Is your idea of a beautiful home shared with that of your neighbor's? And vice-versa? Does it matter? In The High Cost of Ignoring Beauty, writer Roger Scruton compares and contrasts aesthetics in America and Europe. And he uses two examples from the home to illustrate:
An excerpt on aesthetic offenses from a neighbor:
"...my neighbor’s house, with its kitsch decorations and ghastly illuminated tableaus. These things matter to him; and they matter to me. My desire to get rid of them is as great as his desire to retain them—maybe even greater, given that my taste, unlike his, is deeply rooted in a desire to fit in with my surroundings. So here is one proof that beauty matters—and also that the attempt to coordinate our tastes is vital to sharing our home, our town, and our community."
and an excerpt on aesthetic tradition as upheld at the family dinner table:
"...Consider what happens when you lay the table for a meal. This is not just a utilitarian event. If you treat it as such, the ritual will disintegrate, and the family members will end up grabbing individual portions to eat on their own. The table is laid according to precise rules of symmetry, choosing the right cutlery, the right plates, the right jugs and glasses. Everything is meticulously controlled by aesthetic norms, and those norms convey some of the meaning of family life... Very many ordinary objects on the table have been, as it were, polished by domestic affection. Their edges have been rubbed off, and they speak in subdued, unpretentious tones of belonging. Serving the food is ritualized too, and you witness in the family meal the continuity of manners and aesthetic values."
The High Cost of Ignoring Beauty in its entirety is an interesting read. For us, it bolstered feelings we've had about subjective beauty being a bit arbitrary. The beautiful home is all wrapped up in time-proven forces of tradition, function, comfort and even good manners. Yet the modernist in us also thinks of the home as a place to challenge those constraints and re-establish our own personal meaning of beauty.
Where do you stand? Read the full article and let us know in the comment section below: Is your home a way for you to make your mark with self-expression? Or is it a way to uphold the continuity of your surroundings?
100 DIY Ideas for the 3-Day Weekend
Danielle's Charming, Classic Walk-Up
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
White Enamel Flatwa...
On Saying No to Paleo: Why Eating Isn't One Size Fits All
Perfect Summer Cocktail Recipe: Honey Bourbon Lemonade
I have to totally disagree with him about the "laying a table for a meal" thing. It is not in any way the look of the table, or the symmetry or lack thereof that keeps family members from "grabbing individual portions to eat on their own". It is either politeness, parental rules, or enjoying the company of others that brings people together at the table. Isn't it kind of silly to imply that if you don't choose the right cutlery or something everyone will take one look at the table and say, " F this, I'm going to go eat in my room!"? Not to say that it can't hurt to make the dinner table more appealing, but let's keep it in perspective, here.
Where can I find this wallpaper???
When you have problems like this you should get down on your knees and thank the gods because you are rich and privilegded.
If every building was designed to fit into a communal idea of conforming aesthetics and a comfortable feeling of belonging, there would have been no cathedrals, and, for that matter, no glass windows in our houses. A desire to create something wonderful and new that has not been seen before is as fundamental to his perceived communal aethetic as is the traditional.
There is certainly something appealing to me about places where a communal aesthetic results in a harmonious overall picture...like the beautiful Spanish villages where everyone's mental picture of "house" must, from birth, include white walls and an orangey tile roof.
In the US we are too diverse a group to have such a shared internal vision...and when it is not, at least in part, a natural result of a shared cross-class culture, it can be aesthetically deadly. I'm thinking of those Disney "towns", so carefully planned for a wealthy elite determined to avoid contact with anyone not like themselves, or the sanitized and gussied up fake "Europe" in Los Vegas. I've nothing against planning, but those places creep me out.
what a fascinating post to a meaty, thoughtful article on beauty! thank you!
I totally disagree that neighbors need to "coordinate" their taste. Part of what makes living in a city exciting is that people have different styles.
I live in a zoned historic district, but even here homes have a lot of different aesthetics: some are "Ye Olde" and full of antiques; others have an 18th century shell but are cutting edge contemporary inside. One might have calico curtains in the window, while the next-door neighbor's window has a $10,000 Aqua Creations light installation. That's what's always made Europe so visually interesting -- the mix of old and new.
The other benefit to diversity is that you get to decide for yourself what how you live. If the majority gets to decide what the taste and style of a place should be, you risk ending up with bland, conformist, Stepford decor. I know someone who lives in a condo complex that dictates everything down to what color lining your curtains have (no unlined safron silk drapes in THAT neighborhood).
Um ...
"Roger Scruton is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute."
... which is a conservative think tank. Which, I think, is why the author manages to combine a heavy anti-state-interference message with a love for tradition. Independence of thought is great, as long as it's of the era of our founding fathers!
Ok, I can't finish reading that article, the guy sounds like a pompass, arrogant donkey. European cities weren't guided by any aesthetic any more than American ones were, except Bath, one of his fine examples. And if I recall correctly, that one was built SPECIFICALLY to cater to rich tourists, the Old English Las Vegas, if you will. The cities in Europe look the way they do because the majority of the buildings were built long ago within the limitations of the materials they had. If you pay any attention at all, you see that the new buildings don't look exactly the same. They look sleek and interesting, especially juxtaposed next to the old ones, but they often try not to clash.
But not always. Giant glass pyramid in front of the Louvre, anyone? It's fascinating in it's own way but surely many people thought or still think it's atrocious. Then again, people hated the Eiffel Tower when it was first proposed. Can you imagine the Paris skyline without it now? And the McDonald's across from the Pantheon in Rome (since he brings up McDonald's) doesn't at all distract from the beauty of the church. It gives contrast of crass commercialism to ancient achievement and it did leave me slightly taken aback but then, why not? The food there is better than much of the food offered in other establishments next to or around famous monuments (trust me on this one). And to a homesick student, the ubiquitous golden arches have their own kind of beauty. The TransAmerica Pyramid, a little closer to home in San Francisco, had a similar record to the Eiffel Tower. People loathed it as only San Franciscans can when it was built and now it's a landmark. Go figure.
In short, this guy needs to stuff it.
Interesting article. I agree with Tiamat, that the juxtaposition of modern and old can be quite interesting. In Valencia Spain, I snapped this pic of the the Golden Arches next to the church that supposedly houses the Holy Grail.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hennalounge/2886315334/in/set-72157607772851293/
AT & Regina Yunghans: You have missed the boat with this post. This is akin to providing a link to Rush Limbaugh for a meaningful perspective on immigration (or feminism, or just about anything for that matter). Do you have that little respect for your readers? Do you actually believe Scruton is a legitimate voice in this discussion?
Readers, I urge you to consider the source of this drivel (let alone the content). As a member of the American Enterprise Institute, Scruton’s not-so-ulterior motive is to advance an ultra conservative political and cultural agenda (and to bolster the fight against "cultural elites"). These so-called think tanks skillfully shroud their identities in patriotic jargon, and communicate their agenda via “experts” who co-opt and manipulate language in a chilling manner. Everything they publish has the same goal: To communicate radical right wing views in a way that makes them appear mainstream and palatable. And in doing so, to erode any tolerance for dissenting points of view or meaningful dialogue (let alone facts or actual research).
Sort of like how Hitler slowly eroded the humanity of Jews, homosexuals, and the disabled. (And for the record, I’m not claiming this is a comparable issue, but some of the methodologies are similar. It worked, in part, because it was insidious.)
Take a look at the links to some of Scruton’s other articles (linked at the bottom). For example, in “TV will never Poison my Children’s Minds” he posits a largely agreed upon premise: Large doses of unconsidered television don’t promote healthy child development. Makes sense on the surface, right? Not many people would argue with that claim. But Scruton goes on to cite the “vulgar colours” and “grosser language” as specific sources of this so-called poison. What he is really condemning is not violence or the phenomena of TV as babysitter. In actuality, Scruton is attempting to erode American tolerance for any television (or film) that right wing America considers problematic. Such as Bill Maher. Or the Sopranos. Or about anything on HBO. Or any movie that portrays sex (or God forbid, homosexual activity). And the list of “undesirable” content goes on and on. If you don’t buy this, do some research on what has been happening with the FCC over the past few years. Or learn about the MPAA.
Don’t even get me started on his thoughts on art and architecture. His essay on “Beauty and Desecration” is a real piece of work…
I have an MA in Art History and happen to know a bit more than the average person when it comes to art and architecture. Scruton is not a legitimate voice in any of these discussions – just as Fox News is not a legitimate voice in journalism.
Thankfully we have credentialed folks like Arroyo who "happen to know a bit more than the average person" to tell us what are - or are not - "legitimate voices". People like Arroyo always seem to know what is best for the rest of us. It's Arroyo who has no respect for the readers...clearly the rubes are unable to form their own opinions about what they read.
I only had to read half way through the article before I began to feel nauseous. Sorry, I agree with arroyo.
I agree with his criticism of urban planning, but he's LATE on that and modern urbanism has been addressing the very things he alleges are driving folks to the suburbs- although I could not for the life of me understand this particular conclusion, unless he's talking about older inner ring suburbs.
I disagree with his criticism of modern architecture. He's confusing urban planning and architecture. I agree with some of the previous comments. I think that modernism only makes sense as a juxtaposition to what is traditional and to nature.
I found it interesting. And while I am no great fan of the AEI, I'm not going to get my panties into a twist because I'm reading an article written by a *gasp* conservative. Also, someone with so much education should know that typically when one brings up Hitler, they have instantly lost the argument.
I guess I'm not clear about the practical applications of his points. I mean, if he's advocating for homes that have a consistent material vernacular and don't "stand out" as individual architectural statements, well hello suburban tract housing! I realize he also argues against strict zoning laws (conservative, if you're keeping score). But he also argues for the importance of the community in deciding what buildings will best suit their collective needs (not conservative). This is also not practical in our largely-homogeneous culture: can you imagine the collective residents of Phoenix trying to decide if they all needed a new church or a new Planned Parenthood, much less what material the siding should be? That may still work in the smallest of small towns, but for the most part this idea has no real contemporary value.
He, admittedly, takes a lot of cues from what Jane Jacobs has already said, only she said it with greater depth and practicality. The success of the cities he cites has less to do with the fact the windows are all the same- it's largely dependent on if there is a mix of goods, services, and employment opportunities within a walkable distance from people's homes and if there is a sufficient population density to promote all-hours street activity. This is what make a place vibrant and active. This is what deters crime and promotes community.
Conservative or not, my biggest beef is that Mr. Scruton comes across as a cranky old man who will bang on your door and tell you to turn down your pop music, lest it send a shiver down his "educated spine". Sometimes, it's okay to indulge in some "vague lusts".
This is a bit late, but the wallpaper is "Williamsburg" by Katzenbach & Warren. My parents have it in yellow in their house, but they say it's no longer available.