Short comment on beauty and cash

People have noted that the world is becoming colorless and aesthetically timid. Cars, for example, are more likely to be white or grey than ever, people scarcely paint houses in interesting colors anymore, and modernist architecture tends to withdraw into the background.

See also this

Reduction in color is, I suspect, just one symptom of reduced aesthetic boldness. Some portion of this is likely due to this norm of middle-class aesthetics:

1. You must not be vulgar and things are vulgar when they try to stand out.

2. The only permissible, non-vulgar, way to stand out is to stand out by looking expensive [though doing so in a way which is too obvious- e.g., decking yourself in gold- is also forbidden]. Trying to stand out in a way that doesn’t cost money (e.g., bright colors) is cheating the game. It’s making a play for aesthetic attention that you haven’t paid, thrifted, or otherwise economically scrounged for and you must be punished for it by scoffing about your vulgarity. Instead, we try to be seen through markers of hard-to-imitate wealth, like material quality and brand name designs. Even colorful expensive things are somewhat off-limits because they stand out because of the color, and not the unimitable markers of cost.

The perfect subject of this regime, in which the only allowable beauty is tastefully pricey, is Mercedes Benz, a brand that somehow manages the feat of having almost no standout aesthetic features beyond “looks expensive”:

Such an attitude rations beauty- especially beauty that readily catches the eye. It limits the quantity of beauty by restricting it to those who can afford it. Because aesthetics under this regime is fundamentally a positional competition, the prices always go up as wages increase to keep beauty inaccessible.

Say no to this, and yes to bold, cheap and crass beauty. Decouple, as far as is possible, beauty from scarcity.