When we compare contemporary architecture with constructions from previous centuries, it becomes evident that buildings of the past used to be more ornate and visually harmonious. This raises a big question: why did we stop building that way?

Multiple answers have been given to this question: from the economic convenience of using simple construction forms, to elaborate conspiracy theories that claim the ornate buildings of the past were created by a mysterious civilization that has been erased from history by the elites. The truth is that none of the hypotheses offered so far manage to explain the phenomenon in its entirety, and none will, until we are able to admit a simple truth: that architectural beauty primarily responds to a need for ostentation.

Let's accept it. When a homeowner asks their architect to design a beautiful facade, they don't do it altruistically, to beautify the street. Usually, what motivates them is the desire to express something about themselves that they are proud of, whether it be their faith, their traditions, their lineage, or their social position. Thus, he acquires what Pierre Bourdieu calls "symbolic capital," through which it is possible to access other types of capital.

The recognition of this ostentatious function of architecture and art is not something new. As early as the late 19th century, the sociologist and economist Thorstein Veblen addressed the issue in his work The Theory of the Leisure Class, where he introduces the concept of "conspicuous consumption," which refers to the acquisition of expensive goods and services in order to demonstrate wealth and power.

According to his theory, although "the demand that things be ostentatiously expensive does not usually appear consciously in our standards of taste," it "is still present as a coercive norm that selectively shapes and sustains our sense of beauty" (Veblen, 1899).

This is consistent with what has been proposed in recent years by evolutionary esthetics, which defends the idea that what we consider beautiful is determined by natural selection, with authors like Denis Dutton and Geoffrey Miller. The latter states in his work The Mating Mind that beauty, when applied to art, "is equivalent to difficulty and high cost," which explains why we find attractive those things that could only have been produced by people "with access to scarce materials, the ability to learn difficult skills, and plenty of free time" (Miller, 2000).

According to this view, the feeling of beauty would be an innate response to certain signals of genetic and sexual fitness, such as wide hips in women or height in men, which seem naturally attractive to us without our being fully aware of their value as indicators of fertility or protective capacity. In this sense, our taste for displays of power and status would be a logical extension of these natural preferences, a product of sexual selection.

But, what does all this have to do with the loss of architectural beauty?

Well, a large part of the appeal of ornamentation in architecture lies in its ostentatious capacity. Since antiquity, buildings were adorned with moldings and decorations, which not only contributed to giving scale, proportion, and complexity to the surfaces but also served a symbolic function.

This symbolism was manifested in the use of a formal language of prestige, such as that of the classical tradition, which evoked the idea of continuity of Greek culture or the Roman Empire. However, this only made sense if the forms were difficult to obtain.

When, in the mid-19th century, thanks to the advances brought by the Industrial Revolution, the socially necessary labor time to produce ornaments was reduced, decorative forms became mass-produced and lost their value, thus leading to a rapid exhaustion of styles.

John Ruskin expressed it this way in his work The Seven Lamps of Architecture in 1849:

"Greek moldings today most commonly adorn the facades of our warehouses." There is no merchant's display, shop window, or counter in the streets and cities that is not adorned with decorations invented to decorate temples and beautify the palaces of kings. And they do not present the slightest advantage wherever they are found. They have no value whatsoever nor any possibility of producing pleasure; they only tire the eye and prostitute their own forms. Many of them are excellent copies of beautiful things, of which, consequently, we will never enjoy again" (Ruskin, 1849).

Testimonies like this contradict the widely held idea that ornament was rejected for being inaccessible or expensive. On the contrary, it stopped being used just at the moment it became more accessible, which is not a dominant ideology.

References

- Benjamin, W. (1936). La obra de arte en la época de su reproductibilidad técnica.
- Bourdieu, P. (1984). La distinción: Criterio y bases sociales del gusto.
- Miller, G. (2000). The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature.
- Ruskin, J. (1849). Las siete lámparas de la arquitectura.
- Veblen, T. (1899). Teoría de la clase ociosa.