Hi Dave,
Is Kessler entitled to his opinion? Of course. Do I begrudge him articulating it in the way he has? Not really, he’s a writer covering high-end audio and watches. And to his credit, he did write even he struggles to explain why he can justify certain purchases (watches) but finds others an affront to his sensibilities (expensive socks and hipster coffees). He also writes that though the Bugatti Chiron may not be “worth” its purchase price, having visited the factory, he finds it much easier to explain why it might be worth $2 million versus why any cable might be worth $20K, though he omits to say whether the cable manufacturers he might be talking about also received factory visits from himself. He goes on to say the justification for the purchase of luxury items like classic and/or high performance cars, watches and wine comes down mostly to what he believes goes into them (wine less so), and the reality that in those particular cases, those same luxury items tend to appreciate over time (ignoring the fact the materiality of all three does not change, only their rarity value which is a different thing again).
Those are salient points.
But the ultimate value of a car, a watch or a bottle of wine - despite the utility value of each differing greatly - is inherently no different to that of a cartridge or a cable: To bring pleasure and enjoyment to the owner. No piece of wood framed stretched canvas and acrylic is worth more than its materiality. But if perceived as “art”, becomes almost infinitely valuable, such that it can command prices way above those of any luxury car, despite a much greater investment of time, energy and resources into the car. What is the purpose of a high-end audio system? To reproduce art. Therefore, its materiality comes second to its ability to bring enjoyment to the subject, because unlike live music, sculpture, ballet, and the work of Dürer, it is impossible to appreciate the art form of prerecorded music without an intermediary mechanism.
That Kessler’s articulated his world-view - for that’s all it is - is for me, no more or less of a reason to care what other people think of the purchases I make. And it’s certainly no reason to ask other people to adopt his.
Hi Caesar,
No, I think he’s saying more than that. He’s says “…this has to change”. And he’s not saying he has to, he’s saying the high-end does, and mostly, because of how it’s perceived by others who scorn his purchases. While I accept many may care about how they’re perceived because of the car they drive, the wine they drink or the watch they wear, or in Kessler’s case, the audio system he’s purchased, I do not.
High-end audio is an experiential pursuit, I agree. But I think society is pretty okay with spending money on ephemeral experiences if the consumption of food, alcohol and overseas travel is anything to go by. Certainly, for wine as Kessler writes, it turns to urine within twenty four hours. His justification for wine is that it appreciates in value, but in fact, once it’s been drunk, it turns to s***, and the value of a bottle of wine is immediately diminished to zero. A high end audio system is fundamentally, as you say, a mechanism by which we experience prerecorded music, and as I mention above, is essential, as we can’t experience prerecorded music without an intermediary mechanism (of whatever cost). The difference is, it will continue to provide value beyond a single album, and in some cases, can provide enjoyment for future generations as many tape-decks and turntables are now doing.
In my perspective, mostly all Kessler is doing it justifying some luxury pursuits and then asking for high-end audio to be taken as seriously because other people consider high-end audio in-and-of-itself to be non-justifiable, though he offers no solutions beyond greater justification for prices he himself cannot justify. Again, obviously what other people think of something he can justify but they cannot and vice versa is a problem for Kessler, but like I say, not for myself. If Kessler hopes his perspective to be adopted, he needs to do more than the arguments he puts forth in the two most recent articles he’s penned, the problem being that rather than Kessler’s perspective being too narrow, it’s actually not narrow enough, and his over-generalising across experiences, materiality and utility value, and failure to take into account longevity of experience/enjoyment, undermines his argument, and for me, only confirms a world-view that holds the problem is always someone or something else, allowing him to continue to hold onto his, despite its many contradictions.
Be well, gentlemen.
853guy
