Today, the word "luxury" has been degraded by overuse. But for experienced, demanding luxury travelers, "luxury hotel" has to mean something specific, because guests paying high hotel rates have a right to expect high standards of hospitality: in in rooms, in dining, and in everything else a good hotel offers.
The hospitality industry generally accepts hotel star ratings designated by (formerly Mobil), by AAA, and other critically-minded organizations. Yett there are no set standards for "luxury hotels," and both four-star and five-star hotels generally describe themselves as "luxury."
Nevertheless, if the masses were conceivably to ask for avant-gardeart and literature, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin would not hesitatelong in attempting to satisfy such a demand. Hitler is a bitterenemy of the avant-garde, both on doctrinal and personal grounds,yet this did not prevent Goebbels in 1932-1933 from strenuouslycourting avant-garde artists and writers. When Gottfried Benn,an Expressionist poet, came over to the Nazis he was welcomedwith a great fanfare, although at that very moment Hitler wasdenouncing Expressionism as . This wasat a time when the Nazis felt that the prestige which the avant-gardeenjoyed among the cultivated German public could be of advantageto them, and practical considerations of this nature, the Nazisbeing skillful politicians, have always taken precedence overHitler's personal inclinations. Later the Nazis realized thatit was more practical to accede to the wishes of the masses inmatters of culture than to those of their paymasters; the latter,when it came to a question of preserving power, were as willingto sacrifice their culture as they were their moral principles;while the former, precisely because power was being withheld fromthem, had to be cozened in every other way possible. It was necessaryto promote on a much more grandiose style than in the democraciesthe illusion that the masses actually rule. The literature andart they enjoy and understand were to be proclaimed the only trueart and literature and any other kind was to be suppressed. Underthese circumstances people like Gottfried Benn, no matter howardently they support Hitler, become a liability; and we hearno more of them in Nazi Germany.
We can see then that although from one point of view the personalphilistinism of Hitler and Stalin is not accidental to the rolesthey play, from another point of view it is only an incidentallycontributory factor in determining the cultural policies of theirrespective regimes. Their personal philistinism simply adds brutalityand double-darkness to policies they would be forced to supportanyhow by the pressure of all their other policies -- even werethey, personally, devotees of avant-garde culture. What the acceptanceof the isolation of the Russian Revolution forces Stalin to do,Hitler is compelled to do by his acceptance of the contradictionsof capitalism and his efforts to freeze them. As for Mussolini-- his case is a perfect example of the of a realist in these matters. For years he bent a benevolenteye on the Futurists and built modernistic railroad stations andgovernment-owned apartment houses. One can still see in the suburbsof Rome more modernistic apartments than almost anywhere elsein the world. Perhaps Fascism wanted to show its up-to-dateness,to conceal the fact that it was a retrogression; perhaps it wantedto conform to the tastes of the wealthy elite it served. At anyrate Mussolini seems to have realized lately that it would bemore useful to him to please the cultural tastes of the Italianmasses than those of their masters. The masses must be providedwith objects of admiration and wonder; the latter can dispensewith them. And so we find Mussolini announcing a "new Imperialstyle." Marinetti, Chirico, ., are sent intothe outer darkness, and the new railroad station in Rome willnot be modernistic. That Mussolini was late in coming to thisonly illustrates again the relative hesitance with which ItalianFascism has drawn the necessary implications of its role.
In the Middle Ages the plastic artist paid lip service at leastto the lowest common denominators of experience. This even remainedtrue to some extent until the seventeenth century. There was availablefor imitation a universally valid conceptual reality, whose orderthe artist could not tamper with. The subject matter of art wasprescribed by those who commissioned works of art, which werenot created, as in bourgeois society, on speculation. Preciselybecause his content was determined in advance, the artist wasfree to concentrate on his medium. He needed not to be philosopher,or visionary, but simply artificer. As long as there was generalagreement as to what were the worthiest subjects for art, theartist was relieved of the necessity to be original and inventivein his "matter" and could devote all his energy to formalproblems. For him the medium became, privately, professionally,the content of his art, even as his medium is today the publiccontent of the abstract painter's art -- with that difference,however, that the medieval artist had to suppress his professionalpreoccupation in public -- had always to suppress and subordinatethe personal and professional in the finished, official work ofart. If, as an ordinary member of the Christian community, hefelt some personal emotion about his subject matter, this onlycontributed to the enrichment of the work's public meaning. Onlywith the Renaissance do the inflections of the personal becomelegitimate, still to be kept, however, within the limits of thesimply and universally recognizable. And only with Rembrandt do"lonely" artists begin to appear, lonely in their art.
In fact it is questionable whether any major school of philosophicalthought denies outright the importance of happiness, at least on one ofthe plausible accounts of the matter. Doubts about its significanceprobably owe to several factors. Some skeptics, for example, focus onrelatively weak conceptions of happiness, such as the idea that it islittle more than the simple emotion of feeling happy—anidea that few hedonists or emotional state theorists would accept. Or,alternatively, assuming that a concern for happiness has only to dowith positive states. Yet ‘happiness’ also serves as ablanket term for a domain of concern that involves both positiveand negative states, namely the kinds of mental statesinvolved in being happy or unhappy. Just as “health” caretends to focus mainly on ill health, so might happiness researcherschoose to focus much of their effort on the study and alleviation ofunhappiness—depression, suffering, anxiety, and other conditionswhose importance is uncontroversial. The study of happiness need be nomore concerned with smiles than with frowns.
It is important to note that studies of this nature focus on generictrends, not specific cases, and there is no dispute that significantexceptions exist—notably, populations that enjoy high levels ofhappiness amid low levels of material prosperity. Among others, anumber of Latin American countries, Maasai herders, Inughuithunter-gatherers, and Amish communities have registered highly positiveresults in subjective well-being studies, sometimes higher than thosein many affluent nations, and numerous informal accounts accord withthe data.Such “positiveoutliers” suggest that some societies can support high levels ofhappiness with extremely modest material holdings. The importance ofmoney for happiness may depend strongly on what kind of society oneinhabits. An interesting question, particularly in light of commonenvironmental concerns, is how far the lessons of such societies can,or should, be transferred to other social forms, where materialattainment and happiness are presently more tightly coupled. Perhapssome degree of decoupling of happiness and money would bedesirable.
If life satisfaction attitudes are substantially arbitrary relativeto subjective success, then people might reasonably base thoseattitudes on other factors, such as ethical ideals (e.g., valuinggratitude or noncomplacency) or pragmatic concerns (e.g., comfortingoneself). Shifts in perspective might also reasonably alter lifesatisfaction attitudes. After the funeral, you might be highlysatisfied with your life, whereas the high school reunion leaves youdissatisfied; yet neither judgment need be mistaken, or lessauthoritative.
Each of us that build has to search for the appropriate philosophical basis. There are pros and cons for each approach. The moderns are in the minority as concerns domestic architecture. In that respect, modern designs are considered more unique, one-of-a-kind. They seem to be constructed by those who understand and appreciate more the modern arts than those of the traditional schools. They imply an elitism. When constructed on dramatic sites, especially in rural areas, avant garde work has an inspiring effect on its inhabitants. The interior layout and details are extraordinary. Typically wide expanses of glass, floating roofs, completely non-traditional geometries and coloration, use of materials, etc. combine to produce an unduplicable statement. The results usually justify the increased expense and efforts.
Because it can be turned out mechanically, kitsch has becomean integral part of our productive system in a way in which trueculture could never be, except accidentally. It has been capitalizedat a tremendous investment which must show commensurate returns;it is compelled to extend as well as to keep its markets. Whileit is essentially its own salesman, a great sales apparatus hasnevertheless been created for it, which brings pressure to bearon every member of society. Traps are laid even in those areas,so to speak, that are the preserves of genuine culture. It isnot enough today, in a country like ours, to have an inclinationtowards the latter; one must have a true passion for it that willgive him the power to resist the faked article that surroundsand presses in on him from the moment he is old enough to lookat the funny papers. Kitsch is deceptive. It has many differentlevels, and some of them are high enough to be dangerous to thenaive seeker of true light. A magazine like the ,which is fundamentally high-class kitsch for the luxury trade,converts and waters down a great deal of avant-garde materialfor its own uses. Nor is every single item of kitsch altogetherworthless. Now and then it produces something of merit, somethingthat has an authentic folk flavor; and these accidental and isolatedinstances have fooled people who should know better.
The concepts of elasticity of demand may not be useful to a firm that produces smartphones as they are subject to several limitations. The data that are used to calculate elasticities of demand may be irrelevant or unreliable. Data from past records may no longer be relevant to calculating elasticities of demand as some of the determinants of demand may have changed. Although data from current market surveys are relevant to calculating elasticities of demand, they may not be reliable as the respondents may not be truthful in their responses. Furthermore, if the sample sizes of the market surveys are small, the results may not be reliable as they may not be reflective of the actual markets for the goods. The assumption of ceteris paribus that is made in calculating elasticities of demand is unlikely to hold in reality. In reality, many factors such as the level of income, the price of the good and the prices of related goods are changing simultaneously. Although PED may be useful for increasing total revenue, this is not true for increasing profit due to the omission of total cost. For example, if demand is price elastic, a fall in price will lead to a larger proportionate increase in quantity demanded resulting in an increase in total revenue. However, if total cost rises by a larger extent, profit will fall. PED and XED do not take production capacity into consideration. For example, if demand is price elastic, a fall in price will lead to a larger proportionate increase in quantity demanded resulting in an increase in total revenue. However, total revenue will not rise if there is no excess capacity to increase production.