Difference between revisions of "Talk:1533: Antique Factory"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 3: Line 3:
 
<p>The reference to inexorable passage of time reminds me of [[209: Kayak]]  [[User:Effy|Effy]] ([[User talk:Effy|talk]]) 11:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)</p>
 
<p>The reference to inexorable passage of time reminds me of [[209: Kayak]]  [[User:Effy|Effy]] ([[User talk:Effy|talk]]) 11:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)</p>
 
<p>The briefcase seems to be slightly different from the third panel to the fourth. Is this just a drawing difference, or something significant? [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 12:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)</p>
 
<p>The briefcase seems to be slightly different from the third panel to the fourth. Is this just a drawing difference, or something significant? [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 12:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)</p>
 +
 +
Arguably, the premise of the comic is that while an antique ''may'' be something old that has been in storage (e.g. an attic, or an otherwise unused spare room) for most of its time since it was actually new, some would consider that less desirous than an item that was thoroughly used when new, and has acquired signs of wear and tear (or even an actual patina, rather than the perfect surface of the freshly manufactured goods) over a significant proportion of its existence.
 +
 +
Indeed, fake antiques of various kinds are subjected to intense (and artificial) 'usage' to give them the look of age that they lack, to add to the authentic-looking (but actually deliberately 'back-dated') construction methods that were used.  Or even to make up for this being done wrong.
 +
 +
In this comic, however, there's no sign of criminal intent.  It seems that contemporary pieces of furniture are being 'used' (the chair sat on, which may be fair enough; the table sat ''at'', which is a somewhat more intangible process) roughly in line with how a then-contmporary antique would have been used, when new, with no intention to accelerate or artifice the 'aging' process.  Normally one would not consider this a cost-effect business model, but this argument has never troubled the character before, so why should it now?
 +
 +
(I leave it up to someone else to summarise this idea in the main explanation.  If they agree with it.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.95|141.101.106.95]] 13:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:09, 3 June 2015

Fist.

The reference to inexorable passage of time reminds me of 209: Kayak Effy (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The briefcase seems to be slightly different from the third panel to the fourth. Is this just a drawing difference, or something significant? Technetium (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Arguably, the premise of the comic is that while an antique may be something old that has been in storage (e.g. an attic, or an otherwise unused spare room) for most of its time since it was actually new, some would consider that less desirous than an item that was thoroughly used when new, and has acquired signs of wear and tear (or even an actual patina, rather than the perfect surface of the freshly manufactured goods) over a significant proportion of its existence.

Indeed, fake antiques of various kinds are subjected to intense (and artificial) 'usage' to give them the look of age that they lack, to add to the authentic-looking (but actually deliberately 'back-dated') construction methods that were used. Or even to make up for this being done wrong.

In this comic, however, there's no sign of criminal intent. It seems that contemporary pieces of furniture are being 'used' (the chair sat on, which may be fair enough; the table sat at, which is a somewhat more intangible process) roughly in line with how a then-contmporary antique would have been used, when new, with no intention to accelerate or artifice the 'aging' process. Normally one would not consider this a cost-effect business model, but this argument has never troubled the character before, so why should it now?

(I leave it up to someone else to summarise this idea in the main explanation. If they agree with it.) 141.101.106.95 13:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)