This is strictly about the future.
But we shouldn't simply accept things because "that's the way there are."
The past teaches us that we can do better.
Why Beauty Matters
(and how it has been destroyed by "usability")
A short thread...
This is strictly about the future.
But we shouldn't simply accept things because "that's the way there are."
The past teaches us that we can do better.
That sounds like a superfluous question, but in the 21st century it has become a vital one.
Before I try & give you an explanation, however, I think we should define beauty.
That is garishness. That is luxury. That is vanity.
This is *not* beauty:
Both ordinary, everyday things.
One is beautiful, & the other is not.
It is what gives us - humans - something more than just a material, automated, machine-like existence.
Ostensibly a place of supreme utility and nothing else. A personal waste management facility, basically...
Really?
They don't need to be dripping with gold. But even the slightest detail or character can work wonders.
That's why there are beautiful things in every country around the world, and why they all look different.
And that's how it ought to be. Why would we want everything to look the same?
Cities around the world once looked totally different. Now they are becoming identical.
Rome, Paris, Venice, Kyoto, Istanbul...
What do those cities all have in common?
That's a serious question.
Whether churches, country houses, hotels, or town halls, people seem to prefer a - dare I say it - beautiful location.
They choose beautiful warehouses with aesthetic character!
The human yearning for beauty - not luxury, but aesthetic character - is undeniable.
So why have things become so ugly? Usability has become the priority.
The Roman architect Vitruvius believed that every building should have three qualities:
-strength
-usefulness
-beauty
If that was possible 2000 years ago, why not now?
But neither should be allowed to take precedence at the cost of the other.
The elevator on the left is both, but the one on the right isn't...
If everything is simply functional, simply useful, then life becomes a mere conveyor belt.
It turns humans into machines of consumption, labour, & reproduction.
Aren't we more than that?
All over the world, our ancestors have left behind works of art & architecture for us to enjoy, admire, and use.
What do we want to leave for future generations? Buildings that need knocking down in 50 years, or something more?
In previous threads people have mentioned capitalism, economics, the loss of religious faith etc.
No doubt the causes are multiple & compound
But the first step is recognising the problem.
It's a question of priority, not cost. And, therefore, it is a choice - conscious or unconscious - every time.
This boiler-plate new building at Durham University, England, cost £40 million.
Or could the view that a beautiful building can inspire students have been factored in?
The trade-off might have been to make it a little smaller. But that might just be a worthy trade-off.
Or one in which most new schools look like prisons?! Is cutting costs really *that* important?
How can beauty come back to life?
Meanwhile I'm going to take a walk and listen to Dvořák's 6th symphony...
Glad to see that this thread has got people talking!
And if you liked it, then my newsletter Areopagus may also be of interest to you.
I share seven short lessons every Friday. They include art, architecture, and history.
https://t.co/44CfKFcWJ8
More from All
You May Also Like
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
