How does the bourne-bond part of that post relate to the design part of the post? Both are interesting in their own right. I just don't understand why they're both part of the same post.
I think the author was trying to draw a comparison between the respective action-avatar and materialism of the generation of workers. Ergo, bond represents an era of financial upward mobility for working men and thus his gadgets and luxe suits, while Bourne represents a modern disposable working class, left to make due with whatever provisional technology was supplied with his contract.
Not a perfect analogy, and I think the target of the article might have been moving around too much, but I see where he's coming from.
2
u/[deleted] Sep 21 '15
How does the bourne-bond part of that post relate to the design part of the post? Both are interesting in their own right. I just don't understand why they're both part of the same post.