The adjective, “sensory,” describes something experienced related to sensation; something that one feels by way of his natural senses. We would, accordingly, describe the term, “sensory deprivation,” as the deliberate deprival of the natural sense of touch, smell, sound, or taste. This writing is an effort to express our lament, and aesthetic displeasure, at industry’s artificial, crass, and insipid attempts at the commercial exploitation of man’s natural and salubrious, gift of sense experience, by the substitution of non-aesthetic, ineffectual replications of sensual stimuli. Whether the particular, off-putting, artificial substitution is commercially based and tactically deceitful, or the hapless product of tasteless ignorance, we find the offense, equally repugnant.
Which of us has not cherished the rare glimpse of the colorful bow of a rainbow, the sight of cute, week-old kittens, the perfumed smell of red roses, the intimate aroma of freshly brewed, morning coffee, the silky touch of velvet or spring pussy-willows, the sweet smell of newly mown grass, the scent of Spring lilacs, or perchance, the sonorous, “splashy” sound of heavy raindrops falling on broad-leafed trees? Pragmatically, the innate sense experience that, loyally serves as a vital guardian of Man’s safety (by its existential function of notifying the presence of imminent danger), is, relevant to this essay, as well, as an aesthetic enhancer of Man’s life experience.
To engage in the venal sin of written disorder, we will, for the moment, testify to the specific occasion, providing the empirical catalyst for this essay. The latter occurred during a recent dining experience at an Inn with a large, decorative, but, sadly, artificial fireplace. This particular iteration of the popular, aesthetic deceit, was somewhat unique, in that it appeared to evince an authentically, combustible function, having been designed with the appearance of large split logs, (or “log-like objects”) visible through its outside-facing, protective screen. However, by virtue of our long acquaintance with this category of decorative ruse, we were, confidently, able to discern (by the non-combustion of the ersatz logs, the steady progress of steady and uniform flames, and the absence of the natural smells and sounds of combusting wood, that it was yet another counterfeit.
We would like to candidly, reveal that we are ardent lovers of burning chopped chunks of cut wood in an aesthetic, natural fireplace. We have had a stone (or brick) fireplace since the ownership of a country residence became affordable. Prior to the practical attainment of such requisite financial capability, we truly enjoyed the activity of lighting and overseeing the operation of fireplaces, whenever possible. In addition to performing the personally, enjoyable task, permissibly, at friends’ houses, we will admit to a long- past, Olympic feat constituting the morning ignition of multiple fireplaces on the occasion of a weekend stay, at New York’s, Mohonk Mountain House. We have always appreciated the engrossing sight of the kinetic dancing flames, the smoky scent of the burning firewood, and the pops and snaps sporadically occurring during combustion.
The “ersatz,” commercially installed “fireplace,” at first look, appears authentic, nevertheless, burns no firewood, produces no crackle or smell, but only gas range style flames, no more romantic or aesthetic than the daily one, evinced by the view of a mundane gas range. The usual hapless and sophomoric attempt to provide such a decorative feature to a place of assembly lacks verisimilitude and consequently the intended, aesthetic effect.
The “plastic” fireplace is but one revolting example of what appears to be the nearly, universal practice of presenting, for sale, decorative, or other unaesthetic, facsimiles, of authentic reality. We are animal lovers, but nevertheless, are truly disturbed by the plastic replication of animal skins, for sundry uses: women’s, tawdry leopard skin slacks, faux leather wallets, belts, briefcases, and jackets, as well as the production of fake “bling” gewgaws, artificial sweeteners, vegan hamburgers, egg substitutes, faux dairy products, ersatz chocolate, fake whipping cream, plastic forks, spoons, and knives, paper and plastic plates, plastic sponges, artificial flowers and plants, plastic tools, and gardening equipment, artificial foods and condiments, plastic fans, faux sunglasses, “knock-off” colognes, toiletries and perfumes, and a myriad of other inexpensive, popularly termed, “bargains.”
The category of hard candies, including children’s lollypops, is not, in its intrinsic nature, particularly, exotic or exciting, but, we find, rather useful in demonstrating the extent of commercial grift, associated with the portrayal of artificial, and misleading reality. The presented colors, red, purple, yellow, green, and orange are, deceitfully termed, respectively, “cherry,” grape,” lemon,” “lime” and “orange,” neither of which has a taste, in any way commensurate with its designated fruit name. The names are representative, simply, of their respective colors, which bear no authentic nor artificial similarity of taste to the fruit, after which they are named. Another popular fraud, on the sensory, taste buds, for the unwary.
The tasteless, presentation of artificial, ineffective replication of authentic stimuli in the foolish expectation of the (simulated) sense experience is to the perceptive and sensitive individual, in empirical and contextual sync with the reprehensible, “alternative reality,” presented by our former, orange-haired, “ersatz” President.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 