What is beauty, and who gets to decide what counts as beautiful?
In the world of modern art and architecture, these questions often clash with public taste. Stephen Travis Sholl, an aesthetician and thinker, believes the concept of beauty has radically changed over the past century – today, it is often treated as a personal feeling, while classical aesthetic principles such as symmetry, proportionality, and ornamentation defined what was considered beautiful for centuries. In this interview, Sholl offers insight into how our perception of beauty has evolved and why it’s worth rethinking what we truly consider beautiful.
Q: Why is there such a strong debate about who gets to define beauty?
Stephen Sholl:
I think there’s a large debate for a few reasons. Over the last 100 years, we’ve seen a major change in how beauty is viewed. Before that, in the realm of art, there was a general consensus—beauty was rooted in realism, idealism, and classical portraiture. But at the turn of the 20th century, artists started to revolt against those traditional ideas. They questioned everything, especially after the horrors of World War I, which led to a broader questioning of morality, order, and, of course, beauty.
This led to a shift where beauty became subjective. The popular phrase “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” reflects this. Today, much of the modern art world rests on the idea that beauty is whatever the artist claims it to be. But that leads us into some absurd territory—like a banana duct-taped to a wall being called art. People naturally compare that to something like the Mona Lisa and ask: are we really talking about the same thing?
So, I think the debate is about more than beauty. It’s about the legitimacy of modern aesthetics. When people criticize modern art or modern architecture, the response is often, “Well, to me it’s beautiful.” That’s the shield of subjectivity.
Q: Does this also apply to architecture?
Sholl:
Absolutely. Take, for instance, modernist architecture. If you point to something like the Mold Tower, many Hungarians might say it’s not beautiful. Yet someone designed it and called it great. There’s a huge disconnect between public taste and the elite view. Most people have a general idea of what beauty is, but many artists and architects push the view that beauty is entirely subjective.
Q: Philosophers in ancient times spoke about symmetry as a key aspect of beauty. Is that still relevant today?
Sholl:
Very much so. Humans are naturally drawn to symmetry. Think about classical architecture—columns, for example, which are designed to reflect the human body. The base, shaft, and capital literally reflect feet, body, and head. Studies even show that infants instinctively react negatively to disfigured or asymmetrical faces.
So yes, symmetry, proportionality, and ornamentation are still fundamental. When a building is asymmetrical or disproportionate, even if we don’t consciously notice it, we feel something’s off.
Q: But doesn’t culture affect how we define beauty? For example, one person might find a desert landscape beautiful, another might find it sad.
Sholl:
That’s a fair point. There are definitely cultural differences, but there are also underlying universals. People often find beauty in what is familiar—what reminds them of home. That emotional connection can enhance the perception of beauty.
Even when you compare Arabic and Western architecture—though vastly different—you’ll find shared traits like symmetry and ornamentation. So while the expression of beauty may differ across cultures, the foundational principles often remain.
Q: Calling something beautiful isn’t the same as saying you like it?
Sholl:
Exactly. I can dislike something and still recognize its beauty. For instance, I think the Taj Mahal is beautiful, but I wouldn’t want it built in Budapest—it wouldn’t fit. Still, I can appreciate its beauty.
Unfortunately, in modern discourse, “beautiful” has come to mean “I like it,” which reduces beauty to personal preference. But true beauty, I believe, transcends personal taste.
Q: What about music? Does the same logic apply?
Sholl:
Music is interesting because, unlike architecture or painting, it’s consumed by almost everyone. Modern music has certainly changed—it might contain less beauty, but that doesn’t mean it’s without value. Aesthetic experience isn’t only about beauty. For example, rap may not be beautiful in the classical sense, but it has rhythm and energy, which are also aesthetically engaging.
I would argue that music has resisted total deconstruction better than visual arts. There are still basic elements—beat, rhythm, harmony—that persist. Whereas in art and architecture, much of modern output has abandoned traditional aesthetic principles altogether.
Q: Any final thoughts?
Sholl:
I think modernism tried to strip away the essence of what people instinctively find beautiful. We’ve created buildings and artworks that most people don’t connect with. Yet the old principles—symmetry, proportion, ornament—are timeless. Beauty might express itself differently across cultures, but those core elements persist. When we ignore them, we lose something deeply human.
– N.Nagy Sándor –
