An object has to survive to become an antique, and we now build things not to

The argument

Proponents of this position argue that becoming an antique is a matter of physical survival before it is a matter of taste. An object has to last long enough to become old, which means it has to be made of materials that endure and in a way that allows repair. Proponents argue that the furniture, tools and household goods which reached us from earlier generations did so because they were built from solid timber, metal and glass, joined by methods a later owner could take apart, and made in the expectation of being mended rather than replaced. Proponents argue that the goods we now produce are built on the opposite assumption. Particle board, moulded plastic, glued joints and sealed assemblies are cheaper and perfectly adequate for the years an object is expected to be wanted, but they are not repairable and they do not age into anything. A chair that cannot be re-covered or re-glued is thrown out when it fails, and proponents argue that an object thrown out at the end of its usefulness never gets the chance to acquire the only quality that would have made it valuable later, which is simply having lasted. They add that the economics reinforce the materials. Where a replacement costs less than a repair, repair stops happening, and proponents argue that the trades which once kept objects in service have correspondingly disappeared, so even an owner who wants to mend something often cannot find anyone to do it. The argument concludes that because we now make goods that cannot survive long enough to become old and have dismantled the means of keeping them in service, we have stopped creating antiques.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that the comparison is distorted by survivorship, since the flimsy and disposable goods of earlier centuries did not reach us and the solid pieces that did were a small and expensive minority, so we are comparing today's cheapest goods with yesterday's best. They add that well-made objects are still produced in quantity, by craftspeople, specialist manufacturers and premium brands, and that these will survive exactly as their predecessors did. Critics also note that durability is not what makes something collectable: paper, textiles and photographs are among the most prized antiques and are among the least durable things ever made.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Durability is not what makes an object collectable, since paper, photographs, textiles and books are among the most prized antiques and among the least robust things ever made. [Rejecting P2] Well-made furniture, tools, instruments and ceramics are still produced in quantity by craftspeople and specialist manufacturers, so the premise describes the cheapest tier of output rather than all of it. [Rejecting P3] Repair has not vanished but shifted, and restoration trades, salvage markets and a large amateur repair culture keep objects in service. [Rejecting C] At most it follows that fewer of today's goods will survive, not that none will, and scarcity is what makes survivors valuable.