A provocative new video preview from cultural commentators David Perell and Cultural Tutor has reignited a passionate debate about the apparent decline of beauty in modern architecture, design, and public spaces. The short film, which serves as a teaser for a longer documentary to come, poses the fundamental question of whether our contemporary world has systematically abandoned aesthetic excellence in favor of utilitarian efficiency.
The video sparked intense discussion among readers and cultural critics, with economist Tyler Cowen sharing the preview on his widely-read blog Marginal Revolution. The film contrasts ornate Victorian-era infrastructure, such as elaborately designed sewer pump stations and decorative lampposts, with today's stark, minimalist public utilities and buildings. This comparison has touched a nerve among those who feel that something essential has been lost in our march toward modernity.
However, the discussion has revealed deep disagreements about both the causes and reality of this perceived aesthetic decline. One of the most prominent counterarguments centers on what critics call "survival bias" - the tendency to remember and preserve only the most beautiful examples from past eras while forgetting the mundane or ugly structures that were demolished or replaced over time. As one commenter noted, "The best Victorian sewer pump station has been preserved and we can go and look at it today. But he ignores the probably hundreds of Victorian pump stations that were torn down or replaced because they lacked notable design elements and were not worthy of being preserved."
The debate has also exposed competing theories about what drove the shift away from ornate design. Some argue that relentless economic pressure for efficiency has made beauty a luxury that modern societies can no longer afford. Others point to ideological changes in the art world, suggesting that avant-garde artists and architects consciously rejected traditional concepts of beauty over a century ago, viewing aesthetic pleasure as politically problematic or socially dishonest.
According to this latter theory, leftist artists saw beauty as a distraction from social reality and a source of complacency that prevented necessary revolutionary change. This philosophical rejection of beauty as an artistic goal eventually filtered down from high art to everyday architecture and design, fundamentally changing how we approach the built environment.
Yet another perspective argues that democratic governance itself is partly to blame for ugly public infrastructure. Voters and politicians alike prefer to avoid spending taxpayer money on decorative elements that might be seen as frivolous, especially when basic needs like education and healthcare compete for limited resources. The process of achieving consensus on aesthetic choices in a diverse democracy often leads to the safest, most neutral options - which tend to be utilitarian and bland.
Some participants in the debate push back against the entire premise, arguing that beauty has not disappeared but has simply evolved and diversified. They point to examples of contemporary architecture and design that demonstrate aesthetic ambition and achievement, noting that every generation tends to appreciate the art and architecture of previous eras more than that of their own time. What seems ugly or unremarkable today may well be celebrated as beautiful by future generations.
The discussion has also highlighted economic factors that affect the production of beautiful objects and spaces. The decline in quality of everyday items like clothing and furniture over recent decades reflects consumer preferences for lower prices and more frequent replacement rather than higher quality and durability. This suggests that the capacity for creating beautiful, well-crafted objects still exists, but market forces have shifted demand toward quantity over quality.
Moreover, some argue that beauty has become more democratized and personalized in the modern era. Rather than relying on public spaces and buildings for aesthetic experience, people now curate their own beautiful environments through personal choices in art, music, fashion, and home decoration. The explosion of digital media has made virtually unlimited artistic content available to anyone with internet access, potentially providing more exposure to beauty than ever before in human history.
The debate ultimately reflects deeper questions about values, priorities, and the role of aesthetics in human flourishing. While there may be legitimate concerns about the quality of contemporary public architecture and design, the discussion reveals that defining and achieving beauty in a diverse, democratic society remains as challenging and contentious as ever. Whether this represents a crisis of aesthetic culture or simply the natural evolution of artistic taste in changing times continues to divide observers and critics alike.
