De Facto Times

Mediocrity is the true death of beauty. That which is ugly necessitates fixing, but what about that which is mediocre? Is modern society ugly? With metropolitan populations and a vast array of economically efficacious buildings, today’s cities and towns seem to appear ugly to few, and beautiful to fewer. To most, they are inoffensive. But what could be wrong with that?

You don’t know what you don’t have. A student who has not sufficiently studied for an exam cannot tell you what he does not know. In fact, he might think his studying is perfectly adequate. Only under the scrutiny of the exam is his inadequacy illuminated. Such is the case of the contemporary town, where its composition lacks coherence, intelligibility, and beauty, but is seldom overtly ugly or chaotic either. It occupies a purgatory, wherein it neither enriches nor degrades its occupants. Yet, the inhabitant of the mediocre town thinks not to desire enrichment from it, as such a conceptualization of towns would not only be foreign, but inconceivable; unable to be made a reality.

This inhabitant might even vacation in towns that—by their people and architecture—serve to enrich him, but he knows not of this enrichment, nor that it’s the very thing that made him choose that location for travel. Moreover, he will divorce the harmonious, walkable, and ornate architecture he saw from that of his homely hometown, for it will not occur to him that the very instinct that pulled him and millions of others to the same town can be employed in his birthplace.

But the desire remains alive. He might even enjoy a fantasy movie or book, or a game that portrays a town so grand he would never even dream of it being real. He will search for the next opportunity to escape his mediocre residence and travel once more. Not once will he question his place of origin, or ask more of it. For though he yearns for more, he is cognitively dissonant, placating this desire by experiencing realities distant from his own.

CONSIDERATIONS ON ACTION

Unlike the student who, in taking a test, makes evident his shortcomings, cities and towns often lack a mechanism by which to hold them accountable to high standards. The guiding principle of urban construction is thus that which arises most naturally: Acquisition of capital. A building does not have to be beautiful, it simply must be tolerable. A road does not have to prioritize human autonomy, but efficiency. A population does not have to share the same values, as long as they generate revenue.

It behooves those who resent this fact—and have the good sense to understand the world as a matter of incentives—to propagate a solution. But, to do this, a groundwork must first be agreed upon from which a solution could potentially arise. If, for instance, it is the case that markets cannot spontaneously produce beauty—or for that matter virtue of any kind—then one cannot rely on markets alone to produce harmonious, beautiful cities. But, in as much as markets are merely the natural course of man’s habit manifested throughout time, governments are able to supply incentives such that markets can be course-corrected; steered towards creating beautiful things rather than a default mediocrity.

Convenience, thus, must be intertwined with a desired outcome. With the right structure, economic policy could influence this. Property tax relief could be provided to homes with a high “harmony” and “beauty” score. Furthermore, should a city choose to tax tourists, a percentage of city revenue could be redistributed to those places that contribute to the attraction of the place as a whole. New homes and commercial buildings erected could adhere to town-conscious guidelines, influencing everything from the material they are composed of to the technique of their construction. But of course, by this further questions are raised: Who decides what homes are harmonious and beautiful? Who should influence cities and towns, such that their very structure might be more intelligible to man?

Should there be a government program that concerns itself with the intelligibility, harmony, and beauty of cities and towns, it is essential that such a program would empower local self-determination. But how this hypothetical program would be structured (on any level of government) and the details of its policy are ultimately up for discussion, though I certainly hope these examples have illuminated an idea of what such a program might entail. I write this short essay therefore as an invitation—that those interested in making greater cities might address this issue, which renders turbid the lives of many. Lest the modern man die a cultural death with his city, we must create a system to transcend the danger that is mediocrity; the inoffensive offense.

Marc J. Capobianco