Taste vs. Beauty
A topic that stuck out to me from the debate was the one about beauty being in the eye of the architect. Many of the people that disagreed with the statement said beauty is as subjective as it gets, I can like one thing and you can hate it. I believe what most people were referring to was the concept of taste, not beauty. Taste is absolutely subjective, while beauty is more objective than we realize. This can be differentiated using two simple ideas:
1. There are a few basic and fundamental rules of beauty
2. Beauty is about much more than curb appeal, the whole context must be considered
If you polled the average person on what beauty is, I guarantee the vast majority would say that it is subjective. When we actively think about the idea of beauty, it makes total sense that it’s subjective. I think this is beautiful, you think that is beautiful. What we don’t discuss is what’s hardwired inside of us in regards to processing beauty. For example, scale, proportion, and balance have been studied by architects forever in order to achieve beauty. The classical orders in architecture were based on them. These principles are timeless and used to this day because of a recognized feeling of pleasantness. You could also use the rule of thirds in photography as an example.
Is using these principles the only way to achieve beauty? Of course not. It’s an example that shows one type of beauty that can be achieved in very calculated, quantifiable (i.e. objective) ways. Don’t get me wrong, architects can still muck up a building using these principles.
The other main idea is what is included under the category of beauty vs taste. Taste is extremely personal and relative to your own life experiences. In a way it’s rather superficial and based on your initial gut reaction. When we drive by a building and say we hate it after a glimpse, that’s because of your specific taste. You don’t know anything about the story behind the building. A building you might hate may still be beautiful because of its story.
Take a run of the mill school building in a poor school district as an example. It might have cheap vinyl windows, aluminum awnings, and “lick-n-stick” stone veneer. In a purely architectural critique, yeah, it’s terrible. But then you learn a little more about the school and realize it’s the only place in the community for some kids to be guaranteed a hot meal and clean drinking water. The people in the community can’t tell the difference between fake and real stone. Most importantly, it came in under budget so the district could actually afford it. Wouldn’t you say that’s beautiful? You probably think I’m a little off the rails right now, and maybe I am. But it’s an odd example to illustrate that architectural beauty can’t be judged by its curb appeal. Flipping through images on the internet has damaged true architectural critique because it has reduced it to taste, very subjective indeed.
1. There are a few basic and fundamental rules of beauty
2. Beauty is about much more than curb appeal, the whole context must be considered
If you polled the average person on what beauty is, I guarantee the vast majority would say that it is subjective. When we actively think about the idea of beauty, it makes total sense that it’s subjective. I think this is beautiful, you think that is beautiful. What we don’t discuss is what’s hardwired inside of us in regards to processing beauty. For example, scale, proportion, and balance have been studied by architects forever in order to achieve beauty. The classical orders in architecture were based on them. These principles are timeless and used to this day because of a recognized feeling of pleasantness. You could also use the rule of thirds in photography as an example.
Is using these principles the only way to achieve beauty? Of course not. It’s an example that shows one type of beauty that can be achieved in very calculated, quantifiable (i.e. objective) ways. Don’t get me wrong, architects can still muck up a building using these principles.
The other main idea is what is included under the category of beauty vs taste. Taste is extremely personal and relative to your own life experiences. In a way it’s rather superficial and based on your initial gut reaction. When we drive by a building and say we hate it after a glimpse, that’s because of your specific taste. You don’t know anything about the story behind the building. A building you might hate may still be beautiful because of its story.
Take a run of the mill school building in a poor school district as an example. It might have cheap vinyl windows, aluminum awnings, and “lick-n-stick” stone veneer. In a purely architectural critique, yeah, it’s terrible. But then you learn a little more about the school and realize it’s the only place in the community for some kids to be guaranteed a hot meal and clean drinking water. The people in the community can’t tell the difference between fake and real stone. Most importantly, it came in under budget so the district could actually afford it. Wouldn’t you say that’s beautiful? You probably think I’m a little off the rails right now, and maybe I am. But it’s an odd example to illustrate that architectural beauty can’t be judged by its curb appeal. Flipping through images on the internet has damaged true architectural critique because it has reduced it to taste, very subjective indeed.
I see what you're saying and don't think you're off the rails. I'd like to compare your analysis to my experience of learning to appreciate contemporary art. As an undergrad, I was forced to study some contemporary art as part of my minor. I couldn't get into it all and found myself saying clichés 'a six-year-old could've painted that! etc."
ReplyDeleteFinally, a professor taught me that contemporary art is all about the idea behind the piece, or in other words, beauty exists in the process of the artwork. For example, one-piece featured hundreds of photographed self-portraits. There weren't any differences between the images, they all had the same lighting and backdrop. At a glance, meh... I couldn't appreciate it until I read the accompanying paragraph that explained his process that taking one self-portrait per day was his way to deal with being a holocaust survivor living alone in society. There and then, the beauty hit me.
Let's learn to value architecture similar to how we value contemporary artwork.