Must everything be useful?

OK, my title is a rhetorical question mostly. Today, I took some of my pottery pieces to a local farmer’s/artist’s market that will be opening next week. We tagged and priced everything, talking about each piece in turn.

One thing that struck me was that one of the women was obsessed with “What could you use this for??” - as if one wouldn’t buy an item just because it was appealing to the eye. And I admit, I feel that way about a lot of things, but I have been known to buy things just because I liked how they looked.

So to frame my question - when you consider purchasing an artsy/craftsy item, is utility a major consideration for you?

Utility is of utmost importance to me and sometimes that utility consists of hanging on a wall or sitting on an end table and looking pretty.

My apartment has been described as looking like “an institution.” It’s not that I have a problem with the little touches people add to their homes – in fact I think they’re often awesome and wish I had the little touches gene – it’s just that it never occurs to me to buy a thing to just sit there. Usually I’m doing something and realize, “You know, I really need a such and such,” and then I go buy one, and never have a similar thought for trinkets and decorations.

If it isn’t useful, it had better be beautiful.
To the OP: The lady might have been trying to ask if it was food-safe? Or is the opening large enough to store small objects in?

I’m a utilitarian too, my art pieces must still have some utility to them.

“Excuse me madam, about how many times do you think I could forcefully apply this piece to a person’s skull before it breaks or becomes too ugly to decorate my house with?”

Use the pat answer from that old SNL skit when she asks.
“You can put your weed in there.”

But… stuff that just looks nice takes up space that could otherwise be used for books. We don’t have room for all our books as is, let alone all the books I’d like to have.

Stuff that looks nice that hangs on the wall I don’t generally have a problem with, but I don’t want anything that is not books taking up bookshelf space.

Also, I try to avoid breakable stuff unless there is no other choice. Our house contains two klutzes, two cats, and is soon to have a baby in it. We break stuff.

One of our friends described our living room as an “emporium”. In fact, here’s one view - you can see some of the stuff but it’s way more extensive now. Snort. My husband has some “eclectic” taste.

So does everything have to be useful? HELL no!!

I will buy things purely for their decorative value, but more and more of those things hang on the wall. I’m trying to de-tchotchkify my life. Having said that, I recently bought a little wooden table top Buddha. I had a friend over yesterday and it was the first thing she noticed. She really liked it. It’s staying.

Yes. My idea of utility won’t be the same as everyone elses. Best for everyone if we leave room for other’s considerations.

Exactly what the OP made me think of! :smiley:

It would be only a matter of time before someone posted this, so I may as well go ahead:

“Have nothing in your house that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful.”
William Morris

That “OR” is important.

No, it went beyond that - specifically asking “What could you do with this?” or “What could you put in this?” Her pre-teen daughter was there, and as far as she was concerned, everything I made could hold pretzels! :smiley: For example, one item was a bit larger than a coffee mug, but it had no handle. It was decorated with a mustachioed face. It was kind of neat looking, and it could have held spare change, keys, pencils, a small potted plant - I didn’t make it with a specific purpose in mind - it was a pot with a face. It could hold stuff or it could just sit there and be a face pot.

I’ll have to remember the line about weed if I’m ever asked again. Obviously, I don’t watch SNL much.

Utility is the number one reason 95% of things make their way into my house. Beauty is a secondary consideration. This is how people get cluttered: they think just because something looks nice they bring it home. Fine, Ok, but I just can’t be like that. I can’t stand misc. things sitting around on the counter, waiting to be knocked over.

That doesn’t mean I don’t have decorative things in my house. But primarily I have things that can be hung on the wall: prints, a large handmade quilt in the bedroom, a shelf with knicknacks in the living room. Not stuff for stuff’s sake.

But then I am also notorioiusly un-nostalgic and will throw things away, even gifts, if they are no longer useful and are just taking up space. Whatever a hoarder is, I’m pretty close to the opposite. If I was single, my existence would be Spartan. But my SO likes things more than I do.

It’s not the only way to accumulate clutter. Our house is cluttered with books.

When I did my big clean last year, that was my guiding principle. I produced seven garbage bags of useless ugly stuff!

If everything had to be useful, we’d never have invented babies. :smiley:

Yeah, but if you train 'em right, they can be useful eventually. At least till they move out. :smiley:

No one’s ever described my house as looking like “an institution” but I share this sentiment. I’ve got like 3 little figurines on my TV stand that aren’t anything but art - but they were gifts. And it turns out my TV stand had more cubbies than I had stuff.

I have a pencil holder that I got from etsy.com that is art. But that’s because I needed a pencil holder, then I went and found one that looked good.

I have one piece of artwork on my wall but it was free, and it covers up a hole.

I’m helping my brother pack and move now and I swear to god 45% of his family’s shit is trinkets and decorations. 45% is clothing and 10% is everyday useable stuff. I want my life to be the opposite of that.

This. I prefer function over form, but do appreciate when both mingle well. I guess funciton wins out; I’ll buy an ugly teapot, if that’s what I need, but I won’t buy an ugly painting* just to cover a blank space on the wall.

*for an unknown definition of ‘ugly’.