5 ms·

I think in US culture there isn't generally much regard for taste or aesthetics for some reason. You can see in cities, public places, transport, offices, peopl

by enra 8y ago

I think in US culture there isn't generally much regard for taste or aesthetics for some reason. You can see in cities, public places, transport, offices, people's homes, clothing, packaging. Aesthetics or function is either not considered at all, or done with a horrible taste (think most airports, government offices). In general, at least in Northern Europe, we have beautiful well kept and functioning cities, libraries and I think it's some kind pride or attitude in the culture, that while things are necessary, they can be also be beautiful, it doesn't necessarily have to cost more.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
This is so wrong. America is full of beauty, and many have great taste. Maybe America is not to your taste.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  He didn’t say that America wasn’t beautiful, he was talking specifically about American cities. There are some beautiful parts of some American cities, but I think the general criticism is fair. I think it just so happens that the same is true of most cities around the world too. There are beautiful parts of Paris, London, Athens, St. Petersburg etc, but also large gray, dirty, ugly parts. It’s right to point out that large parts of many cities are dirty and ugly, but unfair to single out America as being uniquely culpable in creating such spaces. It’s also unfair to compare the the nicest parts of Amsterdam with the worst parts of SF, just as it’s unfair to compare the nicest parts of Boston with the worst of Mumbai. What America is full of is natural beauty, but generally outside of the cities. From sweeping desserts to warm beaches and deep forests, they have it all, and it really is beautiful. Northern Europe is lovely too, but it’s also small, far from densely populated, and homogenous. America is vast and varied, and if we’re talking about the whole continent it has everything from glaciers to rainforests.
  - lifeformed 8y ago
    I don't think it's America specifically, I think it's just all newer parts of cities. Old parts of cities are nice because the ugly parts have been torn down and only the nice buildings remain. The ugly parts of otherwise nice cities tend to be the stuff from the past century that hasn't died off yet. America is pretty young and grew a ton in the past century, so there's still a ton of 50's era mass-produced architecture and car-centric civic designs. They're not old enough to need replacing yet. I don't think those will stand the test of time, but there's still some gems in there that I hope to see persist. I think we just need more time for the cities to evolve.
- huntertwo 8y ago
  There is something to be said about beauty being exclusively secondary to a place’s purpose in the US though. This is evidenced by the fact that when American cities champion creative efforts, it’s seen as special. For example, street art in Chicago is seen as something positive but different. All of America’s buildings aren’t brutalist and ugly, but clearly aren’t looking at aesthetics as a primary concern.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    I've yet to find any street art in Chicago that is beautiful. This is obviously subjective, but I just think it looks trashy.
    - erikpukinskis 8y ago
      Of the three explanations: 1) you’re in the wrong neighborhoods 2) you have bad taste 3) there is no good street art in Chicago ... I don’t think #3 is the most likely.
  - CaptainZapp 8y ago
    brutalist != ugly At least not necessarily.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    Many are. Frank Lloyd Wright was an American designer who embraced beauty. There have been many others. American architecture is certainly not the center of brutalism. I have no idea what you are alluding to. Can you name a city you would consider aesthetically bankrupt so I can understand what you’re refer maxing?
cm2187 8y ago
Only thanks to the taste of pre-XX architecture. For anything built since the 50s, it's another matter.
vanilla-almond 8y ago
I'm not American (and don't live in the US), but this is a ridiculous over-generalisation. The US is a massive country of over 320 million. It attracts architects and designers from around the world, as well as producing many influential and world-leading figures of it's own. The country is so vast, that making such sweeping generalisations like this can never capture the enormous quality and scope of design (good and bad) that must stretch from one side of the country to another.
sandworm101 8y ago
>> You can see in cities, public places, transport, offices, people's homes, clothing, packaging. Yes. Art and beauty happen where private money is funding the construction. There are some great corporate buildings, private houses and churches. But public structures, things funded by governments spending tax dollars, lack heart. Compare US manhole covers to those in Japan, or even Germany. The cost difference is negligible, but US cities just lack the whimsy. Or compare US coinage to Canadian. American money is covered in symbols, crests and dead guys. Canada went with polar bears, beavers and loons.

by enra 8y ago

erikpukinskis 8y ago

This is so wrong. America is full of beauty, and many have great taste. Maybe America is not to your taste.

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
He didn’t say that America wasn’t beautiful, he was talking specifically about American cities. There are some beautiful parts of some American cities, but I think the general criticism is fair. I think it just so happens that the same is true of most cities around the world too. There are beautiful parts of Paris, London, Athens, St. Petersburg etc, but also large gray, dirty, ugly parts. It’s right to point out that large parts of many cities are dirty and ugly, but unfair to single out America as being uniquely culpable in creating such spaces. It’s also unfair to compare the the nicest parts of Amsterdam with the worst parts of SF, just as it’s unfair to compare the nicest parts of Boston with the worst of Mumbai. What America is full of is natural beauty, but generally outside of the cities. From sweeping desserts to warm beaches and deep forests, they have it all, and it really is beautiful. Northern Europe is lovely too, but it’s also small, far from densely populated, and homogenous. America is vast and varied, and if we’re talking about the whole continent it has everything from glaciers to rainforests.
- lifeformed 8y ago
  I don't think it's America specifically, I think it's just all newer parts of cities. Old parts of cities are nice because the ugly parts have been torn down and only the nice buildings remain. The ugly parts of otherwise nice cities tend to be the stuff from the past century that hasn't died off yet. America is pretty young and grew a ton in the past century, so there's still a ton of 50's era mass-produced architecture and car-centric civic designs. They're not old enough to need replacing yet. I don't think those will stand the test of time, but there's still some gems in there that I hope to see persist. I think we just need more time for the cities to evolve.
huntertwo 8y ago
There is something to be said about beauty being exclusively secondary to a place’s purpose in the US though. This is evidenced by the fact that when American cities champion creative efforts, it’s seen as special. For example, street art in Chicago is seen as something positive but different. All of America’s buildings aren’t brutalist and ugly, but clearly aren’t looking at aesthetics as a primary concern.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  I've yet to find any street art in Chicago that is beautiful. This is obviously subjective, but I just think it looks trashy.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    Of the three explanations: 1) you’re in the wrong neighborhoods 2) you have bad taste 3) there is no good street art in Chicago ... I don’t think #3 is the most likely.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  brutalist != ugly At least not necessarily.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  Many are. Frank Lloyd Wright was an American designer who embraced beauty. There have been many others. American architecture is certainly not the center of brutalism. I have no idea what you are alluding to. Can you name a city you would consider aesthetically bankrupt so I can understand what you’re refer maxing?

cm2187 8y ago

Only thanks to the taste of pre-XX architecture. For anything built since the 50s, it's another matter.

vanilla-almond 8y ago

I'm not American (and don't live in the US), but this is a ridiculous over-generalisation. The US is a massive country of over 320 million. It attracts architects and designers from around the world, as well as producing many influential and world-leading figures of it's own. The country is so vast, that making such sweeping generalisations like this can never capture the enormous quality and scope of design (good and bad) that must stretch from one side of the country to another.

sandworm101 8y ago

>> You can see in cities, public places, transport, offices, people's homes, clothing, packaging. Yes. Art and beauty happen where private money is funding the construction. There are some great corporate buildings, private houses and churches. But public structures, things funded by governments spending tax dollars, lack heart. Compare US manhole covers to those in Japan, or even Germany. The cost difference is negligible, but US cities just lack the whimsy. Or compare US coinage to Canadian. American money is covered in symbols, crests and dead guys. Canada went with polar bears, beavers and loons.