"Hey James, thanks for the comments. I think "fluffy" material is usually fluffy because of things like jargon and cliches, so no, I don't think jargon has a place there, or anywhere. But the question of audience is an important one. Should we write to a specific reader, or to a lowest common denominator? I think the better the writing, the larger an audience it has. This doesn't mean it's dumb--it means it's accessible. There's nothing dumb about clear prose, compelling narratives, and simple vocabulary. In fact, that's often the most challenging way to write."

"Good point Moom. Of course I don't mean to imply that these simple, industrial objects don't have designers. Just that they are embraced by lots of designers today for their utilitarian look. Their aesthetics are, as you say, undesigned - that's my point. But you're right, maybe a different term gets closer to what I mean. The funny thing I've noticed, though, is that sometimes this unaestheticized aesthetic is, in fact, a calculated aesthetic. Take American Apparel - their whole game is no labels, no logos, no nothing. But we can all spot an American Apparel t-shirt, jeans, or bag a mile away. Same, to a certain extend, with Muji stuff. (Has Rob Walker written about this?) This is kind of the opposite of the trend I was talking about in my article - taking off the skin of design instead of putting a new one on. But I wonder if there's a connection... Hmm..."