3 ms·
Just to make a counter point - you're suggesting a completely modernist tabula rasa view of aesthetics, which doesn't seem to gel with observed human aesthetic
by dbspin 3y ago
Just to make a counter point - you're suggesting a completely modernist tabula rasa view of aesthetics, which doesn't seem to gel with observed human aesthetic preferences, whether in fine art or architecture. Our reactions to aesthetics are obviously culturally mediated, but that doesn't mean that they are exclusively culturally derived (culture too of course springing from shared evolution). Cross culturally to pick an uncontroversial example, we show a high expressed preference for windows, higher ceilings, less cramped rooms etc. This extends also to proportionality, symmetry, ornamentation etc. The very recent historic move away from aesthetically pleasing buildings has much more to do with economics and the priorities of industrial and post industrial society, than the choices of the citizens who have to live in frequently grim and alienating environments.
Andries Kerpestien has a good series on some universal expressed aesthetic preferences in relation to architecture - https://casualrealism.substack.com/p/architecture-and-evolution-i-the?s=w https://casualrealism.substack.com/p/architecture-and-evolut...
- mrtksn 3y agoI agree with you completely about aesthetics, it's just that not all art or design has to serve the function of pleasing people. In some cases people want to induce fear, disgusts, sadness, sense of control, of greatness, of smallness, of oppression etc.
- dbspin 2y agoI might humbly suggest that architects and architecture should rarely if ever be employed to induce fear, disgusts, sadness, loss of control, smallness, oppression etc. That fact that it all too frequently does so, especially in public housing and industrial architecture is my point exactly.