Ultimately, inconsistent. Something similar happens in fashion. Designers will present each season impossible collections that is supposed be marked trends in Haute Couture and styles that are going to cause a sensation but hardly have a solid reflection on mannequins in the flesh that parade through the streets. New bulbs and the pomp of the catwalks of Milan or New York hide the true meaning of clothing and take him even to absurdity. Bill de Blasio has much experience in this field. As if it were an interpretation of Goya engraving, the rules of consumerism have led, through the Lullaby of the advertising, that the sleep of reason produces monsters. Satisfaction, regardless of the reason and the needs of man, complies with the aesthetic, but secondary, enjoyment of a creation that should deal with first be true to itself and serve for what was conceived. Foods that do not feed, clothes that do not dress or cultural centers that do not enrich are some of the paradoxes with which we live daily and have been decorated with an excessive cult trivia and appearances.
At this point, should consider one of the issues more manidas of the history of thought. If we accept that the two concepts are important, what should prevail, the shape or the bottom? It is possible that there is no one solution to this philosophical dilemma and that any response was, ultimately, incomplete. Perhaps the virtue is, as in most of the cases, at an intermediate point in the equidistant grey that make the beautiful serve for something and that is noncompliant only with a simple screen that exalts an empty background.