5 ms·

I'm curious - what's something that's not an eyesore? People think art is, graffiti, even buildings, etc. The difference is some of these generates money for go

I'm curious - what's something that's not an eyesore? People think art is, graffiti, even buildings, etc. The difference is some of these generates money for governments to solve actual problems, and the others... do not.

jxf 3y ago
Most people don't think that nature is an eyesore, and many national parks are significant tourism generators for their local economies.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  I’m not sure concrete buildings are natural, and these ads were not found primarily in national parks so I don’t see the relevance. Ironically most of the arguments against ads also apply to housing which is why there’s a global housing crisis. A lack of nuanced thinking about trade offs
  - jxf 3y ago
    > I don’t see the relevance. Your question was "What's something that isn't an eyesore?", then went on to suggest that "eyesores" are not all bad since they can provide public funding for fixing problems. I gave an example of something that isn't an eyesore and provides very large amounts of public funding.
  - tchaffee 3y ago
    There are huge trees everywhere in São Paulo. Billboards would block the view of some of that gorgeous green. Nature doesn't exist just in national parks.
ericmay 3y ago
One key difference is the scale. You can think of a billboard as really bad graffiti that’s shoved in your face to manipulate you. Graffiti is ugly too (not to be confused with urban art) and should always be removed. Generating money for the government isn’t something to be concerned with in this context, and most likely a billboard doesn’t generate enough money for the government versus the drain it has on the public sphere. (I’d be shocked to find it worthwhile). I do think we need architectural standards and thankfully the federal government is looking to implement Greco-Roman architecture as mandatory for federal buildings [1]. Suburban houses for example are really awful architecture and continued research shows this [2]. Tall skyscrapers produce a fight or flight response. Beauty isn’t in the eye of the beholder. We just don’t have the tools yet to objectively define beauty. The Notre Dame Cathedral is objectively beautiful (this also answers your question about what is not an eyesore) and Boston City Hall is objectively an awful building. You can have an opinion that differs from this but it’s like having an opinion that gravity doesn’t exist. Likewise broad scale highway billboards meant to try and sell you something promote private profit at the public expense and transform otherwise beautiful landscapes into something that is jarring and disfigured. 1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28605/promoting-beautiful-federal-civic-architecture https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28... [2] https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003031543/cognitive-architecture-ann-sussman-justin-hollander https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/97810030315...
- Luctct 3y ago
  You see, you just said that "We just don’t have the tools yet to objectively define beauty" and "Boston City Hall is objectively an awful building" (and holy shit, it really is awful) in the same paragraph! Don't you see the contradiction? In another comment here, someone said, "I'm not arguing for or against that - I'm just stating a fact (...) I find it extremely ugly." Hey, "I find it extremely ugly" IS arguing against! There is the contradiction again. But you see, people are all apologetic because they are afraid of criticizing. The truth of the matter is that tagging, graffiti, murals or whatever you want to call these abominations are made by very poor youngsters who could have access to real art if they wanted (museums, libraries, internet), but they don't because they are brought up in a ghetto culture that basically forbids them from even getting interested in traditional art. And a lot of people cower when they criticize it (or never criticize it at all) because criticizing that garbage is considered politically incorrect. So that so-called "art" is only tolerated thanks to fear of reprisal and should be labeled "fascist art" because that's what it is.
  - ericmay 3y ago
    > Don't you see the contradiction? No because it's true just not proven. I can't prove to you that doing squats are good for your health as a human being but I know it to be objectively true (specific conditions aside). Medicine strongly suggests that this is the case, but there's no formal proof or tool to measure it at least that I'm aware of. Good architecture roughly follows the same pattern here, but the effects are harder to measure even though the societal repercussions of bad design are profound. > The truth of the matter is that Completely agree. I view graffiti as more of an expression of frustration (which is well warranted) than it is art. That's not to say graffiti can't be art or can't be beautiful which is why I called out "urban art" specifically, but it's by far the exception and not the rule.
  - thebradbain 3y ago
    Unpopular opinion, but Boston City Hall is an objectively VERY beautiful building. Brutalism is absolutely an acquired taste, but it is, by all measures, an objective style that can be measured against, in the same way classical or say, Spanish Mission architecture style is. In fact, some would even go so far as to argue that most Victorian/neo-classical architecture is just a chintzy facade with no real architectural rules, akin to a Vegas casino or a Cheesecake Factory (I wouldn’t, but some would). But as far as Boston City Hall being “objectively” ugly— that’s an objectively wrong statement. I can understand the vast majority might unfortunately say they personally find it ugly, but that is subjective. I have the same views on e.g. Dallas City Hall too, which I think is another stunning example of a beautiful building many people hate. Saying a pile of trash covered in mold and feces is objectively ugly— I’d agree there. Barring that, though, I’m of the strong opinion that most anything expressive, including graffiti, is “art”. Your response to whether you find it beautiful or not is your own, but that does not make it art or not.

jxf 3y ago

Most people don't think that nature is an eyesore, and many national parks are significant tourism generators for their local economies.

endisneigh 3y ago
I’m not sure concrete buildings are natural, and these ads were not found primarily in national parks so I don’t see the relevance. Ironically most of the arguments against ads also apply to housing which is why there’s a global housing crisis. A lack of nuanced thinking about trade offs
- jxf 3y ago
  > I don’t see the relevance. Your question was "What's something that isn't an eyesore?", then went on to suggest that "eyesores" are not all bad since they can provide public funding for fixing problems. I gave an example of something that isn't an eyesore and provides very large amounts of public funding.
- tchaffee 3y ago
  There are huge trees everywhere in São Paulo. Billboards would block the view of some of that gorgeous green. Nature doesn't exist just in national parks.

ericmay 3y ago

One key difference is the scale. You can think of a billboard as really bad graffiti that’s shoved in your face to manipulate you. Graffiti is ugly too (not to be confused with urban art) and should always be removed. Generating money for the government isn’t something to be concerned with in this context, and most likely a billboard doesn’t generate enough money for the government versus the drain it has on the public sphere. (I’d be shocked to find it worthwhile). I do think we need architectural standards and thankfully the federal government is looking to implement Greco-Roman architecture as mandatory for federal buildings [1]. Suburban houses for example are really awful architecture and continued research shows this [2]. Tall skyscrapers produce a fight or flight response. Beauty isn’t in the eye of the beholder. We just don’t have the tools yet to objectively define beauty. The Notre Dame Cathedral is objectively beautiful (this also answers your question about what is not an eyesore) and Boston City Hall is objectively an awful building. You can have an opinion that differs from this but it’s like having an opinion that gravity doesn’t exist. Likewise broad scale highway billboards meant to try and sell you something promote private profit at the public expense and transform otherwise beautiful landscapes into something that is jarring and disfigured. 1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28605/promoting-beautiful-federal-civic-architecture https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28... [2] https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003031543/cognitive-architecture-ann-sussman-justin-hollander https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/97810030315...

Luctct 3y ago
You see, you just said that "We just don’t have the tools yet to objectively define beauty" and "Boston City Hall is objectively an awful building" (and holy shit, it really is awful) in the same paragraph! Don't you see the contradiction? In another comment here, someone said, "I'm not arguing for or against that - I'm just stating a fact (...) I find it extremely ugly." Hey, "I find it extremely ugly" IS arguing against! There is the contradiction again. But you see, people are all apologetic because they are afraid of criticizing. The truth of the matter is that tagging, graffiti, murals or whatever you want to call these abominations are made by very poor youngsters who could have access to real art if they wanted (museums, libraries, internet), but they don't because they are brought up in a ghetto culture that basically forbids them from even getting interested in traditional art. And a lot of people cower when they criticize it (or never criticize it at all) because criticizing that garbage is considered politically incorrect. So that so-called "art" is only tolerated thanks to fear of reprisal and should be labeled "fascist art" because that's what it is.
- ericmay 3y ago
  > Don't you see the contradiction? No because it's true just not proven. I can't prove to you that doing squats are good for your health as a human being but I know it to be objectively true (specific conditions aside). Medicine strongly suggests that this is the case, but there's no formal proof or tool to measure it at least that I'm aware of. Good architecture roughly follows the same pattern here, but the effects are harder to measure even though the societal repercussions of bad design are profound. > The truth of the matter is that Completely agree. I view graffiti as more of an expression of frustration (which is well warranted) than it is art. That's not to say graffiti can't be art or can't be beautiful which is why I called out "urban art" specifically, but it's by far the exception and not the rule.
- thebradbain 3y ago
  Unpopular opinion, but Boston City Hall is an objectively VERY beautiful building. Brutalism is absolutely an acquired taste, but it is, by all measures, an objective style that can be measured against, in the same way classical or say, Spanish Mission architecture style is. In fact, some would even go so far as to argue that most Victorian/neo-classical architecture is just a chintzy facade with no real architectural rules, akin to a Vegas casino or a Cheesecake Factory (I wouldn’t, but some would). But as far as Boston City Hall being “objectively” ugly— that’s an objectively wrong statement. I can understand the vast majority might unfortunately say they personally find it ugly, but that is subjective. I have the same views on e.g. Dallas City Hall too, which I think is another stunning example of a beautiful building many people hate. Saying a pile of trash covered in mold and feces is objectively ugly— I’d agree there. Barring that, though, I’m of the strong opinion that most anything expressive, including graffiti, is “art”. Your response to whether you find it beautiful or not is your own, but that does not make it art or not.