Another good article! The test of asking "which place has more life" is a brilliant way to short circuit our academic thinking. Alexander, Baghos, and McGuilquist are quite the power trio, excited to read the next one!
Yes, it's so easy to rationalize your way to bad ideas! I think his approach to the problem was quite brilliant. All three of these thinkers have helped change my view of the world entirely.
Something I'd like to explore and understand better is the idea that there is both objective beauty, but then diversity and personal taste. I feel like there is often a lot of confusion around this point, because they assume "objective beauty" means "all beauty looks the same," which is obviously untrue and trips up the argument
Yes, great point. I do think a lot of people get tripped up around it. Alexander makes the point that there are "levels" of beauty in things; most things have at least a little bit of beauty, of harmony, in them -- centers that can be strengthened and brought out (aka: made more beautiful) if correctly nurtured, in a way. The things we find most beautiful have these strong centers in a densely packed way (this doesn't necessarily mean "complicated" -- simplicity is a hallmark of beauty). Again, it's more about the patterns and principles that underlie beauty, and those principles play out in a myriad of different ways because each object or thing relates to the world in its own unique way, its own unique position.
Those things that clearly go against those principles, though, are objectively ugly.
Yes, I think so. There is an underlying pattern, but things can operate within and adjacent to that pattern, still participating in the central "beauty" while remaining distinct.
Yes, and they should operate within and adjacent to that pattern in a way that makes the most sense for that particular object, based upon the context that that object is placed in. (For example, one house may be better suited to have a window on its east side so that the rising sun can bathe the kitchen in morning light during breakfast, while another house may be masked from that same sunlight by a neighboring building that is quite ugly, a view that you wouldn't necessarily want to emphasize during your breakfast with a big window. It should put a window elsewhere, where there is something more lovely to look at.) So the unfolding beauty of a thing directly relates to its place in the world, and each place in the world is different.
So, essentially, one big reason not everything can be the "same" and be beautiful is because beauty directly interacts with the created world, and therefore will vary. (That's just one reason, though!)
Thought provoking! I don't think it's a coincidence that as modern architecture has become more bland, boxy and vanilla, so too has culture with globalization, identity politics and even dress. While an obvious explanation might be that boxy buildings are quick, easy and cheap to build, they also have a demoralizing affect on people. I don't think people have fully considered the extent that architecture influences culture, and how our ugly, boxy towns and cities have dissolved community and contribute toward what often feels like a dystopia.
I couldn't agree more. There's just something in me that tells me it's more than money — as a civilization, the modern world has more money than past civilizations, and yet... we create substantially less beautiful architecture than the past. It's something deeper. I'm landing on it's our stance towards the world at large -- we're lacking in soul of some regard, and that means we create soul-sucking systems to match. Our architecture is a direct reflection of that.
Talking about the dissolution of community, I can't help but think about the lack of front porches and dining rooms in most modern houses now (at least where I live). Front porches allowed us to get to know our neighbors more easily; dining rooms are where daily family discussion often happened. Their disappearance says a lot about what we value (or what developers think we value).
It discusses some of the themes you’ve written about and most importantly features communities that actually invest in traditionally beautiful contemporary architecture.
Thank you so much -- and yes, please check out Alexander's works. He spent a lifetime dwelling on these issues. There is a website dedicated to carrying on his work, BuildingBeauty.org, that aims to train architects up in this way of thinking. It's worth checking out!
I will certainly look into the YouTube channel you shared. Thank you!
I feel like you've just given me a treasure trove of resources. I started my serious investigation into this about six months ago (though I've been annoyed at the problem for much longer than that) -- so I feel like I've barely made my way down the rabbit hole. If only I could read fast enough! Thank you. I have added them all to my reading list.
Another good article! The test of asking "which place has more life" is a brilliant way to short circuit our academic thinking. Alexander, Baghos, and McGuilquist are quite the power trio, excited to read the next one!
Yes, it's so easy to rationalize your way to bad ideas! I think his approach to the problem was quite brilliant. All three of these thinkers have helped change my view of the world entirely.
Something I'd like to explore and understand better is the idea that there is both objective beauty, but then diversity and personal taste. I feel like there is often a lot of confusion around this point, because they assume "objective beauty" means "all beauty looks the same," which is obviously untrue and trips up the argument
Yes, great point. I do think a lot of people get tripped up around it. Alexander makes the point that there are "levels" of beauty in things; most things have at least a little bit of beauty, of harmony, in them -- centers that can be strengthened and brought out (aka: made more beautiful) if correctly nurtured, in a way. The things we find most beautiful have these strong centers in a densely packed way (this doesn't necessarily mean "complicated" -- simplicity is a hallmark of beauty). Again, it's more about the patterns and principles that underlie beauty, and those principles play out in a myriad of different ways because each object or thing relates to the world in its own unique way, its own unique position.
Those things that clearly go against those principles, though, are objectively ugly.
Does that make sense??
Yes, I think so. There is an underlying pattern, but things can operate within and adjacent to that pattern, still participating in the central "beauty" while remaining distinct.
Yes, and they should operate within and adjacent to that pattern in a way that makes the most sense for that particular object, based upon the context that that object is placed in. (For example, one house may be better suited to have a window on its east side so that the rising sun can bathe the kitchen in morning light during breakfast, while another house may be masked from that same sunlight by a neighboring building that is quite ugly, a view that you wouldn't necessarily want to emphasize during your breakfast with a big window. It should put a window elsewhere, where there is something more lovely to look at.) So the unfolding beauty of a thing directly relates to its place in the world, and each place in the world is different.
So, essentially, one big reason not everything can be the "same" and be beautiful is because beauty directly interacts with the created world, and therefore will vary. (That's just one reason, though!)
Thought provoking! I don't think it's a coincidence that as modern architecture has become more bland, boxy and vanilla, so too has culture with globalization, identity politics and even dress. While an obvious explanation might be that boxy buildings are quick, easy and cheap to build, they also have a demoralizing affect on people. I don't think people have fully considered the extent that architecture influences culture, and how our ugly, boxy towns and cities have dissolved community and contribute toward what often feels like a dystopia.
I couldn't agree more. There's just something in me that tells me it's more than money — as a civilization, the modern world has more money than past civilizations, and yet... we create substantially less beautiful architecture than the past. It's something deeper. I'm landing on it's our stance towards the world at large -- we're lacking in soul of some regard, and that means we create soul-sucking systems to match. Our architecture is a direct reflection of that.
Talking about the dissolution of community, I can't help but think about the lack of front porches and dining rooms in most modern houses now (at least where I live). Front porches allowed us to get to know our neighbors more easily; dining rooms are where daily family discussion often happened. Their disappearance says a lot about what we value (or what developers think we value).
Great article! Thank you for sharing Christopher Alexander’s work. I will definitely be checking it out.
Are you familiar with the YouTube channel The Aesthetic City (https://youtu.be/XfonhlM6I7w?si=lFIKMAGgPKDHX-PM)?
It discusses some of the themes you’ve written about and most importantly features communities that actually invest in traditionally beautiful contemporary architecture.
Thank you so much -- and yes, please check out Alexander's works. He spent a lifetime dwelling on these issues. There is a website dedicated to carrying on his work, BuildingBeauty.org, that aims to train architects up in this way of thinking. It's worth checking out!
I will certainly look into the YouTube channel you shared. Thank you!
Have you read Scruton? https://www.amazon.com/Beauty-Roger-Scruton/dp/019955952X
Other sources if you're up for some more hard core philosophy reading:
Dietrich von Hildebrand https://www.amazon.com/Aesthetics-I-Dietrich-von-Hildebrand/dp/1939773040/ref=sr_1_5
Philosophies of Art and Beauty: selected readings in Aesthetics from Plato to Heidegger
Edmund Burke, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Sublime and Beautiful
Etienne Gilson, The Arts of the Beautiful.
I feel like you've just given me a treasure trove of resources. I started my serious investigation into this about six months ago (though I've been annoyed at the problem for much longer than that) -- so I feel like I've barely made my way down the rabbit hole. If only I could read fast enough! Thank you. I have added them all to my reading list.
Scruton is probably the easiest and shortest, and is still in print. Burke is an 18th century guy, so is available in Penguin Classics.
This is a pretty good intro to Scruton. (Sorry, Vimeo sucks but it's the only place I could find it.)
https://vimeo.com/565265377
The labyrinth continues! Can't wait to dive in.