Often in western dining, we strive for every component of a meal to stand on its own as delicious. A steak dinner might feature carefully roasted spiced vegetables, silky mashed potatoes, and of course, a perfectly cooked steak. Every piece is singularly beautiful, carefully balancing salt, fat, and acidity. But in many cuisines, especially in cooking for the everyman, a strongly flavoured main dish is accompanied by single-purpose sides, making for a meal balanced only in totality. Plain rice might be boring, and pickled vegetables overwhelming on their own, but paired with a complex curry they become key contributors to a satisfying menu.
Both strategies make for delicious eating, but I find the latter more practical. Individuals sharing a meal can tailor the components to their taste (eg. a fan of acidity will eat more pickles, or if the curry is too salty, you can mix more rice in). Cooking the meal is also arguably easier, with the side dishes being so simple, the cooks attention can be centred on the main course of meal. I haven't thought this through, but I also wouldn't be surprised if this strategy was generally better economically, especially in terms of packing and using leftovers.
What I'm trying to say is that it makes sense for some pieces to be boring as long as they contribute to the whole.
----Lately I've been seeing discussion about the world getting uglier. I've been thinking about these topics for a while, and have been motivated to write about them after seeing Design Theory's The System That Punishes Beautiful Design (which I mostly concur with) in response to How Did the World Get So Ugly? by Sheehan Quirke.
First it is important to acknowledge the premise is broadly (though not objectively) correct. Most people would say the lamp posts erected in Victorian England are/were prettier than the ones being made today, and thus, that public spaces have lost a lot of their charm. My gripe is with how this is framed as a problem.
Designing as a Business
In enthusiast circles online, there is a consistent sentiment of things converging to boring. I've seen this most in the worlds of technology and cars, and in both cases, the lack of innovation should not be surprising. Early experimentation is natural, but by now the values of the average consumer are well defined, and executing efficiency and functionality are of the utmost importance. Of course, aesthetics and marketing still play a role, but for sustained success, a car needs to function competitively at the price it is sold at. Unfortunately for fans of standing out, the masses are less concerned with striking design than they are with reliability, fuel efficiency, comfort, storage space, safety, and cost. This is the expected outcome under capitalism: the standard product is inoffensive and general.
Fringe options with design at the forefront will always exist, but they remain rare and less accessible than what most people want.
In the first video linked above, Sheehan Quirke highlights air conditioning units as an example of modernity being ugly, stating they are in fact "worse than ugly ... boring". He posits this is because the companies making them are cheap, and would rather stretch their profits than contribute to the beauty of society. I find this absurd. For one, I think air conditioning units are, by their very nature, interesting. More importantly though, by Quirke advocating for decorating these machines, he is advocating for making them more expensive. Once again, this is necessary under capitalism. A company that doesn't maximize it's profits will be undercut by one who will. People who cannot afford to spend on aesthetics (which is a very large group) will choose their air conditioners based on efficiency and cost.
Designing as the Government
Cities make money from taxes and spend them on the public. If a city has excess money, it can lower taxes (of course, this rarely happens). If it needs to spend more, it will raise taxes and/or take on debt. Most citizens would agree that they prefer their government spending less so that taxes do not balloon. They want their government to be efficient. But creating new designs is expensive. Building detailed plans is expensive. Maintaining complex features is expensive. And for some reason, everything the government is incomprehensibly more expensive than one would expect.
It is tempting to argue that cities could be more efficient. If they were smart about it, maybe they could both reduce their budget and improve their designs! I would love for this to be the case, but I don't see how it is realistic. Pushing for beauty necessitates spending, and people already underestimate the difficulty of designing simple things that work well for a long time and a lot of people (important to highlight that accessibility should be paramount for public design). And while there is always the possibility of reprioritizing (eg. spending less on the police force, and directing those funds towards public works), the reality is that any funds for public works would likely go towards impact over aesthetics (eg. instead of updating the lamp posts to be prettier, add more of them so the city is better lit).
Finding Beauty
In Sheehan Quirke's video, he says "If you want to understand any society, don't listen to what it says about itself; look at what it creates". It is implied the lack of detail in public works and common consumer products signals that society today no longer values beauty — he decrys "We have become a society of convenience above all else". He ignores the value of that convenience. In comparison to Victorian England, society is cleaner, safer, more accessible, and (though it may not feel like it at times) more equitable. The simple fact that the vast majority of people in the west live with air conditioning is remarkable. Most houses have an oven, a refrigerator, and clean running water. If keeping these goods and services sustainable requires them not being exciting, I think the trade-off is well worth it.
Personally, I see the stance of there not being enough beauty in the world as a failure in perspective. Perhaps the lamp posts are not to your liking. You may have trouble appreciating the passion behind contemporary architecture. The parks and greenery in your city could be lacking. But the most confusing part of Sheehan Quirke's video comes toward the end, when he concedes that while beauty remains in museums in galleries, it does not suffice, as one cannot live in them. On the contrary, many people can control the space in which they live. You can decorate with new things or old things or nothing at all. And if you truly believe there are no products on sale that are worth decorating with, I am certain you're not looking hard enough, and you can also make your own. Of course, this will be constrained by one's financial situation, but it's not like affordability for the working man was any easier in the Victorian era.
Regardless, I have admitted that society lacks some lustre, and of course, am not opposed to more beauty around me. So what is the solution? The videos above don't really present anything concrete. Sheehan Quirke's message is a bit confusing, and seems to be pushing for people to place more value in beauty over convenience. Design Theory, like me, focuses on the reality of why the world has become what it is, concluding with a general message of demanding "care" from those who create. I'd like to lay out some more practical considerations for how we can add more intention to our spaces.
Add beauty through art, not opinionated design
The Stockholm subway system is a shining example of great modern design. I was introduced to it through a video by Not Just Bikes: Every Metro System Should Be This Beautiful. The stations are consistent in their base design, which is quite simple at its core, but each one is uniquely decorated by a local artist. Functional components (clocks, guard rails, lighting, flooring, escalators, walls, signage, benches) remain standard; focused on efficiency, function, and longevity. This strikes a balance between essential functionality and a pleasant experience (notably, a different pleasant experience at each station, so it is more likely an individual will find a design they like). It does cost more than leaving the stations plain, but not much more — the video goes into budgetary details towards the end if you're curious.
I've seen this around me in smaller ways: utility boxes that are painted by an artist rather than left bare, or large sculptures/murals in a city centre to add intrigue. I already feel like these add a lot to my experience of the city, but perhaps adding more would placate those who don't.
Increase the budgets for beauty — both personal and public
As mentioned earlier, I am open to the possibility of cities redirecting some funding toward public works with the intention of injecting beauty, though I find this unlikely. Increasing taxes for the wealthy also sounds reasonable to me, but I think that fundamentally, true change will require improvements to the political system (though I am not so educated on what those changes would need to be).
To combat the concern of individuals not purchasing beautiful things, the only potential remedy is increasing the wealth of the average person. Once again, it is hard to determine what the best way to do this is, but there are probably many. Reducing taxes, expanding financial support, improving affordability of essentials, etc. With more discretionary income, maybe people might spend on beauty — at least those who already want to will be able to — but there is no way to guarantee this. Following that, I guess attempting to push beauty as a value onto culture would be necessary, but I'm not sure this is worth pursuing, or that it is possible at all.
Hopefully, a market with more money to spend would allow companies to experiment more with their aesthetics, and focus on qualities beyond the objective. This is wishful thinking though, and I feel that as long as we remain in an industrious capitalist society, opinionated product design will remain on the fringes, and I am not prepared to make an argument for an alternate economic system (I don't know much about economics).
----To close, I would like reiterate that the easiest way to live in a beautiful society is to open your mind to what you find beautiful. It may sound silly, but it has worked well for me. If you're unsure how to start, my only advice is to slow down.
----------------------------------------------------------------