• smackjack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Imagine spending 15,000 dollars to not have a dishwasher. That kitchen is trash even if you don’t account for the color scheme. I don’t even see a way to plug in appliances.

  • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I love purple but I would hate this kitchen.

    My living room walls are purple but less intense than this and offset with blues and off-white. You have to be careful with purple. It gets overwhelming quick.

    lol what a waste of money.

    • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Fr, was super confused/surprised to see all the comments agreeing that it sucked. I saw it and immediately wanted it.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Ah, I understood immediately how ugly it was. It’s my kind of ugly and I’d never tire of it, but I understand. Purple is a lot, especially such a bold purple.

    • MrsDoyle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      I kind of like it too. When I was 12 my parents asked what colour I wanted my bedroom painted. “Purple.” They painted it off-white. I’m over 70 now and still have never had a purple room. My kitchen is pale grey ffs.

      Off to look at paint charts …

      • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Bro you’re 70, paint that shit whatever you want and when you die in that house it’s the next owners problem not yours. It’s not an investment at your stage like it is people in their 30s painting everything white or grey so they don’t offend future buyers.

    • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Perhaps. I’m honestly not sure how this kitchen could have cost anywhere near 15 grand. The cabinets are all just repainted and the stove doesn’t look particularly extravagant.

      Maybe if the floor is real marble/granite?

  • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Could have worked if the purple was SO MUCH DARKER but they went with probably the worst shade imaginable.

    • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah, like I said here, the problem isn’t that they went too far, it’s that they didn’t go far enough.

      If you’re gonna go extravagant, don’t stop halfway.

    • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      If you’re gonna go for the unusual, you have to fully commit to it. Don’t stop halfway, because it’s gonna be cringe. But if you go all the way, they will call it art, and they’ll pay you multiple times over what you paid for it.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        With art, there is an inverse relationship between the number of people who will buy it and how much they’ll pay for it. Art everyone wants is cheap, niche art is expensive.

        If you go full send, you can charge more if the stars align and you can find a buyer.

        • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todayOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Well, to bring it back to the OP, the problem here is they clearly didn’t go full send. It’s definitely tacky, but not tacky enough. How about some gold fixtures and doorknobs? What’s up with that hideous tiling behind the stove? Why is there a regular old ceiling light and not a friggin’ Svarovski chandelier? Spend another 15 grand on those and you might find someone who’s willing (and high enough) to pay you 20% over ask.

          It’s gonna be drug money, but they’ll pay.

          • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            What I’m saying is that it’s a tradeoff. The fuller the send, the harder it is to find a buyer, but the more they’ll pay.

            Conversely, the emptier(???) the send, the more buyers will be interested, but the less you can charge.

            I think going tackier would let them charge more if they found a buyer, but it would make it even less likely to find a buyer. This is already a full enough send the they’re struggling to find anyone interested, send it any harder and there would be no chance.

            • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todayOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yes, but that sorta implies that it’s a linear relationship, which it likely isn’t.

              I’m thinking it’s probably more like the uncanny valley, with a trough in the middle where your send is neither full enough nor standard enough to find ANY buyers at all. Then again, there were quite a few commenters here who said they love it so perhaps I’m wrong about that.

              • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                We’re both just speculating here. I’d be interested if anyone has done any studies on this, I doubt it. Not really something useful for society.

                I was basing my speculation off of the very little I’ve learned about the sale of art (paintings, etc) where art with a broad appeal doesn’t go for much, but niche art will sell for much more if you can find a buyer. But I’m sure there are depths to that of which I’m completely unaware, and I’m sure it can’t just be applied to home renos just like that. I just get a gut feeling that there are some parallels.

                • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todayOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Well, yes. The Wikipedia article I linked does indeed say that this is a hypothesis, which means it hasn’t been conclusively proven yet. But it does also list a number of reasons that lead to this hypothesis being proposed, and there’s a long-ish paragraph on the research that has been done on it. But yes, as long as it’s a hypothesis, it’s still in the realm of speculation.

                  It seems however that your experience does somewhat back that up, judging by the “if you can find a buyer”. Basically, what I’m saying is, that if depends on or determines whether an artwork falls into the uncanny valley. If you can find one, it was on the other side of it. If you can’t, then it was in it.

                  Basically, picture the graph from that article, but instead of “human likeness”, we label the x-axis “artistic appeal”, and the y-axis “amount sold for”. Get rid of the dotted line, and on the solid line we replace “stuffed animal” with “broad appeal” and “corpse” with “niche appeal that doesn’t sell”, and the far end of it we label “niche appeal that DOES sell” and place it much higher up, to where “healthy person” is. Hope that makes sense.