Letters to the Editor

• @AKA Smith

  [Read the article: Welcome to the "menaissance"]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  I read Cary's oleander-neighbor column. Oleander-neighbor is wrong for planting the neighbor's property without permission. OTOH could be worse; oleander-neighbor could report the elderly lady to for code violations, causing all kinds of grief.

  There's also the viewpoint that elderly lady has power over oleander-neighbor, getting free landscaping/maintenance without even asking.

  "However most people would like their own space."

  What defines having one's own space?

  "The question to ask is why in family homes are men more likely to get their own space to use for their own purposes."

  You're presuming your conclusion. The situation is far more complex than you describe.

  If he has a den that she leaves alone, but most of the rest of the house is "hers" because she has final control on how it is used, decorated, organized, etc., who really has "power"?

  "A friend of mine is an artist...She has no space of her own...I would say that their arrangement of space accurately reflects the power in the relationship."

  Does she want a studio? If so, but he forbids it, that's a power issue. If not, what's the problem?

  Flip side of dedicated space is being told "do that in your room".

  "He simply has more power than she does within their relationship because his retirement package was better. And because he is a man. And perhaps because of the dynamics of their generation."

  How does being a man give him more power? Does he threaten her physically? That's abuse.

  (sports-themed wallpaper):

  "It is aesthetically horrifing. We are talking about two different things."

  Not really. First you say that it's OK for people to have their own space, but then you insist on veto power. He has to play by *your* rules when it comes to wallpaper selection, in *his* room! Proves the point I was making.

  If he cannot put up the wallpaper he wants, it's really not his room.

  "there is a difference between personal taste -- which is what everybody has -- and acquired and cultural taste."

  No, there isn't. All taste is personal; cultural is simply multiple people having similar personal taste.

  Aren't there things which today are considered to be in very good taste that, when they first appeared, were considered to be awful?

  "If I have spent more time (than money) learning about interior design and know something about it, then it is quite natural that I have developed my taste to a level where I think I am more adept than a guy who has never read Architectural Digest."

  Taste is not one-dimensional, with good taste at one end of the scale and bad taste at the other. There are all sorts of styles of design, and people have very different preferences, which evolve and change over time.

  "I am assuming that no regular reader of shelter magazines would ever want to decorate his den with Cowboys wallpaper."

  Not the point at all. You insist on veto power over *his* use of *his* space.

  "I am saying that greater knowledge and better taste should trump mere personal taste. At least it would in my home."

  Who decides who has "better taste"? If you've read Architectural Digest for 5 years to his 10, is his taste automatically better?

  "However, should I marry an award-winning architect, his taste would triumph"

  There's this guy, Howard Roark....

  I wrote: "Does Mr. Smith have the same power?"

  "See above."

  IOW *you* would decide who had "better taste", and that person would have veto power over the entire house. If you decided your taste was "better", based on *your* criteria, you'd demand veto power over *his* wallpaper - and everything else.

  "But I would demand my own space in which to write."

  What if Mr. Smith-Roark insisted on controlling certain aspects of your writing space? Lighting, wallpaper, flooring, even though it's your space?

  "In my opinion such a Mr. Smith would have no taste and I would see a divorce lawyer and a psychologist to examine why on earth I ended up married to a man so different from me."

  Life isn't that simple. You can't predict every possible way a person, or life itself, will change over a lifetime. Taste isn't one-dimensional nor unchanging. Nor is life.

  Consider how interior design has evolved over time, and what the "experts" considered "good taste". Some things became timeless and classic, others fell out of fashion. Some even did a comeback (avocado appliances?). New stuff is constantly appearing, like the use of stainless steel "commercial" appliances in home kitchens.

  You may meet the ideal Mr. Smith-Roark today, and be totally in sync with his excellent taste, but that's no guarantee of the future. Your tastes and interests may develop differently. Which makes more sense: trashing a family because he's really gotten into the color green and you haven't, or working out a compromise?

  "Would his hobby have to be "tasteful" even if it was confined to a certain part of the house/yard?"

  "I would want as much space as he had."

  Perfectly reasonable, but doesn't answer the question: Would the hobby have to be "tasteful" by *your* definition? What if he chooses abstract art you think is terrible? Obviously you should have a say about what is hung in the common space, but what if he keeps it in his space?

  "Gardening is infinitely adaptable."

  Would it be OK for him to have his garden, and for you to have yours?

  btw, I am a vegetable gardener. Ms. Yardley is a flower gardener. She has her space, I have mine. Works.

  "If I had a fella that really liked to garden, I hope I would show proper appreciation to him. We could get all dirty together and then we could shower off and get clean and then..."

  Why wait till you're out of the shower? Isn't that what grab bars are for?

  Why even wait till you're clean?

  Permalink Friday, March 28, 2008 03:41 AM