C.D.C BLOG WEEK 7: Virtual Design Trip

In lieu of being able to travel (thanks Covid-19!) another experienced robbed from our class. we instead were given option to to take some virtual tours and watch some virtual talks to get us inspired. One of the talks I decided to watch was one for Visual Impact: Why beauty matters? Stefan Sagmeister https://vimeo.com/460569669 where he touches on the long-disputed debate point

“is beauty in the eye of the beholder”.

Now I hope as not to spend this blog reciting what he speaks on but one aspect he mentions is the fact that if beauty really was in the ey of the beholder what would be the point in putting time into considering the aesthetics of something if everyone has a different idea of what looks good. Im of the agreement that this is false there is in fact a universal standard of beauty one upheld by the vast majority of society. Shown to us by quick poles given to class present in video recording. The majority of the class had the same opinion on beauty levels presented.

He also compares the so-called dark days of medieval times yet they had such aesthetic castles primarily military buildings yet even minute details being considered on the point of its looks and theme. In comparison to 1980 mid west America design and building of the convention centre in Memphis where he was speaking. The building frankly an eyesore with purely function in mind and no consideration to aesthetics of the building given.

And how could this problem or change lets say have occurred? Stefan lays the blame solely at the feet of one Adolf loose one architectural designer in 19th century whose style depicts such rectangular bare masses his work while very successful was describes as “house without eyebrows” as the ornamentation around windows was left bare something very unusual at the time. His booklet Ornament and crime was very influential 10 years down the line in Germany and with creation of Bauhaus . it was then this mistaking of some bauhause design to economic functionalism that basically created this psychotic sameness that we still very much see present today, one point I have to give my 2 cents on is his standpoint that the buildings created while ugly should be made more aesthetic when you have to take into consideration the vas cost of creation of a building in an economy. Why spare expense on beaty of building when in reality its not beneficial that money could be put towards improving another aspect of society to make it more efficient or better. Why make the hospital beautiful when the money could be put towards a new school . sometime a bare ugly building is more essential and efficient than one based on beauty. Its hard to justify such squandering of expenses especially in a world wit struggling economies and variance of wealth and development.

The fact aesthetics is considered in such design is a sign of affluency, the more money a organisation has the more willing to spend on beauty especially if they are not struffling in other aspects they can devote more funds into aesthetics they can afford the luxury of aesthetics the essential wasting of materials.