Subscribe to my theory of aesthetics!

Cafe Society
1

I’ve been developing this revolutionary theory for years, and this thread, where the OP describes his desire to touch certain objects, made me think that the world is probably ready for me to unveil my grand theory of aesthetics.

Some things are chunky.
Some things are stringy.

Chunky things are satisfying, consistent, and appealing. Stringy things are frustrating, inconsistent, and unpleasing.

The higher the chunky:stringy ratio, the greater the desire to touch them and covet them.

For example, a piece of high-impact plastic that sinks into another piece of plastic of the same material and colour with a satisfying ‘clunk’ is chunky.

Whereas something that is put together in a half-assed manner, as though it’s held together with string and band aids - hence the terminology - is stringy.

Cross-sections of things are usually chunky. Snapping off a ‘peg’ of chocolate is a chunky action. The slightly crystalline edge of the broken chocolate bar is chunky. But if you get little shards of chocolate that melt on your hand, then that is definitely stringy.

An Aston Martin is chunky, whereas an Austin Allegro is stringy. An Aston Martin with a coat hanger for an antenna, however, would have committed an act of stringiness.

Most ancient Egyptian bas relief is chunky. Whereas lot of medieval ecclesiastical icons are a bit stringy. Illustrations with clearly defined borders are chunky. Manga is generally chunky.

This website is superbly chunky. However, ironically, this one is rather stringy. Ain’t It Cool News and the Drudge Report are so stringy it hurts.

Gmail is chunky. Hotmail is stringy.

Apple seems to understand my aesthetic: an iPod is chunky; a G5 is chunky; an iBook is chunky; OSX is chunky.

My Compaq PC is, however, stringy. It 's beige, with lots of different sized holes, and nothing about it is flush with anything else. Microsoft user interfaces try to be chunky, but this is a con: they usually end up being stringy.

Note that this isn’t a fixed system: chunkiness can erode over time. Back in the 80s, a hydraulic slow-opening system for a tape deck that also clicked shut in a smooth, robotic manner, was the height of chunk. However, tapes themselves were stringy, and have become more stringy as recording media have become increasingly solid state, thus negating the tape deck’s former chunkiness.

But beware: despite its general appealingness, chunkiness is not always desirable. A well-ordered and tidy music collection is chunky, but someone who arranges all their CDs by genre and in alphabetical order is a geek.

Thank you for your indulgence, ladies and gentlemen. Either this is going to take the world by storm, just like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and I will hold seminars and be feted by the media as I become a millionaire, or they’re going to take me away and put me in a cell with padded walls. Which is, in itself, quite a chunky thing (though a straightjacket would be necessarily stringy).

2

I would like to add that the act of converting stringy things to chunky things is also immensely satisfying. A tangled cord is stringy, but the cord untangled and rolled up is chunky. Random bits of wood is stringy, a finished piece of furniture is ideally chunky although often stringy :P.

Jobs that convert string to chunk are “fun” and “satisfying”. Jobs that convert string to string are “mind numbing” and “pointless”. Jobs that convert chunk to string are “soul destroying” and “torturous”.

3

Hooray Shalmanese, excellent examples! And a very apt expansion of my original postulate with an application that had not occurred to me before. Thank you for using my terminology as well.

I need to come up with a name for this. Chunkstring aesthetics? Stringy theory?

4

jjimm: I submit that you have just done the impossible an put a name to what Christopher Alexander refers to as “the quality without a name”. I highly reccomend you to check out his “timeless way of building” as you seem to be getting at the same thing from a different angle.

5

Looks fascinating. I don’t know if it’s still in print, but I see it’s published by the OUP, which is conicidentally right next door to my house, so maybe I can wander in and see if they have any in their basement.

6

…I think the car I have is chunkier than the car I want… Maybe there is something wrong with me.

My car: http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e328/JessicaRabit/mycarandmesmall.jpg
The car I want: http://www.vandenplas.com/daimler/88376.htm

7

How you doin’?

(I’m talking to your car.)

8

Does this mean that (healthy) “shapely”, “curvy” women more astheticaly pleasing than (healthy) “skinny”, “athletic” women?

Because if you told me a woman was “chunky”…ok, I must admit I would think overweight. But if you said healthy and chunky (health is thought to be a major part of what makes people attractive, is why I keep adding it), I would think of a curvy girl, with a lot of female shape. If you told me a woman was healthy and “stringy” I would think of a thin girl, with a more male (male of equal weight, not body builder) shape.

9

Just sitting in the driveway, bloody girl never drives me! She polishes me all the time but never drives me! It’s not fair! What’s the point in being so shiney if I never get to show it off?

Note from bloody girl… ::looks at feet and mumbles:: …I can’t drive, I’m still learning :frowning:

10

Hmm, my chosen terminology may have too many negative real-world connotations when applied to people. Perhaps it doesn’t even apply to people. Damn.

It’s good to get this tested, though - it’s been a running semi-serious gag between my brother and me for years, but I’ve never shared it before.

11

I don’t want this to degenerate into an argument about what a healthy size for a woman is, but my preference is for “athletic” women who have gentle curves. It’s perhaps an over exposed example but think Angelina Jolie rather than Pam Anderson. Better yet, Rene Russo (in Thomas Crown Affair) rather than Catherine Zeta-Jones. All beautiful women in their own right, but that’s my “chunky” vs “stringy” preference.

By the way, I think your car is very “chunky”. :smiley:

As to the OP… strangely enough, I know exactly what you mean jjimm. :slight_smile:

I’ve never been able to describe it better than the feel of an object (or person) in my hands. Fullness, angles, curves, slopes, texture even the “purpose” must be self evident in the object’s aesthetic look and feel. I don’t even by a soup ladle if it doesn’t have the right balance and look and feel. It’s the same with virtually every object (and person) in my life.

I used to think I was strange in that way. But I recently realized we’re in good company. :slight_smile:

12

I have to say I think your terms are not well chosen; each word already has established connotations that don’t mesh with your use.

I’m reminded of when I was a kid, when I tried to describe this particular taste I didn’t like as “tasting like oil.” It seemed perfectly clear to me, but no one ever knew what I was talking about. Cheddar cheese tasted like oil. The “bone” of a lettuce leaf tasted like oil. Brussel sprouts tasted like oil. You know, like motor oil. NO ONE knew what I was talking about, but that slightly gaggy taste you get in the back of your mouth when you smell petroleum was very much like the bilious taste, in that same place in your mouth, that sharp cheddar and brussels sprouts give you.

Right?

I haven’t thought of that in years, but your private meanings for the words “chunky” and “stringy” made me think of it.

13

How about replacing chunky with smooth, and stringy with jagged. Most of the things described with the exception of the chocolate seems to be smooth and seamless wherea the other things are jagged, or perhaps jerky.

Also, wouldn’t lard be considered chunky. It is smooth, and has a uniform consistency. However, I wouldn’t want to touch it and get it on my hands.

14

“Chunkystring Theory” would make one of the better “The Blank Theory” band names out there, except for, of course, “The Blank Theory” itself.

15

Maybe these terms would work as teenage slang:

“Hey, did you see the GW game last night?”

“Dude, that was Chunky! That blew me away! the only thing that sucked was I was watching it at Steve-o’s house. Man, his TV is stringy!”

16

How about “fibrous” instead of stringy? It sounds a bit more…unpleasant. At least to me.

17

Would it be considered ironic that I find string cheese to be “chunky” and chunky salsa to be "stringy?

A damn fine theory if there ever was one. I will now proselytize the chunky/stringy dichotomy wherever I go.

18

I largely agree, and realise the words I’ve chosen aren’t perfect. Perhaps I should go down the neologism route, since I’m attempting to describe a feeling that many people appear to comprehend but can’t put a name to. For some reason, though, I think that made-up words would undermine my attempt to describe it.

This is absolutely correct within my system. The salsa’s chunks, see, are dissembling.

19

Actually, there are similar concepts we throw around here where i work (graphic design): “tight” and “sloppy” (or sometimes “jankly”). I think they mean the same thing as chunky or stringy, but your terms are on a more universal basis. Nonetheless, I think the concept is inherent in all of us, whether we are aware of it or not.

20

Goodness me, look at the first result you get when you google chunky stringy. :eek: