I have been called a prickly perfectionist. and it’s true. I want things to be perfect. “perfect” of course being defined by whatever standard I find acceptable in that moment.

jokes aside, I do think there’s some clarifying that needs to be done around the concept of perfection. so, allow me.

when people think “perfection isn’t attainable. it’s a waste of time to pursue it”, what they’re doing is making perfection an interobject phenomenon. this type of comparison is indeed a waste of time because how do you compare a croissant to a donut in terms of “perfection”? they’re both glorious in their own ways.

perfection is better understood and appreciated as an intraobject phenomenon. both the croissant and the donut can be perfect, assuming they’re both of good quality and not stepped on or something.

what I’m trying to stab at here is that objects have “ideal forms” or “perfect forms” or “artistic forms” or whatever you want to call them. strawberry donuts might not be categorically comparable cream filled because they’re two different things, but there can exist perfect versions of each of those.

that’s what’s meant by this “intraobject” style of perfection. you’re doing A Thing in the best way that that thing should be done. it’s very Rick Rubin-esque.