My effort is in the
direction of simplicity. People in general have so
little and it costs so much to
buy even the barest necessities (let
alone that share of the
luxuries to which I think everyone is entitled)
because nearly everything that
we make is much more complex than it
needs to be. Our clothing, our
food, our household furnishings--all
could be much simpler than
they now are and at the same time be better
looking. Things in past ages
were made in certain ways and makers since
then have just followed.
I do not mean that we should
adopt freak styles. There is no necessity
for that Clothing need not be
a bag with a hole cut in it. That might be
easy to make but it would be
inconvenient to wear. A blanket does not
require much tailoring, but
none of us could get much work done if we
went around Indian-fashion in
blankets.
Real simplicity means that which
gives the very best service
and is the most convenient in use. The
trouble with drastic reforms
is they always insist that a man be made
over in order to use certain
designed articles. I think that dress
reform for women--which seems
to mean ugly clothes--must always
originate with plain women who
want to make everyone else look plain.
That is not the right process.
Start with an article that suits and then
study to find some way of
eliminating the entirely useless parts. This
applies to everything--a shoe,
a dress, a house, a piece of machinery, a
railroad, a steamship, an
airplane. As we cut out useless parts and
simplify necessary ones we
also cut down the cost of making. This is
simple logic, but oddly enough
the ordinary process starts with a
cheapening of the
manufacturing instead of with a simplifying of the
article. The start ought to be
with the article. First we ought to find
whether it is as well made as
it should be--does it give the best
possible service? Then--are
the materials the best or merely the most
expensive? Then--can its
complexity and weight be cut down? And so on.