Modern Decor May Be Straining People's Brains

78 points - today at 4:28 PM

Source

Comments

michaelchisari today at 5:08 PM
If you've ever been in an home owned for generations, filled with books and knickknacks and heirlooms and family photos, despite the clutter it all feels comforting in a way that modern decor doesn't.

The article doesn't touch much on why modern decor emerged as it did. It's a market response where everyone needs to (or feels the need to) pick up and move at a moment's notice. Companies are either expanding or like to think they'll be expanding soon. People move jobs so often that they have a hard time feeling settled where they are, so they design for that possibility. The modern aesthetic is one of planned impermanence.

idopmstuff today at 5:10 PM
The Limitations section at the bottom certainly has a lot of limitations:

> This paper is a review, meaning it synthesizes and interprets existing research rather than presenting new experimental data. The authors themselves note that current visual tests for susceptibility to discomfort are subjective and poorly standardized. They also acknowledge that the proposed mechanism (that discomfort is the brain’s response to overwork) has not been fully tested, particularly the hypothesis that colored tints reduce discomfort by steering visual stimulation away from overactive brain areas. The relationship between the brain’s excitatory and inhibitory chemical signals and visual discomfort also remains, in their words, ā€œunsettled.ā€ Several key research questions are flagged as unresolved, including how to best quantify the real-world impact of visual stress on people’s lives and how to objectively measure susceptibility.

Flickering lights are about the only thing I saw in here that seem like they'd be a problem in the long term. Everything else your brain just adjusts to over time and stops noticing. Maybe the first few days in an office with bright colors would be slightly distracting, but after that you just stop seeing them. I would guess that a lot of the studies they reviewed probably tested people's reactions to these things when they saw them one time, not the hundredth time.

nilirl today at 5:23 PM
This website is straining my brain. Ads that bounce around? Sheesh.
cobalt_miner today at 6:07 PM
Similarly, one my uni professors wrote a paper arguing that the opposite - standing in nature - results in healthy neural activity.

He showed people photos of geometric patterns (plain lines, basic shapes), natural patterns (fractals), and photos of nature itself (trees, animals, etc.) while reading their mental activity. The conclusion was that both fractals and nature photos cause significantly more efficient, diverse, and healthy-looking brain activity. Our brains inherently expect the world to look fractal-like, and in some ways even need it to look that way to form creative thoughts.

Completely lost the link to that article; it was a good read.

andsoitis today at 6:11 PM
> Striped patterns, flickering lights, bright glare, and crowded visual environments

Those things are also just ugly.

excusable today at 5:10 PM
I'm thinking about Backrooms
SP711 today at 5:32 PM
I don’t buy this. Feels like a non-problem or a very first world problem to even analyse and with the exception of lights, nothing else seemed plausible
dinkblam today at 5:59 PM
flickering lights are not "modern decor" but a broken (and possibly dangerous) appliance
anthk today at 6:17 PM
The human brain it's used to the fractal details in neatures, such as branches/leaves.

Geometrical design (especially the ones with grids/vectors everywhere) are not minimalistic but tiring, really tiring.

meindnoch today at 5:13 PM
>Eyes and brain alike evolved over millennia to process natural scenes, forests, rivers, coastlines, open skies. These environments share a specific mathematical pattern: their visual complexity decreases predictably as you zoom in on finer and finer details.

Wut? It's precisely the opposite. Natural patterns have infinite complexity as you zoom in, and human-made patterns (most often) not.

gumby today at 5:58 PM
Today’s style is a callback to the 60s, and we’re people making the same complaints then?
andix today at 5:39 PM
I really hate shops, malls and supermarkets. I'm not easily overwhelmed and can handle being there fine. But it's just horrible there. Way too loud, bright and often too warm. Completely full of chaos and way too many useless products.

When I have to go I try to be out there as quickly as possible. I always thought that's weird, shouldn't those shops be designed in a way that makes me want to explore them, look at all the things they have, instead of just hunting down exactly what I need and leave as quickly as possible.

thelittlenag today at 5:42 PM
I really hate lighting in modern offices. If there was one thing that folks actively worked to improve I would choose lighting. Having lights with a broader spectrum would go a long way in reducing eye strain and general fatigue, while likely allowing the lights to actually be brighter. Unfortunately I don't see this changing anytime soon.
jdw64 today at 5:40 PM
But isn't that actually what modernism is about? I heard about Ornament and Crime in a university liberal arts class, and there really is this kind of problem. When you try to imitate natural forms, fractal structures are fundamentally difficult to mass produce, there are hygiene issues, and so the modernist approach became dominant. And as the saying goes, "form follows function", you cannot apply the artificial technologies that do not exist in nature the same way you would with old stone buildings.

In the same vein, contemporary art, like a Veronica, smashes form apart, and instead of concrete imitation of nature, it moves toward abstraction, geometry, and minimalism. But does not that come with a problem? It does not enter the brain directly the way natural forms do; you have to additionally recognize what it actually is. I do not think that is an incorrect observation.

rrjjww today at 5:01 PM
Off topic but I really hate modern web design. I found the content of this article interesting but I could hardly read it scrolling through in-article ads, banners, etc. One of the reasons I like HN is the prevalence of personal blogs that just have text for me to sit and read.
jes5199 today at 5:18 PM
this is the same thing we said about offices in the fluorescent era
slopinthebag today at 5:48 PM
It's not just decor but architecture as well. Look I've been to Europe, I've seen the old architecture and decor there. It's unquestionably better. I get the feeling that modernity, at least in this day and age is about cost cutting and non-offensiveness more than anything else.
FinnLobsien today at 5:20 PM
Iā€˜ve definitely noticed this over time as spaces (especially public ones like cafes, retail locations, and restaurants) started being designed as props for Instagram/TikTok.

This made a big contribution because vertical short-form video feeds require extreme stimuli to get anyone’s attention - but they add nothing to the actual experience and often detract from it.

This has also led to the absolutely horrific acoustics where even in non-nightclub bars and normal restaurants, you have to yell to understand each other because the decor is made of tile, tables and chairs are at odd angles that increase distance, etc.

Everything now is subordinate to the visual environment because that’s what gets shared on Instagram.

Not saying interior design doesn’t matter, but its point should be to create a great overall experience, not to be visually stimulating at the expense of the rest.

ck2 today at 5:48 PM
just crazy-glue some cheap tacky Home Depot gold decor on every surface and you'll be fine, maybe even become leader of free world
hnthrow10282910 today at 5:40 PM
First pic in article looks like fucking backrooms
pixel_popping today at 5:24 PM
In case you own the website:

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access this resource. From Singapore.

Doktor_IO today at 5:10 PM
Who needs science for that?