Replies (16)

Totally agree. It was actually saifedean (of course) who got me interested in architecture first. Once you know the basics you start seeing beauty (but also ugliness) everywhere. Fortunately there is still a lot of 19th century heritage left (at least in Europe) to adore. It starts to make you wonder...
ChadXMR's avatar
ChadXMR 2 months ago
It's the fiat mind set isn't it? 🤔
xissburg's avatar
xissburg 2 months ago
Maybe it’s what happens when the weak are empowered. Everything turns into slop.
Bryan's avatar
Bryan 2 months ago
While I tend to agree with the overall direction of this comparison, there is a lot of survivorship bias in play here. We have only the best art pieces surviving from history. There is likely lots of terrible art that was lost along the way. The banana taped to the wall won’t survive to be compared to future pieces. View quoted note →
modalplex's avatar
modalplex 2 months ago
Bumpkin. Count the hours of underpaid slave labour extracted by the guilds for pittence. The guilds were oppression and tax collectors for their lords. Learn some history.
Jason High's avatar
Jason High 2 months ago
The good artists are few and far between because society as a whole rewards the ugly art through the museum and grant system. “Artists” take a urinal and sign their name to it or they just take house paint and splash it on a canvas and they are awarded millions of dollars from the art establishment but a real artist who hones his craft to renaissance level skill struggles to find a buyer because the wealthy are told that the ugly art is actually the good art because it’s somehow meaningful. In my opinion, if you have to read an essay to understand why a piece of crap spray painted pink is good art then the “art” has failed as a piece of visual art. It should be understood simply by looking at it. That doesn’t mean that there can’t be a deeper meaning behind it but the visual aspect should be first and foremost.