In today’s society, the values of real substance and aesthetical surfaces have been highly debated and criticized as society has relapsed into the 1950s Era of Consumerism. The new trend indicates that people are buying things more for their surface instead of the actual functional values. Basic knowledge says that a certain color cannot change the worth of a product if it has the same features, however; the definition of worth extends in many directions. Some critics view “ornament and variety not as goods that we value for their own sakes but as tools for creating false desire” (456). In their case, it is the substance that creates value. For Virginia Postrel, the author of The Future and Its Enemies, and The Substance of Style, there is legitimate worth and real desire in the beauty of surface, declaring buyers to be more than “visual, tactile creatures” (456). Nevertheless, the story of Cinderella did not just pop out of a pumpkin and the lines of Civics in every single color outside of the Honda dealer are not just ordinary coincidences. The fact of the matter is that society is highly influenced more by aesthetical pleasure than mere objective qualities. However, the argument does not stop there. While the trends in society prove Postrel correct in that there is genuine meaning in aesthetics, it also shows that she was incorrect in her defense of humans who are not as impalpable as she thought.

A handful of critics are in line with Scott McNealy’s point of view about theuselessness of PowerPoint presentations. “If “content,” rather than “packaging,” is the only real value, then any attention to aesthetics furthers a lie, and resources spent on aesthetics are obviously wasted” (456). People put tons of extra time into a PowerPoint presentation when really, all companies are looking for is a new solution to a problem or a brand new business venture. Therefore all of the extra fonts, Word Art, animations, and cool entrances are not needed; the substance of the presentation is all that the executive is going to care about. In the same way, churches have also become just a spectacle. With all of the huge televisions, lively bands and music, plush decorations and comfy pews, actual worship of God has become secondary. One minister speaks up about how society is diverting attention from an extremely pivotal subject, “There is a sensory feast, but a famine of hearing….Now there must be color, movement, audiovisual effects, or God cannot be known, loved, praised and trusted for his own sake” (457). Although I do agree that sometimes, surfaces are too overbearing and muffle the real issues, I would not go so far as to say that all aesthetics are a waste. I think even Postrel realizes that in some cases surface and aesthetics are abused and can be hard to trust. Speaking about Riefenstahl’s movies glorifying the Nazi’s she says, “If an event so awful could look so vivid, even beautiful in a purely formal sense, how could we trust aesthetic pleasure?” (472) However this does not mean we should be so severe and throw all aesthetics out the window and group them all in the same fallacious category. Designer Michael Bierut notes the importance of surface still simply says that, “things could not exist ‘for their own sake’” (455) and therefore I would also have to agree with Postrel who states that “style does matter, that look and feel add something important to our lives” (458).

Without aesthetics everything would look the same and the world would become “a cartel, in which everyone agreed to follow a drab standard” (460). There would be no ornament and no variety, but unfortunately the real desire the critics have been anticipating still will not be found. It is look and feel that creates desire, allows for corporate identity, “spiritual uplift in pageantry and music” (458), and a unique and entertaining appeal to otherwise ordinary boring transparencies. Therefore, resources spent on aesthetics are not always a waste. Yet, critics such as an English professor also mange to ridicule the value of look and feel by saying that “If you look like you spend too much time on your clothes, there are people who will assume that you haven’t put enough energy into your mind” (458). This argument is nothing but flawed because wearing the wrong clothes can be as disastrous as costing you a job or a political position. As Hillary Clinton said as she spoke to college graduates: Your hair will send very important messages to those around you. It will tell people who you are and what you stand for. What hopes and dreams you have for the world…and especially what hopes and dreams you have for your hair. Likewise, your shoes. But really, more your hair. So, to sum up. Pay attention to your hair. Because everyone else will. (458)

Therefore even if the critics deem looks, feel, and other surface values unimportant, society is on Postrel’s side. In the end, people do care about their looks as well as the looks of other things and people, even in the “postfeminist era in which women can be more than decorators and decoration” (459). Furthermore, her hair shows how people are more inclined to listen and pay attention with the addition of aesthetical features.

Author Robert Frank believes that the substance of surface is all about status and that the reason behind all the extra fluff in society is due to the competitive human nature for all validation and superiority; “We’re simply attracted to anything that helps us compete for recognition and dominance” (459). Believing in the mainstream idea that people want only to fit in to standout, Frank concludes that, “We buy fancy clothes and luxury furnishings because we want to “stand out from the crowd,” not because we like these things” (460). This is true especially in the case of Hillary Clinton who obviously had no problem with her hairstyle before she stepped into the public eye. With a change of her look, a surface value, Hillary Clinton was able to step up from just an ordinary citizen and prove that she was as ambitious and educated as any other United States senator. Unquestionably her change was a status move for recognition and dominance, not because Clinton liked these things. On the other hand according to Postrel, there are reasons for buying the Armani clothes, diamond rings, and maybe a set of red silk curtains imported all the way from China. She contrasts Frank’s argument of status with that of pleasure. There is nothing wrong for just wanting to have luxuries for yourself, not to prove anything or to boast a better house than your next-door neighbor. Liz Twitchell, for example, was awestruck by a woman trying on a $20,000 dress, however the amount of beauty she found in it does not completely cloak her true feelings. “And when I looked down at my Old Navy sweater,” she says, “I couldn’t help but feel a bit of wanting…I’m left with an aching feeling of desire and a slight dissatisfaction with my current life” (462). Consequently, Postrel’s example is flawed. The fact that Twitchell is dissatisfied with her life proves that she wanted to move up in the social order. She wanted to be that woman in the $20,000 dress instead of the plain Jane wearing the $20 Old Navy sweatshirt proving that even the values of beauty is at the mercy of the status quo. Eminently, Liz Twitchell can speak for the power behind luxury. Status driven or not, luxury has its own drive and force to attract people from all types of Rodeo Drives. Luxury is what causes the dissatisfaction; what tells you that the Old Navy sweatshirt is not appealing; what sets apart a lot of surface from substance. To speak of this new “age of falsification” (457), as one critic likes to call it, would mean to interpret how society has fused surface, substance, and meaning together.