Why Do We Choose an Ugly World Over a Beautiful One?

[@ivokroon977]

If you look at movie scenes you also very rarely see people using smartphones or devices. When you do see them, the scenes are often boring. Instead we appear to be entertained by real embodied human interaction with the world and each other. Great to have you back.

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

Very true. Thank you and we'll try to stay consistent!

[@ruben4447]

Good point. Maybe it doesnt have anything to do with what youre saying but smartphones and social media should disappear. How come we do all this effort to make everything less time consuming so we dont waste time on them yet we dont try to do anything against social media which wastes the most of our time. Its probably a stupid idea and even for me it would be hard but it would be much better for our health and soul.

[@user-1mrndslvd8h]

That's why I like old films. In general, all the good films have already been made, there is nothing to watch now. Primitive people, primitive conversations, primitive plots.

[@user-1mrndslvd8h]

Also, in old films, women are very beautiful. Moreover, they look like women, and men look like men and behave accordingly.

[@jhhwild]

Most modern things aren't built with beauty in mind, its all about saving time, money, and maximizing profit.

[@callnight1441]

Its sadly the reality when you want to build a lot of things that people can afford. No point in spending a lot of time and money on something that no one will be able to buy

[@jhhwild]

@@callnight1441 Yeah, I understand why not everything is beautiful. Beauty takes time, effort, labor, and the costs add up. I don't need to live in a picturesque palace, I need a roof over my head that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. And if everything is beautiful the novelty will wear off and it will just be the new standard after we get accustomed to it.

[@renansilveira2013]

And people still say that capitalism isn't the problem

[@jhhwild]

@@renansilveira2013 I don't think capitalism is entirely to blame. A lot of ugly architecture came from Communist countries, just look at those Soviet apartment blocks.

[@renansilveira2013]

@@jhhwild Not advocating for communism too, but we live in capitalism, and at this reality, the problem revolves around what capitalism defends. Yes, communism expecially in architecture, ended up in the same problem. But... we ain't communists. And also, these are not the only two possibilities, capitalism wasn't always around, comunism is even younger. Both can go to shit, we need to change fkn everything because the whole world is going to shit, and latecapitalism is always, always the answare to why.

[@richardprofit6363]

I think we're all (consciously or not) feeling the pain of losing our contact with nature (and seeing it destroyed)..unnatural things aren't usually beautiful to us in the deepest sense..

[@danielwhyatt3278]

I believe that indeed to be true.

[@MyAwesomeSon]

Incredible video! You perfectly put into words the reality of the world today and importance of beauty around us, which is something that is often sadly neglected.

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

Thank. you, we appreciate it. We really believe beauty is one of the things that can save the world.

[@edwardjiang8824]

I don't normally comment on videos but I want to encourage you to keep up!! Thank you Man for the inspiration you bring and subsequently (probably) change my life!

[@UAP]

We try to spot modern/ugly churches where we live. People are supposed to worship something unlimited and magical and they chose an ugly place to do it, we can't understand it.

[@Iliadic]

It's because 1) Building stuff is expensive and churches often don't operate with too much money (anything smaller than a megachurch has *maybe* a *total* of $10,000/week for EVERYONE.) So, the people get paid a small salary, and then maintenance, events, upkeep, etc. all of that has to be managed. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's how it is; and I agree with you, we need churches to be beautiful; another problem arises though, is that the churches that *look* pretty, all these old historic churches, likely aren't teaching proper theology and are actually leading people astray. Not all of them of course, but a lot.

[@paull330]

How do we define what is beautiful and what is novelty? A lot of what is considered beautiful is also what is novelty compared to its surroundings. I live beside many large Victorian houses, with local government policies designed to keep the Victorian aesthetic intact. They don't strike me as particularly beautiful, whereas a lone Victorian house in the countryside would. The juxtaposition of one type of architecture on a totally different backdrop is beautiful, but if you expand that beautiful architecture to take up the entire landscape, it becomes considerably less beautiful. Even natural scenery is simply a collision of novelties. A soldier who tracks through a mountain valley with a heavy pack can appreciate the beauty of the valley from atop it's crest, but still knows the ugliness of trekking it's marshy depths. Beauty depends on perspective as much as anything else. A cinematic shot of a futuristic metropolis may look beautiful from afar or even a cyberpunk dystopia, but it is made up of a million ugly things contributing to a beautiful whole.

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

I agree, it's difficult to define, but I would say that at least one characteristic is that beauty endures as beautiful over time while novelty changes character over time. I think this is because beauty is ultimately disclosing patterns of reality to us, and that won't change over time and cultures. So, if something was considered beautiful 500 years ago and is widely agreed to be beautiful today, then there's a good chance it's manifesting beauty, not novelty. Most sunsets have this character. Something like Mont Saint Michel has this character. A shining futuristic city scape probably doesn't. But to your point about beauty changing from different perspective I think there's truth to that--maybe because from different perspective we see different patterns of reality. The pattern of the entire valley is one thing, while the pattern of the stinking marsh is something else.

[@Ramansdo3s]

Can't agree enough with the comments presented here. Modern art has similar problems to modern architecture, and I'm convinced it's because of some putrid determination to break away from all and any traditional aesthetics. Will the old sensibilities ever return, the ones that just seemed more in alignment with simple sanity? Don't know - I hope so. For now, we can all only keep calling out the sheer hideousness of our postmodern world, hope that things improve. The depressing thing is, it feels as though we could be in for a bloody long wait before things do improve. I for one won't hold my breath. By the way, Gary, great to see you back.

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

Thanks, Michael. I think of a return of concern for beauty will only come with a retur of actual communities rooted in particular places because it's only then that the forces that lead to ugliness can be overcome by more powerful concerns such as a love of culture and future generations. But it was the global drive for profit that was one of the main forces that led to the destruction of communities, so it's not clear how we get there at present absent something cataclysmic.

[@ed7590]

Happy to see you posting videos again Gary, welcome back! A couple of thoughts that crossed my mind as I was listening. Your point about a lot of modern beauty just being novelty is spot on, but is the reverse not also true? Would a steam train and a stone viaduct, while impressive, not have seemed industrial and utilitarian in its age? Would an old western saloon bar not just have looked like your local bar looks to you? As an aerospace engineer, I also appreciate the very rare crossover of utility and beauty in which is often found in aircraft; the spitfire or the Concorde both spring to mind. Both timeless in their beauty and ruthlessly efficient for their task. SR-71 is another great example. Contrary to what you said I also believe dams can be beautiful. Old masonry dams here in the UK are stunning, my favorite is Scar House dam in North Yorkshire. Could it not be that we're looking with rose tinted glasses at the efforts of the past? Cathedrals for sure were built beautiful as a monument to God, but a lot of the beauty found in Rome or other impressive European architecture was really just built as a symbol of power and status, is that any better for the world than convenience and efficiency? I could not agree more about plastic though. You really got me thinking and I honestly cannot say I've ever seen something beautiful made of plastic. Thanks for an interesting video!

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

Good thoughts. I think the steam train is right at the border of what can be enduringly beautiful, but even after the novelty's gone, I think a train such as the Harry Potter one would still be deemed lastingly beautiful by most people. But change just a few factors like how much the landscape was scarred to put in the track, whether the train is belching mostly steam or black smoke, how clean and free of grime the engine is, whether the train is used to haul other beautiful things or ugly things like tanks, and it crosses over into ugliness. I think the steam punk aesthetic plays with this border of beauty and ugliness. I think that stone viaducts are more of an easy case as stone structures of nearly any sort seem to be universally beautiful over thousands of years. Change the material to concrete, however, and you instantly cross over to likely ugliness. I also think an old saloon is more in the enduring category as long as it has some basic craftmanship because it's made of natural materials--wood, stone glass leather and from what I can tell, there was more of a concern for crafting things with adornments back then that add to beauty. I also agree that aircraft can have beautiful elements, and flight itself has a beauty. My pilot brother even has a painting of a spitfire on his wall, but like steam trains I think it's right there at the border because certain elements aren't beautiful like the fuel, the pollution, the noise. Also the purposes often aren't beautiful such as the SR-71 being used for spying. In the end, I think all this shows that beauty can be a complex thing, hence why there's disagreements (but there's also things everyone agrees on, like the beauty of a sunset, which shows it's not just all in the eye of the beholder either). A good example is Roman architecture. I think most of it is enduringly visibly beautiful, but as you point out, it stood for things that could be ugly, so the purposes can taint an otherwise beautiful structure.

[@ed7590]

@@ThomasGaryNuila Thanks for such a well thought out reply. I didn't have many disagreements, just playing devil's advocate where there could be some grey areas. It's interesting that we seem to be drawn to natural materials then, perhaps it's the artificial nature of plastic that's at odds with what we're evolved to find comfortable in our surroundings. Strange though that there are plenty of beautiful examples of glass despite it (clear glass at least) also being artificial. What do you think the difference could be? I'm also interested that you say the use of the object can influence its beauty. Does that mean a lot of perceived beauty could be founded in ignorance? A lot of beauty in nature has underlying and potentially even manipulative mating strategies (siren archetype), architecture is another example like we both said. One could find the SR-71 undoubtedly beautiful when ignorant of its purpose, or a broadsword, or an amphitheater. I don't expect ongoing replies, I'm sure your busy. My primary message is that I'm glad you're back! I hope life is treating you and your family well at MissionTop :)

[@zaraxxasblackstone4004]

This video has true beauty. Thank you so much for expressing this important message!

[@soar_on]

whenever i'm out on a walk i speedwalk to nature so i won't get depressed by the offensively boring and ugly suburbs

[@javierpacheco8234]

Ornamentation is beautiful and our past architecture, we put ornament in our architecture. We should design more beautifully, it's good for us.

[@someguywithabirdface2583]

Architects dream is engineer's nightmare and labourers helll

[@MassiveChetBakerFan]

I think a LOT of people would love to live in relatively high-density medieval-style towns, with charming narrow cobbled streets, alleys, beautiful towers, etc. Like those amazing villages in Tuscany. Unfortunately, planning restrictions wouldn't allow them in most places, especially the "Land of the Free." If we could get rid of zoning rules requiring land to be used only for single-family homes and minimum parking requirements, I believe some developers would build beautiful high-density communities because the demand is there.

[@martinsweda]

Nice to have you back!

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

Thank you. The kids are helping me with editing now and we've built making these into our daily schedule so hopefully we'll be more consistent.

[@socalgingerjohnson]

Great view on this subject. I have never understood how our historical buildings were built by those with less of an ability to do so. I am not even sure we could replicate the buildings we have inherited prior to WW1. I suppose we would need to reevaluate the history passed down to find truth.

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

I've heard master craftsman (carpenters, masons, metalworkers) are in very high demand right now because there's plenty of work just on maintaining the present buildings and so few people that can replicate the past skills. The still-in-construction Sagrada Familia in Barcelona is a hopeful example of the marriage of beautiful craftsmanship and modern buildings techniques, although it's still an ugly construction zone with ugly industrial cranes etc.

[@javierpacheco8234]

@@ThomasGaryNuila but those ugly construction cranes you are referring too are helping to carrying the large stone parts for the cathedral. I don't find cranes to be ugly but important for construction of highrise structures.

[@electric_leo1630]

I only half agree with what you have said. while beauty is not subjective I do think its complicated. The powerlines you said were ugly I admire. Yes they are just metal skeletons with cables but the sheer scale of those giants standing in a line into the distance is something I love to see. Smaller wooden power lines are also beautiful in different ways. When I walk around the countryside its very nice to walk down a path lined by power lines especially if its a wooded area or if the path is narrow as it makes the place more interesting and the poles themselves look kinda cute in a nuanced way. brutalist buildings can also be beautiful but in the opposite way to classical buildings. Their durable, functional and honest attributes can look beautiful when costs aren't trying to be cut and passion is being put into them as mentioned.

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

While I appreciate your point, and there may be an occasional person who agrees with you, I would think the vast majority of people would find a landscape without power lines more beautiful than one with them. Perhaps I'm wrong.

[@user-1mrndslvd8h]

We also dress very ugly now. I can accept fake leather, but I agree with the author on the rest.

[@Spookspek]

4:50 Yes, actually. Also, I find art Art Deco cars quite beautiful.

[@notfamous649]

This is sooooo underrated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Absolute masterpiece!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@illumstern8831]

Great video. I recommend you look up the architectural style known as "Brutalism." It's a bit of a rabbit hole that might answer some of your questions as to why things are so ugly now a days.

[@The_New_Abnormal_World_Order]

Good design gets us closer to God.

[@monkpool]

To me, there’s nothing wrong with modern architecture but the issue I have is that lately, it’s been Quantity over Quality

[@christiannimmo7279]

Nice video Gary, I like the format, great job from the boys on the footage, and its such a cool idea you explore.

[@zhangshiyucao]

This makes me think of finland, incredible nature while most of the buildings are ugly af.

[@m41437]

I kinda like the general rule: convenient = ugly. What I don't like is people choosing ugly.

[@theoutergod8666]

I agree on most points. But damn, calling engines ugly.... No no, that is where I drew the line. I WOULD HANG A PAINTED ENGINE ON A WALL!!

[@carny15]

Why?

[@theoutergod8666]

@@carny15 Because engines are beautiful.

[@ihaetschool3361]

simple. one is practical, the other is not

[@officialwork1679]

What a fantastic analysis!

[@davidbrims5825]

In Switzerland they put all the electrical power lines under ground.

[@user-fe2lr5jw4i]

I love the thought you have put into this I would just disagree with the last idea that “we have the wealth and resources” to realize a world of beauty. The tldr is: the kings that built castles did not give them to the 90% who lived in substantially uglier houses. The issue is that in order to raise the standard of living we must prioritize that over beauty. For example, for people living in extreme poverty in large swaths of Asia and Africa an ugly car and an ugly house with access to gas and electricity, stoves, fridges, clean water and cheap food, ugly doctors office, and an ugly strip mall is orders of magnitude better than what they might currently have. we could spend our resources to make beautiful structures but then only the ultra wealthy will have access to them and the rest of us will be worse off not better.

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

I would disagree that it required great wealth in antiquity to create beauty. Beauty doesn't have to mean opulent palaces and kingly castles. In my experience, nearly anything built with natural materials such as wood, stone, adobe, reeds, animal skins etc. will have a simple beauty. Think of the teepees of the plains indians, the thatched huts you see in early Europe or the simple settlers cabins you still find standing across The United States. I agree with you that nearly everyone has traded beauty today for modern conveniences, but I would also argue that if we had it as a supreme value, it would still be possible to build economical beautiful houses today made from wood, stone, brick and other beautiful materials, and retain modern conveniences. Perhaps it would be a bit more expensive, but within the realm of reason, and if we were willing to build our own homes again, and build more modest homes instead of McMansions the prices would perhaps even be lower than those made from uglier synthetic materials. Another point is that even in much poorer societies as recent as 80 or so years ago, such as in the small towns dotting the United States, communities managed to build beautiful school houses, town halls and main street businesses that are much more beautiful than anything that is built today, and these towns were far poorer than our own by comparison. The difference is that they valued the beauty more than we do. So I maintain my claim that from houses to our public buildings, it's well within our capabilities today to build beautifully. It would probably be somewhat more expensive, and because we don't value beauty today we go with the cheaper options, but choosing to build beautifully is still well within our means.

[@arcabuz]

I agree with all that. As Spanish and European I’m blessed with our heritage. Except for the big comercial malls of US inspiration and the McDonalds and Starfuks scattered along our streets Europe still holds much beauty. For some reason US and China have embraced ugliness as a flag of progress.

[@JohnBorstlap]

Good video. Contemporary ugliness is the result of modernism, the ideology that promotes progress over any other consideration, progress for the sake of progress, and preferably technological progress. But the only real progress is qualitative progress and that means there is enough reason to look at beautiful things and learn from them. In architecture, painting and (serious) music there are already many successful attempts at creating beauty, and not the superficial beauty of kitsch, but meaningful beauty: new classical architecture, new figurative painting, new classical music. It can be done. Only, establishments still don't accept it because to them it seems 'oldfashioned'. But beauty cannot age, so any beautiful thing from the past has still all of its own meaning today and in the future.

[@commandosolo1266]

Re: electric vehicles, of course they are an improvement! As a proud owner, I'll never go back to petrol. No toxic emissions, no oil changes, and so very quiet! Could the physical vehicles be made more attractive? Yes of course, but the priority right now is affordability to encourage people to update. As batteries degrade, the physical arrangement of the elements inside changes, but the elements themselves do not change; they are never used up. The internals of the batteries are completely recyclable. Compared to the ugliness of a filling station, commercial charging stations can be so unobtrusive! They're basically cables dangled down from existing power lines. There's room for improvement of course but compared to a filling station, they're marvelously discreet. As to the sources of electric power, yes solar panels are ugly. Could they be made less ugly? No one's tried, have they? Dams? They could be transformed to blend in to the surroundings as artificial waterfalls. Wind? I fully concede modern windfarms are ugly, but would you call a Holland-style windmill ugly? Electric vehicles are an aesthetic improvement over internal combustion in every way, and I hope gasoline engines go the way of NTSC/PAL TVs.

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

Good points. One more point to consider--the vast mining operations that will be needed to produce the billions of batteries that will be needed to transfer everyone to electric cars will almost certainly bring additional ugliness to any place they exist on the planet. I don't think I've ever seen a mining operation done beautifully, except maybe....Moria?

[@commandosolo1266]

I'm sure you would find the forest of rusty "grasshoppers" in West Texas spectacularly ugly. However, @@ThomasGaryNuila, not all mining operations are strip mines. We do have cases where even strip mines have been repurposed. One of the reasons space travel's heating up again is because the moon and asteroid belt are rich sources of the rare earths we need. And as mentioned once humans have a certain amount of such elements, we will remain sated as, unlike petrochemicals, they are recyclable and never used up. Oil exporting countries like Putin's Russia are ugly in a different sense. Finally, I submit that given the consequences of not moving away from fossil fuels, our entire planet could become a very ugly hothouse.

[@StarlasAiko]

One problem, aside from convenience and cost, is also space and resource. We would need to depopulate the cities quite a bit, to be able to provide everybody with a beautiful life..or spread the cities further into the greenbelts to reduce population density without reducing population quantity, thereby ruining more natural beauty in favour of less beautiful urban beauty.

[@fpm8338]

I agree with you, those newly built community homes are very very ugly

[@ravimediatube]

We make it ugly because its cheap and functional.

[@ravimediatube]

you just mentioned it nvm

[@dutchymon]

The incentive for intrinsic beauty gets punished by property taxes, and then when government spend property tax money, they spend it on marxist union contractors to render product based on lowest bid.

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

One problem I haven't been able to find a solution to yet related to what you say is that if you make anything beautiful today, it almost immediately jumps in value so much that it becomes more luxury, and prices out normal people. If you were to go into an ugly neighborhood and flip all the houses by renovating them into more beautiful styles and materials, you would almost assuredly increase the values so much that the original people could no longer afford them. There's something wrong in that.

[@dutchymon]

@@ThomasGaryNuila I am looking at it from the perspective of a property owner, there is no incentive to make your property beautiful when bureaucrats punish you (year after year) with property taxes on said beauty. I am a painting contractor and a lot of people who own homes choose to leave them ugly and shabby looking because they do not want to get punished by property taxes.

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

@@dutchymon I get your point and I think it's a good one. I was merely trying to say in my last comment that there are additional things which de-incentivize people from making something beautiful and all sorts of things like this are a shame.

[@Jieisho]

i would make an argoument about the bus being cheaper than the train....

[@DavideRecchia]

Aesthetics and design preferences are often culturally specific and vary across different regions. For instance, when comparing Italy and Hong Kong, I find that Italians generally possess a more refined sense of aesthetics, evident in the design and landscaping of public areas, as well as in the layout of residential and commercial infrastructure (e.g. plumbing, electrical wiring, etc.) In contrast, I perceive Hong Kong as less aesthetically pleasing, with a lack of attention to design details in its buildings and urban landscapes.

[@renansilveira2013]

I gotta step up for cars here. Cars can be made beautiful, either those made to be good-looking and artistic, like BMWs used to be, Alfa Romeos or any low production enthusiast oriented car, or being modded by enthusiasts, roads, even roads for cars, can and usually do have nice architecture ang look great, but usually canyon roads, secondary roads or touges. Sometimes a touristic street in a city. but profit and expenses avoidance is what makes thing ugly, the Uber's VW UP or Nissan versa, the average cross over SUV will never be made to please our eyes, even if it was cheaper, a good-looking car is reserved for the expensive cars that nowadays only the wealthy can afford. Same goes for Architecture.

[@eduardof7322]

There is also an amount of historical bias here. It´s true that almost all buildings older than a 100 years that we see today are indeed beautiful... But that´s partially because if those buildings have survived so long, it´s because most of them were relevant and assigned to fulfill important roles in their time: Big government buildings, fancy mansions for rich people, temples and sites with religious importance, monuments, universities, art galleries, etc. Ugly buildings and constructions without a lot of ornament have existed since the beginning of humanity, but most of them have not been preserved beyond their immediate purpose for having a more temporary nature. Although, it is indeed true that functionalism after World War II changed architecture and almost all forms of designs forever. Since then even important buildings have been stripped from ornament and taking the most basic kinds of shapes: Cubes, triangles and rectangles. Trying to find beauty in volume, proportion, simplicity and minimalism... which also translates into much cheaper and efficient building.

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

I understand your point, but don't agree. I include buildings that haven't survived. For example, I was in Ireland a little while ago and came across an abandoned decaying village where the poorest of people used to live. I would claim that on average people would find their utterly simple houses far more beautiful than houses you would see built today by people from a similar socioeconomic status for the simple reason that structures built from basic materials--wood, stone, plants, that are far more inherently beautiful than the materials that would be used today--plastic siding, sheet metal, asphalt shingles etc. A typical barn built in the past will almost always appear more beautiful, even in a state of decay than a new barn because the old barn is built from wood or stone and the new looks cheap because it's typically built from sheet metal or cinder block. Of course not everyone will agree in every instance, beauty is subjective to a degree (and there is such a thing as having bad taste as well) but my point is that on average across all different types of buildings that have survived or haven't, I think people find buildings in the past far more beautiful than typical buildings made in the present.

[@eduardof7322]

@@ThomasGaryNuila Excelent, thank you for replying.

[@786Khany786]

You missed something, nostalgia! I’d hang up many of those things, but from the 50s/60s/70s/80s. It’s trendy to shame minimalist these days, many of those things are fine. It comes down to form vs function and rightly so in cases function was chosen.

[@commentarytalk1446]

You ask a lot of questions but repeat the same question in different ways. The question is: "What relationship is beauty - aka aesthetics - with functionality or even materialism?" My guess is there is balance and the current world is out of balance with respect to over-emphasis of the latter to the former aesthetics, philosophy and "what is beyond". A correction is needed.

[@robot7759]

Because... 💰 What else?

[@nickykostov]

❤ great video!

[@Caldermologist]

My home, from just over a month from today, is not spectacular in any way. Only built in late 18 century. Anyone who knows how to search the Internet using a picture of this building could quickly identify it and find it. From inside this builing I will see some water, and lots of trees. I will barely be able to see where the closest neighbours live. Possibly on a clear winter day.

[@Marian87]

I could live better with all the other ugliness if at least the buildings around us would be beautiful.

[@jonahavila1617]

Wonderful video and insights! Tho I may have to disagree with you on that last line. Like you stated I really think the reason we living in the world we do is because of the cost and connivence. I do not believe that the people living today or the governments have the resources to make a world that seems right out of a novel. You can seen it in your own life. I would love to live in the most beautiful room and house imaginable, yet the roadblock comes to the amount of energy and money I want to sacrifice to make that happen. It is sad but I think many more hit this same roadblock. I would like to think Architects this age would love to create more breathtaking buildings. But rather instead they are hired to create buildings that are the cost-friendly and convenient.

[@HistoriaenCeluloide]

*Because is cheaper and faster🧐*

[@manwhoismissingtwotoenails4811]

It's so refreshing to see a Christian channel talk about this stuff.

[@samlee86421]

If its cheaper to build ugly then why didn’t out great great grandparents do that. Why did they value great architecture and we don’t. I don’t believe its cheaper to build ugly. We build ugly because we care little for out neighbours. Its all me and no we

[@beautifulaether]

Agreed! I always try to find all the pretty things and look upon what is beautiful everyday. Not only physical things, but spiritual things. It reminds me of Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. There was more charm, character, nobility and virtue in things back then both spiritually, physically and mentally. The End of the World draweth nigh as mankind has destroyed everything it touches. Jesus is coming soon to restore everything. A New Heaven and Earth is coming. It will be so beautiful...Revelation 13, 14, 20, 21 / Psalm 23 / John 3:3-5

[@moritamikamikara3879]

I find it sad to say that no, most people will not choose beauty over convenience. I can show someone this video and they'll say I'm a wannabe Amish and dismiss me without a thought. ...idk man, these cities are so fucking ugly that lifestyle is damn tempting.

[@kurigaru]

-Lysandre from Pokémon XY

[@lipingrahman6648]

It’s simple the past was a poor, grim, and ugly place so humans tried to build beautiful things so they could look on something better than grim evil nature. With modern technology we subordinated nature and beaten it and made the earth safe for humans. Consequently we just don’t need the false conciliation of beauty. And bluntly as some one born in third world deep poverty where there was little of anything the trees, rivers, and stars were little comfort for the heat, cold, the smell the dirt, and backbreaking labor. It is telling you chose two fantasy worlds to try to sell a bad, stupid fantasy.

[@0przem]

Not to be the "Capitalism" guy but honestly, how much of this ugliness is attributed to the pursuit of profit in all things? Adding beauty would damage overhead. I don't think naming the ugliness of the USSR as a counter-example would work either because it was in fact in fierce competition with the west for maximizing efficiency so it too couldn't escape that cycle. I invite you to look at some buildings built in the 1950s in the eastern bloc, when communist idealism was yet high and economic growth was break-neck. They are idealistic and beautiful with a combination of historical styles and populist realism. E.g. University of Moscow or Karl-Marx Allee in Berlin. There are of course more examples from America from when capitalism wasn't at such a late a stage as today. But as we keep driving for endless growth and profit, beauty is necessarily left behind as a useless overhead. Someone will undercut your price. Unless we turn away from this mentality, we have no hope of beautifying our world in any meaningful way that isn't reserved for the rich, who can escape the rat race.

[@JonRaybon]

Most things are ugly in large part because of regulation, some of which actually have a positive effect on human lives. Fire codes, building codes, safety inspections, all of these things have been written in blood through the years. A brick arch bridge may be beautiful, but might collapse in an earthquake; a cute town with narrow streets may be a fire deathtrap, as the fire spreads quickly, and fire crews can't get to them. And cars.. the beautiful steel beasts of the 50s and 60s were death traps for anyone in an accident, so lawyers and engineers now make them soulless, but much safer. In short, insurance runs the world, and if it can't be insured, it doesn't get built or sold. To comply with regulations around the world, everything is well.. ugly.

[@mateitufan2809]

I think there's something important overlooked in this discussion: survivorship bias. 99.999% of the buildings that ever existed are gone, probably because they were convenient, utilitarian and 'ugly'. The small percentage of buildings that survived, they lasted because they were important, cared for, built for durability, and were beautiful and inspiring. We can't look at old buildings and say every building from that time looked like that, we only see the ones that survived because they were beautiful. So now look at it this way: nothing has really changed. If anything, due to tourism, beauty is even more accessible than it was before. The peasants of the medieval times dying of horrible diseases in the slums maybe had the churches and cathedrals, but did they have access to much more than that? The Roman slums were horrible and buildings always prone to collapse, doesn't matter if the Forum looked nice, that was the exception that lasted, the concentration of resources. We aren't much worse than people were historically in terms of beauty in working class and middle class surroundings. Unfortunately, beauty requires resources, not just inspiration and passion. The beauty of the Renaissance was a tool for the Medici family. The baroque a tool for the catholic church. Working class and middle class simply don't have access to what the ultra rich have access to, and when we do it's a tool for governance and influence. It's probably better these days because we have museums, art galleries, libraries open to more people than ever. Back to the telephone lines: these are requirements of the machine we live in. That in itself is probably depressing, yes, but it's the reality. It's interesting that the two examples you mention are fictional. They definitely inspire, but they are ultimately a fairytale. Real problems of population sprawl require these quick convenient solutions. It's better that many have a minimum shelter than a few have beautiful shelters for others to enjoy in the rain. There is no shortage of accessible beauty, but it is few and far between. I agree there needs to be more, but I don't think getting rid of power lines is the way to do it. There is a beauty in how machines function, and I think worse than a power line would be a power line pretending to be beautiful. Let the utilitarian elements be utilitarian, and try and hide them in some spots, but they are a necessary part of our real world. I'm not saying we shouldn't aim for this beautiful dream painted in fiction, and obviously all our psyches are calling us to manifest this beauty in the world around us. The problem is the examples mentioned here are limited as fairytales. It was never better than it is now (survivorship bias), and the only time it will ever be like this would be in our dreams, or in heaven (because the poor will always need immediate shelter and services over a palace), unless we raise everyone out of poverty. (Edit I'm probably missing something I'd love to hear what anyone else thinks)

[@mateitufan2809]

Admittedly there is something about the machine that is soul destroying. I guess you could argue the world was more beautiful because there was more nature. In that case maybe simple sprawl is the main culprit. If someone has more ideas I'd love to hear them

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

I understand your point, but don't agree. I still think that even the basic utilitarian buildings of the past are much more beautiful than buildings built for similar purposes today. For example, I was in Ireland a little while ago and came across an abandoned decaying village where the poorest of people used to live up to the late 1800s. I would claim that on average people would find their utterly simple houses far more beautiful than houses you would see built today by people from a similar socioeconomic status for the simple reason that structures built from basic materials--wood, stone, thatched roofs, that are far more inherently beautiful than the materials that would be used today--plastic siding, sheet metal, asphalt shingles etc. A typical barn built in the past will almost always appear more beautiful, even in a state of decay than a new barn because the old barn is built from wood or stone and the new looks cheap because it's typically built from sheet metal or cinder block. Of course not everyone will agree in every instance, beauty is subjective to a degree (and there is such a thing as having bad taste as well) but my point is that on average across all different types of buildings that have survived or haven't, I think people find buildings in the past far more beautiful than typical buildings made in the present. I don't argue that it's nice to have electricity, but given we agree that power lines are ugly, I'm sure we could find ways of conveying electricity that were more beautiful such as putting lines in the ground. I'm sure its more expensive, but beauty has real value and I would argue the value is worth the expense. Although the places I mention are fictional, dotted across the earth are structures and city scapes of equal beauty as the most beautiful in those worlds. We know how to create places like this and could do so if we chose to value different things (beauty over convenience). It's not going to happen overnight, but humanity has fundamentally changed its values at certain points (ex. nearly everyone in the Western world today believes in universal human rights where nearly nobody did in pre-Christian times).

[@mateitufan2809]

​@@ThomasGaryNuila Yes I think you are right, the fictional examples are just a concentration of what does actually exist so I see how they are a good reference now. I have a theory, relating to your argument on the importance of materials, if you would indulge me: It came to mind when I realised that almost unfailingly, when referencing an example of beautiful architecture from the past, people reference architecture made of stone (and the exception of timber I'll note later). I was also reading that ancient peoples or uncontacted tribes attach a symbolic meaning to stones - the ritual of rubbing stones is used as a way to gain energy from ancestors, stones are used as gravestones, stones are passed on from father to sun in some Hindu traditions believed to have magical powers. I think there is enough evidence that people psychologically project onto the environment, natural or built. This includes building materials. Stones are often a symbol of the Self in Jungian psychology, unchanging and eternal (to our lifespans), so maybe we project similar symbolic images onto timber, thatched roofs etc. But when we come to modern materials, glass, steel, concrete, these either feel cold because they have been removed from their original state that we have evolved with and made foreign to our psyche, or because they have desecrated their original form and we can sense that relationship between the original and the new. I think it's important to bring back survivorship bias and timber examples: Perhaps there is the same effect with timber architecture, and my claim that it is usually stone could be refuted by the fact that stone is more enduring and hence there are more remaining examples of beautiful stone than beautiful timber to reference. But I do think they are seen as beautiful for different reasons, because they have unique images projected onto them that marks them apart. Stone as a symbol of the Self, timber as something else, more connected to growth than endurance. So then the question comes, do we return to the materials we have positive psychological projections on, or do we redefine our relationship to modern materials to achieve a nett positive psychological projection? Steel and concrete are so useful that it seems unrealistic to completely throw them out. Perhaps a simple relic every now and then of stones and timber can offset the ugliness of the new materials. Will we adjust to the new materials or will we continue to be put off by them? As an architecture student I definitely feel different working with stone and timber vs glass concrete and steel. I like to use rocks instead of bollards because they do have some sort of spirit about them, a story more tangible and individuated than a reflective cylinder bollard. Sometimes leaving the traces of timber grain on concrete walls when you remove the formwork can imbue that projection into concrete that would otherwise feel cold. I think there is some utility in this line of thought, and there's lots to flesh out. I care about the problem of people feeling disenfranchised from their surroundings and ideally we can find a way to solve it in a viable way. Any thoughts?

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

​@@mateitufan2809 I personally don't feel we can fundamentally change the experience we have toward certain materials as regards to others. Some fill us with a sense of life, like stone and timber, and others like concrete, on aggregate never will (See Christopher Alexander's books "The Timeless Way of Building" and "A Pattern Language". I think that's because we are meaning making/sensing beings and the meaning that we sense from a material produced by the earth is always going to mean something different and feel different than a material that we produced more synthetically. It's the same reason why a diamond produced through natural processes will always mean so much more than a cubic zirconium despite the fact that they synthetic diamond may be technically more perfect. No matter how much you try to get women to not see it that way, they will continue to intuit that the natural diamond means more, and they will only settle for the "real" one in their wedding ring. That being the case, I think we should accept that fact and build buildings from materials that will produce the maximum sense of life in the people that use them. People will travel over continents and spend untold treasure just to enter such buildings. Does that mean there is no place for the added safety, efficiencies, etc. that modern materials can offer? I think there's still room but at every turn, if I were buildings a building, I would be asking myself, does the way I'm using this material add to my sense of life in the building or detract from it.

[@RainbowSlinky5]

don't think i agree with some of your views....for example just because an object can be constructed out of one material vs another does not determine if can be beautiful or not.

[@artzreal]

You forgot the key word here: the "form-function relation" (Russia under communism is a good example of how ugly it can get), so mechanics or engineering could never be really beautiful, but then again, running away from nature will always be uglier each time. Also, men are way too practical, women like to embellish everything, and one of the hardest things for humans to achieve is balance. And then came the progressives and liberals, and started to make everything really ugly. But then again, this is Satan's wold made of subverting the master plan Eden, and that explains it all better than nothing else.

[@Thomas_Sewell]

348 views, looks shadow banned.

[@colmduggan8230]

I would love to see a return of the Art Deco Style of the 1920's such beautiful buildings of the period

[@rogerevans9666]

Gee, where to begin? And it's all negative.... Charles Dickens compared Pittsburg to "hell with the lid off". Oscar Wilde complained about how noisy American cities were in the 1890's which was long before leaf blowers, car alarms, cars, trucks, motorcycles, airplanes, helicopters, cell phones, boom boxes, and vehicles that go beep-beep-beep whenever they go backwards. Hemingway said most American schools look like prison yards. Hugh Hefner said that they were too plain looking. J. Paul Getty said that Americans do not care about art. Robert Hughes said that an American artist is in the same situation as a Shakespearean actor. Phillip Johnson said that glass box buildings are ubiquitous "because they're cheap." N. C. Wyeth did not like the 20th century. In Nietzsche's "Human, All Too Human," section 220, he wrote about how society gradually ceases to create great art once it stops believing in absolutes. De Tocqueville, in his volume 2 of "Democracy in America" wrote how democratic cultures mass-produce mediocrity.

[@lavillenouvelle]

Recently, my city (a postwar, middle-density suburb) has started banning cars from most of its streets. And, without cars, everything see better. Even the big box stores and shopping centers seem more beautiful without all the cars around them. Finally, it doesn't need that much to create a beautiful environment.

[@daveindezmenez]

I would not agree that most pre-1940 homes are beautiful. They just have a higher proportion that are beautiful. And beauty is often in the eye of the beholder. There are many who find Victorian era homes uniformly beautiful. That's not the case for me and I generally prefer Tudor. And even with the case of those there are some I like better than others. You may not be able to make the whole world beautiful but it is certainly possible to make the small piece of it you have control over beautiful, even if it is just one room and corner of a yard.

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

Yes, not everything built prior to the World Wars is beautiful, but I would claim that my point is still valid if on average, the great majority of people would find most buildings much more beautiful than most buildings today. I think that's the case.

[@YyoavV]

I'm a dude that is new to cars. gonna buy my first car in less than a month probably. the amount of ugly second hand cars on the market is so huge, and I'm not talking dirty. I mean design wise. the car design on almost any car is if it were trendy, not timeless. my mom said she thought all men don't care about the color and looks of the car. well. I don't give a fck and I'm willing to spend more to get something I'll actually enjoy looking at when I drive. funnily enough I can't accept a car that doesn't have at least fake real materials. or that is too gloomy and depressing like all black interior.

[@morgo5000]

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@davidhawley1132]

I'd be long dead of old age if I lived in Hobbiton or a 19th century English village. It's not clear how we all could have beautiful handmade things, because we'd be the ones making them not machines. Maybe mechanical slaves could fill the labor gap, if they could be artisans but not sentient. Maybe living very long lives would allow us to slowly replace mass-produced items with handcrafted.

[@ThomasGaryNuila]

Part of it is that we'd probably realize we need far less things than our consumerist culture tells us we need today, and more of the things that we would make would last longer and be passed on, so there would be less need for new things for that reason as well.

[@Provo647]

Why? Because you Americans won WW2. That’s why.

[@fernandofuentes6455]

Antiguamente hasta las fábricas eran bonitas.

[@lisaonthemargins]

Let's go back to the middle ages

[@ceciliadixon3767]

𝓅𝓇o𝓂o𝓈𝓂 😱

[@lamp2556]

reason number 3675894 why capitalism is ruining us and our world

[@arepasaxo]

Consumerism*****

[@lamp2556]

@@arepasaxo same difference, its cheaper for consumers and cheaper for companies

[@thesuperdragonrelic9739]

@@arepasaxosame thing