Why Beauty Matters

(and how it has been destroyed by "usability")

A short thread...

I want to make clear that this thread *isn't* about returning to the past.

This is strictly about the future.

But we shouldn't simply accept things because "that's the way there are."

The past teaches us that we can do better.
Why does beauty matter?

That sounds like a superfluous question, but in the 21st century it has become a vital one.

Before I try & give you an explanation, however, I think we should define beauty.
Beauty isn't just ornamentation for the sake of it.

That is garishness. That is luxury. That is vanity.

This is *not* beauty:
But compare these two train station bridges.

Both ordinary, everyday things.

One is beautiful, & the other is not.
Beauty is that aesthetic quality which elevates ordinary things into something more meaningful.

It is what gives us - humans - something more than just a material, automated, machine-like existence.
A great example is the bathroom.

Ostensibly a place of supreme utility and nothing else. A personal waste management facility, basically...

Really?
Another good example is something as simple as door-handles.

They don't need to be dripping with gold. But even the slightest detail or character can work wonders.
There is no single aesthetic standard.

That's why there are beautiful things in every country around the world, and why they all look different.

And that's how it ought to be. Why would we want everything to look the same?
And when beauty dies, everything *does* start to look the same. Usability has no identity.

Cities around the world once looked totally different. Now they are becoming identical.
But don't just take my word for the importance of beauty. Where do tourists go?

Rome, Paris, Venice, Kyoto, Istanbul...

What do those cities all have in common?
Why do people get married in *nice* buildings rather than, say, warehouses?

That's a serious question.

Whether churches, country houses, hotels, or town halls, people seem to prefer a - dare I say it - beautiful location.
And when people actually do get married in warehouses....

They choose beautiful warehouses with aesthetic character!
Why do people decorate their homes? Another genuine question.

The human yearning for beauty - not luxury, but aesthetic character - is undeniable.

So why have things become so ugly? Usability has become the priority.
A vitally important point is that beauty and utility are NOT mutually exclusive.

The Roman architect Vitruvius believed that every building should have three qualities:
-strength
-usefulness
-beauty

If that was possible 2000 years ago, why not now?
Things *should* be useful, no less than they should be beautiful.

But neither should be allowed to take precedence at the cost of the other.

The elevator on the left is both, but the one on the right isn't...
What's the danger of a world without beauty?

If everything is simply functional, simply useful, then life becomes a mere conveyor belt.

It turns humans into machines of consumption, labour, & reproduction.

Aren't we more than that?
It's also a conversation with future generations.

All over the world, our ancestors have left behind works of art & architecture for us to enjoy, admire, and use.

What do we want to leave for future generations? Buildings that need knocking down in 50 years, or something more?
As for the causes - that's another thread.

In previous threads people have mentioned capitalism, economics, the loss of religious faith etc.

No doubt the causes are multiple & compound

But the first step is recognising the problem.
Some will raise the objection that beauty costs money...

It's a question of priority, not cost. And, therefore, it is a choice - conscious or unconscious - every time.

This boiler-plate new building at Durham University, England, cost £40 million.
Did it *have* to look this way?

Or could the view that a beautiful building can inspire students have been factored in?

The trade-off might have been to make it a little smaller. But that might just be a worthy trade-off.
Second - even when beauty *does* cost more... what price is too high for a society whose architecture and design doesn't treat people like machines?

Or one in which most new schools look like prisons?! Is cutting costs really *that* important?
I think that's enough for now.

How can beauty come back to life?

Meanwhile I'm going to take a walk and listen to Dvořák's 6th symphony...
I went for a lovely long walk.

Glad to see that this thread has got people talking!

And if you liked it, then my newsletter Areopagus may also be of interest to you.

I share seven short lessons every Friday. They include art, architecture, and history.

https://t.co/44CfKFcWJ8

More from All

You May Also Like

The first ever world map was sketched thousands of years ago by Indian saint
“Ramanujacharya” who simply translated the following verse from Mahabharat and gave the world its real face

In Mahabharat,it is described how 'Maharishi Ved Vyasa' gave away his divine vision to Sanjay


Dhritarashtra's charioteer so that he could describe him the events of the upcoming war.

But, even before questions of war could begin, Dhritarashtra asked him to describe how the world looks like from space.

This is how he described the face of the world:

सुदर्शनं प्रवक्ष्यामि द्वीपं तु कुरुनन्दन। परिमण्डलो महाराज द्वीपोऽसौ चक्रसंस्थितः॥
यथा हि पुरुषः पश्येदादर्शे मुखमात्मनः। एवं सुदर्शनद्वीपो दृश्यते चन्द्रमण्डले॥ द्विरंशे पिप्पलस्तत्र द्विरंशे च शशो महान्।

—वेद व्यास, भीष्म पर्व, महाभारत


Meaning:-

हे कुरुनन्दन ! सुदर्शन नामक यह द्वीप चक्र की भाँति गोलाकार स्थित है, जैसे पुरुष दर्पण में अपना मुख देखता है, उसी प्रकार यह द्वीप चन्द्रमण्डल में दिखायी देता है। इसके दो अंशो मे पीपल और दो अंशो मे विशाल शश (खरगोश) दिखायी देता है।


Meaning: "Just like a man sees his face in the mirror, so does the Earth appears in the Universe. In the first part you see leaves of the Peepal Tree, and in the next part you see a Rabbit."

Based on this shloka, Saint Ramanujacharya sketched out the map, but the world laughed
A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.