>>Ah, now that's a different question. The fashion industry is the single most parasitic industry I can think of. It is an industry designed (ha ha) to prey on the most insecure in our midst. IMHO, they provide nothing truly worthwhile, but they sure charge as if they do. It's no different than draping a bathing beauty across the hood of a car and trying to convince the insecure that buying the car gets you the woman. Why this works is beyond me, but I suppose it must.
>>
>>But hey, you're the guy who's looking for things that 'look nice', so in fact, it's you they're aiming at, not me.
>
>Then they are the missing persons. Because they can't hit me with ads - I'm avoiding them in a wide arc. Last two weeks we watched about 120 minutes of TV, and that was PBS. I'm also giving anywhere between zero and ten seconds to junk mail. Anything from Verizon or any financial/real estate/insurance goes into recycle box unopened. The rest gets a second or two, and sometimes a chuckle. Even when watching ad-powered TV, the ads are muted (except Mac vs PC, which is sort of an art form to itself - good design) and watched only for as much as it takes to notice when they end :).
>
>IOW, I don't care how nice it may look in the ad. Sometimes I buy something despite the ad (but still haven't started a Netflix subscription, because every time I start thinking about forgiving them for the last transgression, they make another one). I want a thing which will look nice in my hands, when I take it home. So it should look nice on the shelf. Which is why Target is such a disappointment. Their ads look really neatly designed (don't know of sound, though, may ruin it completely :), but when you enter the shop it is not red and white, it's red here and there and lots of... sort of but not really white. Compared to what it looks on screen, it looks like crap.
>
>>AFAIC they should be spending their time and money designing for useability far more than looks, but that's not the way it is. Like I said before, a computer case with the Mona Lisa painted on it's side isn't going to help me get my job done any better than one that is grey.
>
>Agreed here - usability is understood, nobody wants to buy a thing which won't work (but they still do :). Taking usability as a given, among a few equally usable items, I'd still take the one more aesthetically pleasing. Specially if it's not a consumable, but something that will remain displayed for a number of years. IOW, I'm not buying "nice but useless", but I want "not just useless, but also nice" for my money. And, ahem, kitsch, faux antiquity, and other quasi-stylistic stuff is maybe nice, made to look nice, and may be even recognized as nice by some, but remains under doubt and generally doesn't fall under "aesthetically pleasing" in my book. There may be cases when kitsch achieves a peak of self-irony and comes full circle back, but these are probably very rare.

You might want to rethink your phrase I want "not just useless, but also nice" for my money. I know where you can get some nice lava lamps. Ok, I realise that's an oxymoron.