STYLE VERSUS SUBSTANCE

All this simplifying and editing has made me wonder about the quality equation and the importance of beauty. If I don’t own much, does what I own need to be worth owning? (Clearly yes, or why own it at all? But that’s being a bit too flippant).

At the end of last year, I was hunting for a new diary. As usual, I had my heart set on the one that was sold out in Europe, which I was nonetheless trying to track down from somewhere. During my ultimately fruitless search, I had a conversation with a colleague about the importance of the right diary. We were agreed our diaries had to be beautiful, without ever asking ourselves why. Surely it’s more important for a diary to contain the most relevant information and enough space for a hectic schedule than to have a pretty cover? Surely that would be the sensible person’s simple route to the right diary?

So via a couple of random Google links, this train of thought eventually pulled into a station of Shaker philosophy and the question of quality over quantity and style versus substance.

Shaker design is famous for elegant utility – they worked on the principle that "That is best which works best" and that "Beauty rests on utility.” These are nice, simple, clear concepts that go a long way to explain the finished products, but I came across two more Shaker dictums that really intrigued me in my current efforts to simplify.

The first is that you should "Do your work as though you had a thousand years to live and as if you were to die tomorrow."

And the second is If it is not useful or necessary, free yourself from imagining that you need to make it. If it is useful and necessary, free yourself from imagining that you need to enhance it by adding what is not an integral part of its usefulness or necessity. And finally: If it is both useful and necessary and you can recognize and eliminate what is not essential, then go ahead and make it as beautifully as you can."

These seem to be pretty good principles for a simplist to live by (or at least edit by). When I trained in film and narrative structure, it was drummed into us that every scene and every sequence needs to move the story on, whether by exploring a theme or setting up the next plot twist, everything had a purpose and must be placed so as to best serve the narrative. Is it so impossible to extend that into my life?

Granted, anyone’s life has multiple concurrent narratives going on all the time. That’s what makes us busy, rounded humans. But is that multiplicity of personas, the complexity it engenders, actually necessary? Or is it possible, however unpalatable, that a lot of what we have going on is fluff, window-dressing, a way to avoid the fact that what most us live is an unexamined life. Socrates would not be impressed.

So, if what little I own must be fit for purpose, then by Shaker principles, it should be as beautiful as possible. Quality over quantity, which only costs more in the short term. The confusion arises between quality and style. Or, to be more cynical and accurate, between style and fashion. We pay over the odds for designer labels, but what we get isn’t style, it’s fashion. It’s surface, not substance, because the nature of fashion is to change.

So to live a simple life, we have to buy into style over fashion, substance over style and, of course, quality over quantity.  Which brings me back to my diary. In the end, in an effort to stop wasting my time, I chose a different one. Not as beautiful, but stylish enough. I’ve made a note for next year – start diary-shopping earlier.