Aesthetics usually succumbs to economics, in the end

Aesthetics usually succumbs to economics, in the end.

Why is modern enterprise and government - local and national - so intent on prioritising efficiency at the expense of elegance?

Because, they say, aesthetics don’t scale.

It’s rife -
- Bland, identikit architecture
- Shop fronts stripped, flattened, minimalised
- Hand tiled signs replaced by plastic logos

We’re living in seas of sameness, from Rio to Rihyad to Rhyl.

Yet the things we love / photograph / treasure have meaning.

That's entirely subjective. Yet those things usually are not the cheapest. Or the fastest. Or the most streamlined.

Rather, they're memorable. They make us feel something.

Yes, aesthetics makes us feel good. Inspires us.

Aesthetics is wellbeing.

The UN recognises this. A 2011 resolution urges states towards a “holistic approach” to development, where happiness is “a fundamental human goal”.

Happiness and wellbeing should be the ultimate aim of governments. So for corporations clamouring to be ethical, it should be a given.

Yet CEOs and politicians of all stripes continue to eschew its value in the pursuit of profit or growth or progress.

Make no mistake, aesthetics isn’t out-of-reach luxury. It can and should be widespread, democratic, expected. Always within reach, inspiring us and making us feel good.

Yet economics usually wins.

IMAGE: Turn of the 20th century Paris got it right. Turn of the 21st century Paris is getting it oh so wrong.