> Obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so maybe you think that these buildings are pretty. In that case, good on you. But I guess there are also a l

> Obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so maybe you think that these buildings are pretty. In that case, good on you. But I guess there are also a lot of people who find them quite ugly. > I often wondered what makes these buildings so ugly and distressing (unless you like them, I'm not questioning anyone's personal taste), and whether there was beauty in them which I am not capable of seeing, maybe because of my own biases. > maybe you don't find [Las Vegas hotels] attractive > The Monte Carlo [...] is more orderly and pleasant than the monster building thanks to its symmetry and some decorative patterns. > I am not saying that Las Vegas hotels look beautiful. The author spends a lot of the article telegraphing the fact their view is subjective and may not gel with others, so apologies for falling into this trap myself, but... using Vegas hotels as an aesthetic example to follow really jarred with me. This is indeed subjective, but I can't help but feel the author is in a minority here? No?