Is Capitalism Really to Blame for an Aesthetically Dreary Society?

Whether it is the right criticizing progressive or alternative forms of architecture, or the left criticizing the horrific style choices of right wing pundits, it is an undeniable fact that a lack of beauty is perceived as somehow linked to a lack of virtue. While it is common for party members to cherry-pick specific examples of the aesthetic missteps of the other, this tendency speaks powerfully to an underlying dissatisfaction with the physical reality of our culture and consumption patterns. Most self-respecting people can state awareness of low quality products and made-for-production media, but their awareness fails to make them more immune than any other. Anyone asked about the current state of the modern world’s lack of beauty would make it clear that they are one of the victims of a society that lets taste fall to the wayside. The fact that no one would willingly ask for short-lasting and aesthetically limited products makes this issue seem to be some sort of paradoxical externalities problem. The difficulty with solving this problem arises from an inability to diagnose it. The predominant claim about the root of ugliness is that it arises from the “capitalist imperative.” This claim holds that profit maximization does not have space to make lasting and aesthetically pleasing products when it is much cheaper to make a shoddy and ugly alternative. The other predominant claim, often made by makers of beautiful things, is that consumers care for beauty does not extend beyond the dictates of their pocketbook. This problem seems at one time to result from the reality of an efficient system with less ability to incorporate beauty than most would desire, along with a populous unwilling to pay the price for beauty. While it is easy to point to “evil capitalists” or “penny pinching consumers,” there is a greater problem that cannot be explained fully by a stereotype of either group. …