Twitter Account Explains How Beauty In Ordinary Things Is Good For Society, And The Viral Thread Is Eye-Opening
Beauty—as well as its absence—is all around us. But it takes a perceptive eye to notice it—or the lack of it—consciously. When it’s entwined with the design of ordinary things, beauty helps create a unique atmosphere that makes us care about our urban environment. However, a lack of it can be harmful and lead to apathy for our surroundings. That’s the lesson that The Cultural Tutor, a popular Twitter account, taught us all in a recent viral thread.
In an educational and, frankly, entertaining thread, The Cultural Tutor analyzed exactly why ordinary beauty has such a positive impact on us. The account also took a look at how blandness is spreading and why a mindset of function-without-form goes beyond just designs that are unappealing to the eye. Scroll down for the full thread and to read how people reacted to it, dear Pandas.
Meanwhile, when you’ve enjoyed this article to the fullest and if you feel like you’d like to learn something else from The Cultural Tutor, then we’ve got you covered. You should definitely take a peek at Bored Panda’s earlier article about their viral thread about the problem with modern architecture right over here.
More info: Twitter | CulturalTutor.com
The Cultural Tutor tackled an important issue about how beauty is disappearing from the designs that surround us
Image credits: culturaltutor
The author analyzed how beauty (or a lack of it) impacts us in our day-to-day lives
Image credits: culturaltutor
Image credits: culturaltutor
Image credits: culturaltutor
Image credits: culturaltutor
Image credits: culturaltutor
Image credits: culturaltutor
Image credits: culturaltutor
Image credits: culturaltutor
Image credits: culturaltutor
Image credits: culturaltutor
Image credits: culturaltutor
Image credits: culturaltutor
Image credits: culturaltutor
Image credits: culturaltutor
Image credits: culturaltutor
Image credits: culturaltutor
Image credits: culturaltutor
The Cultural Tutor is an account followed by nearly 230k internet users. Much of its popularity is due to the fact that it posts educational, mind-broadening content every Friday. The account touches upon a variety of topics, from design, art, and philosophy to history and, well, culture.
If the creator of the account were a professor at our local university, we’d sign up for his classes in a heartbeat. Though while we’re waiting on that, we’ve got all these awesome Twitter threads and even a possible newsletter waiting for us.
The Cultural Tutor stressed how ordinary beauty is a concept that’s been going away. Artistic flourishes and non-functional ornamentation are being replaced by bland (arguably, soulless) designs. One thought that really stuck with us is how we should create a world that we actually want to live in. That way, we care about our city, our institutions, our neighbors far more.
Or, as TCT puts it, beauty in the ordinary is “also a form of public trust.” Small details, tiny amounts of additional effort all add up into a whole that is far, far greater than the sum of its parts.
In our opinion, there’s definitely a noticeable general trend towards more generic designs, and we’ve actually discussed this recently in another article. From company logos to architecture, corporate art, and far beyond. Bored Panda had a chat about this phenomenon with Matt Johnson, Ph.D., a consumer psychology specialist, host of the human nature blog, and the author of ‘Branding that Means Business.’
He explained to us why there’s a trend of company logo homogenization. There are a few reasons for this. “The first is that as we move towards a more digital environment, there’s a need to make brand logos as legible and as easy to identify as possible. The consumer’s attention is strained even more in the online world, so logos can’t afford to be disfluent or challenging to process,” Professor Johnson said.
“Secondly, there also may be a growing realization of the ‘fluency effect’: the relatively robust behavioral science phenomenon that the more fluent a font is written in, the more likable and trustworthy the message. As more brands become familiar with this phenomenon, they may want to test new, more fluently written logos to capitalize on this effect.”
“While this logo trend is seen across a wide array of industries, there may be only one or two within each industry that may make this change, since if everyone did, they would not be differentiating as well. There may be a broader implication of this: if companies begin to recognize that consumers, at least in digital environments, prefer more basic logo designs, brands will rush to be the first in their industry to do so to plant their flag first. While all brands want to be at the razor’s edge of consumer preferences, no brand wants to be seen as the copycat of their competitor,” he mused.
“I imagine the general trend will persist, especially in the digital environment. If it turns out to be the case that more basic, legible logos are more suitable for online preferences, we may also move to a system where each major brand has at least two distinct brand logos: one in the digital world, and one for the physical world. This is already happening to a certain extent since many brands that have gone to a more basic font haven’t completely jettisoned their originals and retained them for specific uses,” Johnson told Bored Panda.
“Since branding is fundamentally about differentiation, there will be an upper limit to how much brand logos can homogenize and go together on a single dimension. It’s great to adapt to new consumer preferences, but if every brand does that in the same way, it fails to differentiate in a significant way. This is why I think there is a ‘race’ within each industry to be the first to do so, which then makes things more difficult for their competitors: should they persist in making their logo more basic, at the risk of looking like a copycat? Or should they cede that positioning and devise a way to differentiate by some other means?”
According to the consumer psychology specialist, brands can differentiate themselves in other ways. “For example, brands may double down on fluent soundmarks, tighter taglines, or speaking product features that are trademarked and exclusive. In this way, we may see a much richer adaptation to the online world, which goes above and beyond the legibility of brand logos.”
Here’s how some people reacted to the viral Twitter thread and what they thought about the relationship between aesthetics and functionality
Image credits: harrydaniyan
Image credits: megandavidson
Image credits: gnsGoblin
Image credits: laraduro1
Image credits: piupiupiurepiu
Image credits: phasepunk
Image credits: RFox576
Image credits: nirhindi
Image credits: RashAdamsNG
Image credits: Okurrrrrr18
Image credits: ElPatreota
Image credits: citrusviews
Image credits: 3BlackAsh
Image credits: _less_ordinary_
Image credits: SarahMcHarg
Image credits: nirhindi
I understand what he's getting at, but he seems to have forgotten that artists need to be paid fairly for their work. When a town doesn't have the funds to build a "beautiful" library, should they just not build one at all, or should they go with the plain, functional design? When a city is struggling with crime and homelessness, are the taxpayers going to be happy if their tax dollars are spent on a new, magnificent city hall? The problem isn't that no one WANTS beauty in architecture, the problem is that the money to beautify public spaces often isn't there.
You can still design things that are beautiful even if they don't cost much. Cheap doesn't have to be ugly, I think that's the point of the article
Load More Replies...As interesting as this thread is, it seems obvious that this man only appreciates old buildings, old architecture, old style in general. Yeah, ornate decorations are pleasing to the eye, but they are also a testament to the times they were built. He is lacking many examples of modern beauty in public spaces - so in the end his plea for beauty only seems to be a rant about any place that wasn't build 100 (or more) years ago.
I’m hard pressed to find much modern beauty in public spaces where I live. I agree with others that it’s a bit more expensive, so municipalities are loathe to justify the expense. But it can (and should) be done, imho. We usually just don’t even try to find a way.
Load More Replies...As a steampunk I think this is exactly what many steampunk artists are trying to do: Put beauty back into ordinary objects by giving them a design (and material) of the 19th century. (Although I prefer that old-fashioned aesthetic I also think there are enough people that really like minimalism and more modern design.)
I don't think it's just steampunk, it's all the punks. Diesel, solar, cyber, retro future, etc. Someone talked about there not being a contemporary art trend, but I think it's the punks.
Load More Replies...My home town (Nottingham, UK) destroyed the wonderful Market Square that used to look wonderful with fountains, trees and then they updates it, the fountain went only to be replaced which what can be described as arcs of p**s and what looks like a huge trough urinal, the rest got slabbed over (which can be slippery when wet) and then come summer months they decide to have a beach on the thing. Sadly most picture these days on google show it in its newer format. Oh and I forgot to add that now you also get the screech from the tram wheels.
What is with these councils replacing paving with slippery stuff!? My council did the same on our high street; replaced brick blocks with this stuff where every 3rd paver becomes a deathtrap in rain or ice.
Load More Replies...I don't have a problem with minimalism, I do have a problem with brutalism. Complex is not always useful - when I was in Uni the Maths department was housed in a building known as the Escher building because of its resemblance on the inside to an MC Escher painting. The outside looked like a Borg ship, it was completely inaccessible to anyone with a disability and no-one could find any rooms. Horrible thing. But it won an architecture award...
Exactly! I like minimalism over something too complex. It's brutalism what really gets me and sadly, it had quite a moment last century.
Load More Replies...The demolition picture got me thinking of the town I currently live in, Hamburg, Germany. I can see it all over the place: Buildings from the 70s, 80s, 90s, being already demolished, whereas much older buildings are preserved with huge efforts.
The Japanese have a concept "elevation of the mundane". Everything is made with beauty in mind. Even matches. Love that!
Beauty in modern architecture is often more subtle than it is in classical architecture. The library at the university I attended is an excellent example. It is typical mid-1970s architecture, lots of brick and glass and exposed concrete, and orange carpet. Taken alone, the building is pretty harsh and awful, but it wasn't meant to be taken alone. It was meant to be filled with potted plants! The plants (beneficial for keeping the humidity at the right level) are the beauty in the architecture, both the indoor ones and the trees planted right outside those big expanses of glass. 13981_5961...2191fa.jpg
The bins are a big one for me Because someone only needs to design a beautiful but simple bin once, something that costs about the same to make as the ugly ones. Once the bins are designed and the bin molds are made then that area can keep using the new pretty bin. yes beautiful buildings cost a lot more but things that can be done once in a mold and then chugged out? they should be made to be lovely.
I agree. However, they don't need to pay millions to make towns more beautiful. Sometimes it's just simple. My town look way better now they planted some flowers in public places and changed old concrete benches for wooden ones.
5 pictures down is a hideous building with an Iceland in. Thought I recognised it and checked with Streetview. That was the Newbury, Berkshire (UK) branch. "Was" because it's gone now. We didn't like it much either.
The problem is when architects push their ideas of aesthetic and function when neither are in fact correct. In my country there was a big push for 'brutalist' architecture and we still have some of it left. It was much beloved of that age of architects. They put it EVERYWHERE. Aside from the aesthetic there was the issues of practicality. Roofs were flat and, in a wet, cold country this soon led to dampness, mould etc. Those built as housing lasted longest as local authorities would refuse to recognise problems and called it 'condensation' and blamed tenants. The resulting mould caused many illnesses in children. The last of these will be coming down in the next 10 years. Architects don't design things for people, they design for trends and they take no thought that many designs that work well in hot, dry countries don't work well on cold wet ones. This is the opposite of what they're supposed to do. To be fair to much of this replaced bad, older hounsing..
Oh my, another one of these. Some of the more beautiful things he talks about are obviously more modern than some of the ugly ones. For instance, the fancy bins and signs are significantly more modern than the brutalist buildings. Also, comparing a road designed for traffic with a street for pedestrians is ridiculous. The destruction of ugly buildings actually weakens his argument. If uglier buildings are demolished earlier, then we only see the beautiful buildings from the past. That means we overestimate the beauty of the past due to survivor bias.
I always called it, 'humans being half arsed' again! Makes me sooo bored with human spaces..no imagination is truly a killer of soul..
Just look at McDonald's used to be bright and fun now it's just depressing
I miss all the nature that surrounded us. It's been demolished in the last 50 years of my life. I hate living now.
Buildings need to be functional and many of these older ones simply aren't. That's not to say that modern ones always are, Frank Ghery's work is famously terrible for leaks etc. But take for example the Houses of Parliament/Westminster Palace in London. It is no longer fit for purpose as a space for government. The heating and cooling bill is massive, there isn't enough space for the requisite offices etc. They should have sold it to someone rich to turn it into a luxury hotel or apartments, and built a custom parliament building for Britain in Birmingham, with onside accommodation for the MPs so they can no longer swindle expenses. Instead they spent absolutely millions and squillions on maintaining a building, while the UK has a poverty rate of 20%, 1/3rd of children live in poverty, and our corrupt government continues to get away with everything
The picture with with the cobbled street - so lovely except when it's slippery after the rain. Or if you have poor mobility. Or you're in a wheelchair. Or a child in a pram. But yes, let's value l aesthetics over everything else.
It’s the difference between being alive and living. I agree with the person who commented on the “puritan” effect on British architecture; I think the same is true in much of the US. Something beautiful as well as functional questions the austerity (and therefore morality) of the person who designed it, however subtly, in some cultures. I much prefer ordinary beauty myself.
Beautiful but maintainable. If you can’t replace parts that fail or paint it without specialist skills then it will look horrible in 2 years and removed as a failed attempt in 5. Too unique is not maintainable, but building with kits is. Imagine a street column tall and straight. Boring right? But put a decorative kit on it and paint it a strong colour and now it’s beautiful. Column and trim can easily be replaced as they fail and the paint redone. Beautiful and maintainable.
It also brings up the point of ownership vs renting. When people don't own anything they have no interest in keeping it nice. That's one of the main reasons neighborhoods go downhill. Landlords are in it for the money and generally spend no more than what is necessary unless they intend to sell.
I do get the point. But sadly, that little bit of extra detail costs money. The ornate carving, the different colour paint, the larger volume of raw materials used. It's not always practical to have beautiful. At the same time, there are also some awful human beings who seem to like ugly architecture. The U.K. has some truly appalling brutalist concrete architecture - bleak, depressing, nondescript. And yet listed (protected) because it supposedly has artistic or cultural merit. Noooooo! Destroy it all! Now!!
It's not even about form or function anymore, this is about money. All the decorative items cost money to make, by simplifying the design it saves money. I'm a designer and believe me when I say that whenever a design is turned in, there's a committee of people that all have input and want changes made. There's always, always that one person in the group that says "You know, if we remove/change such and such, we can shave $X off the cost." so it gets changed. After years, even decades of this, designers have gotten used to it so from the start many designs are simplified and take into account manufacturing techniques (like modular parts that can be used on several different items). It's all about money and profit.
Brick Expressionism! Do I need say more? Just look at how this style of buildery has rendered the towns that were growing fast in the 1920's and 1930's - beautiful, but not over the top, while still perfectly functional. The concrete deserts, the wastelands of brutalism and other ugly styles ... d'uh...
+ also ... there is some aesthetics in functionality, too. Bridges are a prime example, and often the last thing that still has any effort, despite looking the way they do because they work the way they do, they're often the nicest buildings around.
Load More Replies...Exactly, I agree 1000%! In Anaheim, CA they have demolished beautiful old buildings and replaced them with ugly bland buildings, what a shame!!
I actually live 40 mins away from Durham which I a photo situated on here. It is getting changed and rebuilt into a new, more modern, bus station 🚉 with new features too ...... I am actually sick of all these changes, I want the old world back 😪. Why does everything have to be fixed in order for it to be beautiful. I love ❤ rough, natural , raw and untouched beauty.... THAT is real beauty to me. Nothing about England is getting changed for the better, they are only thinking of racking more money in , and not appreciating the ideas of the common society. I hope that one day it does come and bite them on their arses like rabid wolves, and then, and only then, they will be able to see what aesthetic hell they have us living in ..... There are also countries that have mixed nature and city living , modernity, together to make what looks like a dystopian view on the world.... its magical , especially in certain lighting ..... nature is the world's most powerful force, don't mess or change what is designed to last forever on its own. There will always be beauty in the madness, and the chaos is the foundation point on what is yet to come. And if we have changed too much when it is time for us to see the raw nature of mother nature, her wrath will be the coming storm that we will never be ready for. We are a poor and broken nation. In fact, the world. Its not that we don't want to be "beautified " , it is just the reason that we can not afford to become "beautified" . And so we let the onset of the rough and ruggedness set in , and that is what the new "beautify " is, and basically free of charge. Society is a cold callous monster waiting to swallow us whole, even the modern times we are glued to our phones whilst commuting ect, we are letting technology take over, and the price of that we will pay for as we are ignoring mother nature gift which all around is..... we need to just stop, look up , and see her gift in her transforming of the universe.... a little goes a long long way, and if we all do our bit with nature, no matter how big or small, it will slowly and collectively come together to create a much more beautiful world..... she is the artist, and we are her tools, so let's "paint" the world in a way that is pleasing to her and not just ourselves. We are her paintbrushes, our hands are, so let's just take a step back and see how we can make adjustments to a world which is already beautiful in its own rugged way . All the damage is hurting her, all the changes to remodernise building ect.... leave things be, and soon you will see the wood for the trees 🌳
I'll tell you why. Because people suuuuck!!! They love to destroy, deface, or outright steal. Anything that looked unique, saleable, meltable, or p**n-worthy would go first.
I have seen roundabouts in France where I wanted to pitch a tent and spend my holiday!
I moved from Boston to South Florida and was dismayed by the lack of beauty in both buildings and parks. My next move was to Valencia, Spain and I’m surrounded by architectural beauty again.
I mean I cant say that i have seen that myself. I live in viña del mar look it up on google you will find really pretty
I have a well known habit of decorating pretty much everything I own in some way. My door has a colourful flag hanging on it, my walls are covered in artwork, my fridge is covered in stickers (and more art), my ceiling is decorated with a galaxy of glow in the dark stars, moons and planets - even my toilet seat lid has a cute panda face decal on it. If I have the choice between buying a plain kitchen utensil or one with an interesting shape or that has a picture on it, I choose the latter even if it's a bit more expensive. And I've decorated myself quite thoroughly with interesting jewellery and tattoos. I want to be surrounded by things that are interesting or pretty (or both!) to look at. It's one of those things that make life much more enjoyable to live. For me, anyway.
I don’t think having an eclectic style is what they’re referencing.
Load More Replies...I understand his point but..... I like to think I appreciate art and beauty however, with a few exceptions if it works and is not butt ugly I'm good. I see no need to spend my money or tax dollars on artistic flair. Most people using a courthouse or other government buildings have bigger things to worry about than how the building looks.
I understand what he's getting at, but he seems to have forgotten that artists need to be paid fairly for their work. When a town doesn't have the funds to build a "beautiful" library, should they just not build one at all, or should they go with the plain, functional design? When a city is struggling with crime and homelessness, are the taxpayers going to be happy if their tax dollars are spent on a new, magnificent city hall? The problem isn't that no one WANTS beauty in architecture, the problem is that the money to beautify public spaces often isn't there.
You can still design things that are beautiful even if they don't cost much. Cheap doesn't have to be ugly, I think that's the point of the article
Load More Replies...As interesting as this thread is, it seems obvious that this man only appreciates old buildings, old architecture, old style in general. Yeah, ornate decorations are pleasing to the eye, but they are also a testament to the times they were built. He is lacking many examples of modern beauty in public spaces - so in the end his plea for beauty only seems to be a rant about any place that wasn't build 100 (or more) years ago.
I’m hard pressed to find much modern beauty in public spaces where I live. I agree with others that it’s a bit more expensive, so municipalities are loathe to justify the expense. But it can (and should) be done, imho. We usually just don’t even try to find a way.
Load More Replies...As a steampunk I think this is exactly what many steampunk artists are trying to do: Put beauty back into ordinary objects by giving them a design (and material) of the 19th century. (Although I prefer that old-fashioned aesthetic I also think there are enough people that really like minimalism and more modern design.)
I don't think it's just steampunk, it's all the punks. Diesel, solar, cyber, retro future, etc. Someone talked about there not being a contemporary art trend, but I think it's the punks.
Load More Replies...My home town (Nottingham, UK) destroyed the wonderful Market Square that used to look wonderful with fountains, trees and then they updates it, the fountain went only to be replaced which what can be described as arcs of p**s and what looks like a huge trough urinal, the rest got slabbed over (which can be slippery when wet) and then come summer months they decide to have a beach on the thing. Sadly most picture these days on google show it in its newer format. Oh and I forgot to add that now you also get the screech from the tram wheels.
What is with these councils replacing paving with slippery stuff!? My council did the same on our high street; replaced brick blocks with this stuff where every 3rd paver becomes a deathtrap in rain or ice.
Load More Replies...I don't have a problem with minimalism, I do have a problem with brutalism. Complex is not always useful - when I was in Uni the Maths department was housed in a building known as the Escher building because of its resemblance on the inside to an MC Escher painting. The outside looked like a Borg ship, it was completely inaccessible to anyone with a disability and no-one could find any rooms. Horrible thing. But it won an architecture award...
Exactly! I like minimalism over something too complex. It's brutalism what really gets me and sadly, it had quite a moment last century.
Load More Replies...The demolition picture got me thinking of the town I currently live in, Hamburg, Germany. I can see it all over the place: Buildings from the 70s, 80s, 90s, being already demolished, whereas much older buildings are preserved with huge efforts.
The Japanese have a concept "elevation of the mundane". Everything is made with beauty in mind. Even matches. Love that!
Beauty in modern architecture is often more subtle than it is in classical architecture. The library at the university I attended is an excellent example. It is typical mid-1970s architecture, lots of brick and glass and exposed concrete, and orange carpet. Taken alone, the building is pretty harsh and awful, but it wasn't meant to be taken alone. It was meant to be filled with potted plants! The plants (beneficial for keeping the humidity at the right level) are the beauty in the architecture, both the indoor ones and the trees planted right outside those big expanses of glass. 13981_5961...2191fa.jpg
The bins are a big one for me Because someone only needs to design a beautiful but simple bin once, something that costs about the same to make as the ugly ones. Once the bins are designed and the bin molds are made then that area can keep using the new pretty bin. yes beautiful buildings cost a lot more but things that can be done once in a mold and then chugged out? they should be made to be lovely.
I agree. However, they don't need to pay millions to make towns more beautiful. Sometimes it's just simple. My town look way better now they planted some flowers in public places and changed old concrete benches for wooden ones.
5 pictures down is a hideous building with an Iceland in. Thought I recognised it and checked with Streetview. That was the Newbury, Berkshire (UK) branch. "Was" because it's gone now. We didn't like it much either.
The problem is when architects push their ideas of aesthetic and function when neither are in fact correct. In my country there was a big push for 'brutalist' architecture and we still have some of it left. It was much beloved of that age of architects. They put it EVERYWHERE. Aside from the aesthetic there was the issues of practicality. Roofs were flat and, in a wet, cold country this soon led to dampness, mould etc. Those built as housing lasted longest as local authorities would refuse to recognise problems and called it 'condensation' and blamed tenants. The resulting mould caused many illnesses in children. The last of these will be coming down in the next 10 years. Architects don't design things for people, they design for trends and they take no thought that many designs that work well in hot, dry countries don't work well on cold wet ones. This is the opposite of what they're supposed to do. To be fair to much of this replaced bad, older hounsing..
Oh my, another one of these. Some of the more beautiful things he talks about are obviously more modern than some of the ugly ones. For instance, the fancy bins and signs are significantly more modern than the brutalist buildings. Also, comparing a road designed for traffic with a street for pedestrians is ridiculous. The destruction of ugly buildings actually weakens his argument. If uglier buildings are demolished earlier, then we only see the beautiful buildings from the past. That means we overestimate the beauty of the past due to survivor bias.
I always called it, 'humans being half arsed' again! Makes me sooo bored with human spaces..no imagination is truly a killer of soul..
Just look at McDonald's used to be bright and fun now it's just depressing
I miss all the nature that surrounded us. It's been demolished in the last 50 years of my life. I hate living now.
Buildings need to be functional and many of these older ones simply aren't. That's not to say that modern ones always are, Frank Ghery's work is famously terrible for leaks etc. But take for example the Houses of Parliament/Westminster Palace in London. It is no longer fit for purpose as a space for government. The heating and cooling bill is massive, there isn't enough space for the requisite offices etc. They should have sold it to someone rich to turn it into a luxury hotel or apartments, and built a custom parliament building for Britain in Birmingham, with onside accommodation for the MPs so they can no longer swindle expenses. Instead they spent absolutely millions and squillions on maintaining a building, while the UK has a poverty rate of 20%, 1/3rd of children live in poverty, and our corrupt government continues to get away with everything
The picture with with the cobbled street - so lovely except when it's slippery after the rain. Or if you have poor mobility. Or you're in a wheelchair. Or a child in a pram. But yes, let's value l aesthetics over everything else.
It’s the difference between being alive and living. I agree with the person who commented on the “puritan” effect on British architecture; I think the same is true in much of the US. Something beautiful as well as functional questions the austerity (and therefore morality) of the person who designed it, however subtly, in some cultures. I much prefer ordinary beauty myself.
Beautiful but maintainable. If you can’t replace parts that fail or paint it without specialist skills then it will look horrible in 2 years and removed as a failed attempt in 5. Too unique is not maintainable, but building with kits is. Imagine a street column tall and straight. Boring right? But put a decorative kit on it and paint it a strong colour and now it’s beautiful. Column and trim can easily be replaced as they fail and the paint redone. Beautiful and maintainable.
It also brings up the point of ownership vs renting. When people don't own anything they have no interest in keeping it nice. That's one of the main reasons neighborhoods go downhill. Landlords are in it for the money and generally spend no more than what is necessary unless they intend to sell.
I do get the point. But sadly, that little bit of extra detail costs money. The ornate carving, the different colour paint, the larger volume of raw materials used. It's not always practical to have beautiful. At the same time, there are also some awful human beings who seem to like ugly architecture. The U.K. has some truly appalling brutalist concrete architecture - bleak, depressing, nondescript. And yet listed (protected) because it supposedly has artistic or cultural merit. Noooooo! Destroy it all! Now!!
It's not even about form or function anymore, this is about money. All the decorative items cost money to make, by simplifying the design it saves money. I'm a designer and believe me when I say that whenever a design is turned in, there's a committee of people that all have input and want changes made. There's always, always that one person in the group that says "You know, if we remove/change such and such, we can shave $X off the cost." so it gets changed. After years, even decades of this, designers have gotten used to it so from the start many designs are simplified and take into account manufacturing techniques (like modular parts that can be used on several different items). It's all about money and profit.
Brick Expressionism! Do I need say more? Just look at how this style of buildery has rendered the towns that were growing fast in the 1920's and 1930's - beautiful, but not over the top, while still perfectly functional. The concrete deserts, the wastelands of brutalism and other ugly styles ... d'uh...
+ also ... there is some aesthetics in functionality, too. Bridges are a prime example, and often the last thing that still has any effort, despite looking the way they do because they work the way they do, they're often the nicest buildings around.
Load More Replies...Exactly, I agree 1000%! In Anaheim, CA they have demolished beautiful old buildings and replaced them with ugly bland buildings, what a shame!!
I actually live 40 mins away from Durham which I a photo situated on here. It is getting changed and rebuilt into a new, more modern, bus station 🚉 with new features too ...... I am actually sick of all these changes, I want the old world back 😪. Why does everything have to be fixed in order for it to be beautiful. I love ❤ rough, natural , raw and untouched beauty.... THAT is real beauty to me. Nothing about England is getting changed for the better, they are only thinking of racking more money in , and not appreciating the ideas of the common society. I hope that one day it does come and bite them on their arses like rabid wolves, and then, and only then, they will be able to see what aesthetic hell they have us living in ..... There are also countries that have mixed nature and city living , modernity, together to make what looks like a dystopian view on the world.... its magical , especially in certain lighting ..... nature is the world's most powerful force, don't mess or change what is designed to last forever on its own. There will always be beauty in the madness, and the chaos is the foundation point on what is yet to come. And if we have changed too much when it is time for us to see the raw nature of mother nature, her wrath will be the coming storm that we will never be ready for. We are a poor and broken nation. In fact, the world. Its not that we don't want to be "beautified " , it is just the reason that we can not afford to become "beautified" . And so we let the onset of the rough and ruggedness set in , and that is what the new "beautify " is, and basically free of charge. Society is a cold callous monster waiting to swallow us whole, even the modern times we are glued to our phones whilst commuting ect, we are letting technology take over, and the price of that we will pay for as we are ignoring mother nature gift which all around is..... we need to just stop, look up , and see her gift in her transforming of the universe.... a little goes a long long way, and if we all do our bit with nature, no matter how big or small, it will slowly and collectively come together to create a much more beautiful world..... she is the artist, and we are her tools, so let's "paint" the world in a way that is pleasing to her and not just ourselves. We are her paintbrushes, our hands are, so let's just take a step back and see how we can make adjustments to a world which is already beautiful in its own rugged way . All the damage is hurting her, all the changes to remodernise building ect.... leave things be, and soon you will see the wood for the trees 🌳
I'll tell you why. Because people suuuuck!!! They love to destroy, deface, or outright steal. Anything that looked unique, saleable, meltable, or p**n-worthy would go first.
I have seen roundabouts in France where I wanted to pitch a tent and spend my holiday!
I moved from Boston to South Florida and was dismayed by the lack of beauty in both buildings and parks. My next move was to Valencia, Spain and I’m surrounded by architectural beauty again.
I mean I cant say that i have seen that myself. I live in viña del mar look it up on google you will find really pretty
I have a well known habit of decorating pretty much everything I own in some way. My door has a colourful flag hanging on it, my walls are covered in artwork, my fridge is covered in stickers (and more art), my ceiling is decorated with a galaxy of glow in the dark stars, moons and planets - even my toilet seat lid has a cute panda face decal on it. If I have the choice between buying a plain kitchen utensil or one with an interesting shape or that has a picture on it, I choose the latter even if it's a bit more expensive. And I've decorated myself quite thoroughly with interesting jewellery and tattoos. I want to be surrounded by things that are interesting or pretty (or both!) to look at. It's one of those things that make life much more enjoyable to live. For me, anyway.
I don’t think having an eclectic style is what they’re referencing.
Load More Replies...I understand his point but..... I like to think I appreciate art and beauty however, with a few exceptions if it works and is not butt ugly I'm good. I see no need to spend my money or tax dollars on artistic flair. Most people using a courthouse or other government buildings have bigger things to worry about than how the building looks.
193
50