Boy, do I hate these clocks! The fine people at Movado know well that you don't need to have numbers on the face as long as you've got hands, so the idea that this clock expresses some sort of saucy insouciance* regarding the keeping track of time is somewhat absurd. The only thing the numbers on the bottom express is the desire of the possessor of the clock to be seen as someone who doesn't care about his worldly obligations and therefore need not be in thrall to the passage of time—but who really is, and wants to be able to track the movement of the hands across the face of the clock.
Since it's the hands, and not the numbers, that enable one to tell time, I propose an alternative clock. It would have numbers, since it must be apparent what is being denied. And would be round, of course. But it would have no hands, no hands at all.
We can, and should, take this further. The clock is to have no hands, but it should have three cylinders at the center, batteries at the back, and a softly whirring motor in between, causing one of the cylinders to rotate a full revolution in 24 hours, one in one hour, and one in one-sixtieth of an hour. It would be as close as possible to being a wall clock, and lack only the one feature that would actually make it possible to tell time with it. Indeed, it would just be tacky—pointless, even—without the battery, motor, and rotations.
*aka "insauciance".
A little to spare for my tastes. I'd make it a musical clock by adding a sound system that plays 4′33″ on continuous loop.
Posted by: JP Stormcrow | May 01, 2008 at 10:09 PM
No, only on the hour.
But actually that would ruin the concept! In multiple ways, but here's one: 4'33" has movements, I believe three of them. Thus at two points during the performance one can, or ought to be able to, hear the pianist closing and then opening the ... lid? you know, the part of the piano that covers the keys. I think. I've heard this, anyway. Do pianists really do this between movements? I'm all overcome with doubt now.
But the point is, what you suggest is garish and frightful.
Posted by: ben wolfson | May 01, 2008 at 10:29 PM
I think you want this.
It doesn't have numbers, but it's still obvious what's being denied. It's hard to outflank the preposterousness of the market.
Posted by: beamish | May 02, 2008 at 06:27 AM
And it's ugly, to boot. Amazing.
Posted by: ben wolfson | May 02, 2008 at 08:10 AM
But the point is, what you suggest is garish and frightful.
Sigh. Will I never learn?
Posted by: JP Stormcrow | May 02, 2008 at 09:01 AM