is simple to me. Historically, people have intrinsically copied and strived to attain the unattainable by justifying to themselves that they can attain what they seek in their own minds. As far as voting in opposition to your beliefs or accepting and writing music that is begun with no course of iderative thinking, the impetus is that people have learned to accept the intermediary without thinking critically. Due to this widespread phenomenon, lighting is no different. A general contractor can install very standard task lighting with little or no thought and if it is hooked up to a sensor it is awe-inspiring to the customer. This is similar to music, but in reality it is more of a culprit because there is not a demand for such a quick turnaround. The lighting designer, like other creators, must  iderate and break from his rut of unconsciously deciding beforehand to not create. In this fashion, ideas from lighting to music to hacking will benefit from iderative thinking. As far as the attention span of consumers goes; I am not so sure.