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. 

If the problem really is budget limitations for both producers and consumers, the behaviours of those with unconstrained budgets should break free from the overall patterns. Only a small minority of the most wealthy seem to spend much of their attention on beauty for beauty’s sake. They most often prize forms of comfort and status over beauty. It is not difficult to see that when many of the most wealthy stumble upon something objectively beautiful, their appreciation extends not far beyond the satisfied knowledge of their peers’ mild envy. While beauty has always served as a class divider and catalyst of envy, the nouveau riche of the 21st century uniquely emphasize the class divide and comfort elements of their wealth. In terms of daily comforts, the rich and poor have never been nearer to one another, and the rich seek distinction through an amplification of low class hedonism rather than the development of higher desires. Even the wealthy who do genuinely appreciate beauty in their personal lives are often driven to reduce the beauty accessible to others as they optimize costs and cut out all unnecessary steps. The poor are no better. While they can victimize themselves by pointing to the soulless architecture they live in and the shoddy products they can afford, they neuter the effectiveness of their outrage by spending their precious discretionary budget on cars and fast food, both clear indications that their desires would inflate in a way extremely similar to the rich, prioritizing both status and comfort.

The moral and fundamentally individual roots of this problem are clear, and the capitalist has actually greatly increased access to well made items. While outrageously expensive in comparison to all other manufactured items, beautiful things are in most cases far cheaper than they were in past centuries. The current situation seems bleak to those without a knowledge of history.  While leaders and the wealthy in past centuries were far better at commissioning and seeking out beautiful things than the elites of today, they did so as a sacrificial result of appreciation rather than the great availability of beautiful things. The more rigid societal structure meant that taste and aesthetic understanding were intentionally grown in those with wealth long before they gained access to the power to create. A lack of taste in our wealthy is a small price we pay for our relatively egalitarian society. Additionally, the tasteless excesses and hedonistic behaviors of the powerful in history are often an afterthought to the beautiful legacy that we have found worthy of saving. The great majority of society had far less access to well crafted things then most of America has today. The market has created a world in which vast abundance of items is available, and the lack of beauty of most of them does not destroy the fact that more people than at any time in history have access to well-crafted objects that can uplift the soul. The capitalist system has made good things strictly more available, yet the low prices of shoddy things have let the desire for comfort prevail. 

The American aesthetic crisis is primarily moral. The incentives of capitalism have actually made beauty more accessible. Both rich and poor have a lack of beauty because they prize comfortable luxuries above beauty. They simply choose to put their limited resources towards what they actually care about, and continually complain about the world’s lack of beauty. Capitalism would enable an extreme abundance of beauty if appreciation of it and less care for physical comfort could prevail.