The Cult of Ugliness in America

American TFP ^ | 2007 | Rev. Anthony J. Brankin

[Pyro7480]

Long read, but good.

Fr. Brankin's background:

Biography of Author: Father Anthony Brankin was ordained a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago in 1975, having received a Licentiate in Sacred Theology. He spent six years as associate pastor at Our Lady of Charity Church in Cicero, IL In 1981, Cardinal Cody sent him to Rome to further his studies in art and theology. He simultaneously attended the Academy of Fine Arts in Rome (studying both sculpture and painting) as well as the University of St. Thomas Aquinas where he pursued doctoral studies in theology. He returned to Chicago in 1983 and was appointed Vice President of the Catholic Church Extension Society, a position he held for three years. He was appointed pastor of St. Thomas More Church in 1989, in which position he remains today. (St. Thomas More parish is an Indult parish where the Ancient Latin Mass is celebrated every Sunday at Noon.)* In 1998, Cardinal George appointed him chaplain for the Chicago Chapter of Legatus International, an organization of Catholic CEOs and their spouses. Father Brankin has written articles for Homiletic and Pastoral Review, the New Oxford Review and The Wanderer. He comes from a police family, if such can be said. His father retired as a Captain from the Chicago Police Department and two other brothers are involved in law enforcement: Philip, the Director of Northeast Multi-Regional Training; and Joseph, a Patrol Officer for the town of Bolingbrook, Illinois.

*Fr. Brankin became pastor of St. Odilo in March 2006.

[Pyro7480]

Catholic ping!

[the invisib1e hand]

the embracing of the grotesque; it's all part of deconstructionist mentality.

if you hate god, you have nothing to love but "ugly." It's that simple.

[Pyro7480]

Even my liberal friends when I was in college could tell the difference. We would always joke that if we ever became rich, we'd pay the University to tear down the building that were built from the 1960s until the early 1990s.

Contrast this:

With this:

[the invisib1e hand]

I’ve seen a lot worse. don’t get me started on architecture.

[rlmorel]

Thank goodness.

I thought for sure someone would beat me in here with a Helen Thomas picture.

[Salvation]

Excellent post.

[ovrtaxt]

Some things about creation that have always intrigued me:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoldenRatio.html

http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sb5xy86ooqA

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JX3VmDgiFnY&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jiMmWnHpFyU

[suzyjaruki]

Yes, it is a good read. Sometimes I wonder, how parents can send their children to schools that look like prisons and expect them to be happy to go there for the day. Is it any wonder that since we are bombarded with ugliness, there is so much depression?

[annalex]

Good article.

just as theological modernism denies the objective reality of the supernatural, saying that all dogma, all revelation, is just your experience and, therefore, the truth is what you think is the truth, so too, artistic modernism tries to convince us that whatever anyone thinks is beautiful is beautiful for that person.

Spot on.

[the invisib1e hand]

this is one of the most on-point essays I've read. ever.

I've never heard anyone give voice to what has been suffocating me -- and not only me -- and of course the light brings fresh air.

pardon the mixed metaphors.

[Tax-chick]

bttt

[Tax-chick]

McDonalds and Burger Kings sandwiched between Amocos and tenements. You do not mistake that for beauty, but it is so ubiquitous that you may no longer recognize it as specifically ugly.

Lost me, honey. People's buying food and fuel, and then having a place to live, is "ugly." I haven't made it through the whole article, but this sounds like "crunchy-con" aestheticist elitism.

[Pyro7480]

Keep on reading.

[Tax-chick]

I will, tomorrow, but my teeth are already on edge. You’d think nobody had ever been poor.

[Pyro7480]

I think you’re oversimplifying. The reason these places are “ugly” is because the planners don’t care. It has little to do with material poverty.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Can you articulate why the second structure is less pleasing to you than the first, or is just a general rejection of anything that does not have easily recognizable architectural features such as a pediment, Doric columns, etc?

I am a designer and for the life of me I cannot understand why everyone wants to wear the latest fashions, drive the newest looking cars, show off the most high tech electronics, but still wants to live in structures straight out of the 1700's.

[annalex]

Before this is understood as a call to some staid classicism, let me point out that art and beauty are not the same. Art is about truth, while beauty is about goodness. If truth is ugly, art enters a complex relationship with beauty.

Modern art, -- or, rather, the first half of the 20 century art -- tended to be ugly but not all of it was bad. We had an ugly century and we had art showing so. Some 20c art did it with ugly pithiness, but inasmuch a there was truth in it it was art.

Guernica
Pablo Picasso
1937

[Pyro7480]

Can you articulate why the second structure is less pleasing to you than the first, or is just a general rejection of anything that does not have easily recognizable architectural features such as a pediment, Doric columns, etc?

I think the pictures don't do complete justice to the second structure. It's a monstrosity, period. It doesn't fit in with the bulk of the campus. It isn't even the worst building in that part of the campus.

I am a designer and for the life of me I cannot understand why everyone wants to wear the latest fashions, drive the newest looking cars, show off the most high tech electronics, but still wants to live in structures straight out of the 1700's.

It's because most modern architecture is objectively ugly.

[annalex]

There are (few) clean, beautiful modern designs that do not sport classic elements. The second one though looks like it came from a bad acid trip. The forbidding blind-eyed structure in the background cohabits the space with the cheerful greenhouse on top of a romanesque revival arch. Angled elevated walkways criss-cross in the air suggesting that whoever put this strange ensemble together did not hapen to think of elevators. Is the pedestrian area under the arch actually sloped? Pushing a stroller under that arch got to be a lot of fun. Is there a reason for the siege earthworks on the left?

It is not textbook ugliness — certainly we can think of much worse, — as much as it is some kind of esthetic indigestion, like looking at someone eat cardboard with peanut butter.