> That's a very wrong idea of beauty you have, there is no such thing as "objective quality". Not believing that there is such a thing as objective beauty is a

> That's a very wrong idea of beauty you have, there is no such thing as "objective quality". Not believing that there is such a thing as objective beauty is a recent phenomenon. Going back to ancient philosophers and in to the Italian Renaissance, the consensus was such a thing existed: * https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/ And we don't have to go that far back to find it, as as 'recently' as the Victorian era architectural designs were based on such principals (such as the golden ratio): * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-0XJpPnlrA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-0XJpPnlrA Having different be elements proportional to each other was basic stuff pre-WW2: * https://www.youtube.com/@BrentHull/search?query=proportion https://www.youtube.com/@BrentHull/search?query=proportion > Point is, contemporary architecture is always ugly. Give it 50 years and it becomes historical and beloved. I'm not sure (m)any people find beauty in most of the brutalist buildings that are now ~50 years old. Some of Le Corbusier's works are noted: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Architectural_Work_of_Le_Corbusier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Architectural_Work_of_Le_C... but I'm not sure how many would be called "beloved".