Newer and Better

Professor, I’ve been wondering why our culture seems to always need to create something newer and presumably better.

Go on.

Well, why do we need a new model of car every year?  For that matter, why do we need 50 different models of cars – each one being tweaked each year?  I understand the marketing aspect – but are they really better?  Can’t we leave good enough alone?

Setting aside the observation that each auto manufacturer needs to distinguish itself from its competitors by establishing a given look and that there is a range in quality associated with the range in prices that consumers are willing to pay, I guess your point concerns our culture’s obsession with creating new and improved models of anything and everything, right?

Right.

But at the same time, many “new” products do reflect improvements, whether through ergonomic design of a tool, safety features added in response to tragic accidents, or changes that reflect a creative new approach to an old way of doing things.

Yes, I understand artistic creativity and invention, I recognize that tools and techniques can be improved upon and that feedback is a valuable tool in refining our abilities to do things well.  But, isn’t it possible that we reach a point of diminishing returns – that the effort invested in making additional “improvements” is not proportional to the value (or need for) those changes?

I’m surprised to hear someone who values the creative process so highly suggest that we needn’t strive to improve the way things are done.

No, you misunderstand, Professor – my question is why devote so much time and energy to making superficial changes when the resultant “improvements” are inconsequential.

Well, you’ve mentioned marketing as motivation for product “improvements,” that’s certainly one aspect of “newer and better” to discuss.  In our consumer-driven technocentric society, you must recognize the fundamental importance of there being new stuff to purchase.  You might find the 1996 essay by R. Cronk entitled, Consumerism and the New Capitalism of interest in this regard:  http://www.westland.net/venice/art/cronk/consumer.htm

Our tendency to seek technological solutions to societal challenges as well as capitalistic opportunity continues to produce cool stuff that most everyone wants to have, yes?  Do you find fault with the invention of the cell phone to replace land lines?

No, that is certainly an improvement in our ability to communicate that has benefited many people.  I’m more interested in time-tested technologies that need not be improved upon – I’d like to think that at some point we could say that we got something right.

Like the book for example?

Exactly – the book.  Now we have the electronic book.  Here’s a product that “improves” on over 500 years of book-making technology by placing at our fingertips hundreds of books in one slim battery-powered high-tech device.  Clearly, the device is useless if it can’t be charged – books don’t have that problem.  Clearly it’s more fragile than a book.  Clearly it will become obsolete within a couple years and have to be replaced by the next generation only to become another piece of non-biodegradable toxic material tossed in a landfill.

Let’s step back for a moment and consider the big picture.  You ask why it is that we have an urge to create newer and better.  Based on the examples you’ve given, I suppose you mean the creation of newer and better things, that is – items of commerce – items that can be bought and sold?

Not necessarily – it seems that people strive to enhance all dimensions of their lives.  Medical science is trying to understand how the brain works and how to genetically prevent disease, architects and engineers are trying to enhance the way buildings use energy, developing nations are trying to “develop,” and artists and entertainers are always looking for the next big thing.  Is this simply ambition?  And, if so – why are we so ambitious?

But let’s focus for now on material things as opposed to growth and the pursuit of knowledge, alright?

Alright, Professor.

And let’s think about the creative process.  Creation by definition implies that something “new” is made, does it not?

Yes.

And when one makes something new, one either develops a completely original thought, process, image, or thing or, one builds on something that is already familiar but with a new twist or “tweak” as you said.

I suppose so.

You sound unhappy about that.

Not really, but you haven’t answered the question about reaching a point of diminishing returns – that in many cases there is no value in making further enhancements to things that are already good enough.

You’re right.  To that point, if we agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with the creative process, then the decision to create something that may be of marginal value is a personal choice, is it not?

I don’t understand.

Well, if one chooses to create something purely for the joy of the creative process – whether a song that no one hears or a drawing that no one sees – it’s a personal decision whether or not to invest the time and energy to do so, correct?

Sure.  And a product that no one buys?

The same thing – a company may make a decision to make a product that no one wants and that’s their choice.  But, presumably not because they simply thought it would be fun.  They did it because they thought people wanted or needed it, or could be convinced that they would.  Perhaps it just didn’t perform as advertise or another company came out with something more intriguing at the same time or they just couldn’t attract enough attention for whatever reason.

Okay, I follow that logic.

Ok, now let’s think for a moment about durable material things that we all use – perhaps a cup or a screwdriver.  Such objects have a utilitarian function and they tend to last a long time.  When we need a new one, we go out and get one without a lot of thought.  Sure, we might want the cup to match the others we own, we might even want it to be made of a certain material.  The screwdriver should be of the correct style and size, but beyond the basic look and feel, there’s not a lot to think about.

Other items are more personal:  a garment, a writing tool, or a piece of furniture.  Choosing these things may require more thought, largely because there are a lot of choices.  Your question may be – why so many choices, especially, when one may not be any “better” than another.  I’d suggest that this first level of differentiation has mostly to do with personal preference (i.e., consumer demand).  It’s as simple as the choice between two identical cars – one white and one black.  If there was no demand for black cars, they would be rare indeed.  As rare it would seem as a paisley or polka-dotted car.

And now we get to the crux of the matter – objects that are “improvements.”  Here we consider changes to the operation, look, feel, and use of objects ostensibly because they are “better” than the prior version.  “Build a better mousetrap…” it’s said, “…and the world will beat a path to your door.”  Actually, the sentiment was expressed by Ralph Waldo Emerson in 1855 when he wrote in his journal that:

If a man has good corn or wood, or boards, or pigs, to sell, or can make better chairs or knives, crucibles or church organs, than anybody else, you will find a broad hard-beaten road to his house, though it be in the woods.

It sounds like Mr. Emerson was talking about quality, not innovation.

Yes, I agree.  His choice of the word “better” suggests to me that he recognized that people will go out of their way for a quality product.

I understand that Professor, I’d buy the Rolls Royce too if I could afford it because I’d expect it to last forever.  I’ve always thought it best to invest more up front for something that will last longer than a cheaper version that won’t be as serviceable, safe, comfortable, or enjoyable.

But it sounds like you don’t care much about “keeping up with the Jones.”

That’s true – at least to the extent of having the latest and greatest of this or that.  That’s exactly what I’m talking about.

And if there wasn’t a demand for the “latest and greatest” would there be any reason to produce it?

I should think not, unless the idea was simply to force it down the consumer’s throat.  And, I know I’ve felt that way.  We’re socialized to think that things have to be upgraded, enhanced, refreshed, improved, and refined and we buy into it.

What would happen if we didn’t buy into it?

Excellent question - think about it for next time.