Is Beauty a Lost Art?

Tesla’s Cybertruck design is undeniably polarizing. By radically departing from both traditional truck aesthetics and broader automotive design norms, its angular, minimalist, almost brutalist appearance challenges the smooth lines and curves that dominate the industry. Some see it as a bold leap forward; others view it as a stark rejection of beauty and familiarity.

Conventional trucks are built to convey power and ruggedness, but they typically do so with familiar design elements—rounded edges, a prominent grille and a sturdy yet approachable look. The Cybertruck discards these conventions, featuring sharp edges, a flat front and a wedge-like shape. For some, this futuristic, unique form is exciting; for others, it feels alien and even unfriendly, as though designed more for a sci-fi set than for the road.

The Cybertruck’s exoskeleton and angularity evoke an intimidating, almost militaristic aura. This appeals to those drawn to its powerful, imposing look, yet others find it unsettling, interpreting the design as aggressive or dystopian. It resembles a tank or heavy machinery more than a conventional vehicle, making it an eye-catching statement piece for some while distancing those who prefer a more refined aesthetic.

Historically, automotive beauty has been defined by smoothness, curves and symmetry, elements that lend vehicles a humanized, approachable appearance. The Cybertruck’s jagged, angular form defies these conventions, favoring a style that seems to prioritize durability and functionality over visual warmth. Fans see this as revolutionary and refreshingly utilitarian, while critics see it as a rejection of beauty altogether.

The truck’s minimalist design eliminates the soft, flowing lines that traditionally give vehicles an inviting look. Antoni Gaudí’s adage “the straight line belongs to man, the curved line to God” captures the human affinity for curves—a quality the Cybertruck notably lacks. Its straight lines, sharp angles and flat surfaces exude a mechanical coldness that some find thrilling and others view as devoid of humanity or elegance.

Adding to this raw aesthetic, the Cybertruck’s stainless-steel exoskeleton is left exposed, unpainted and unpolished. This choice conveys durability and strength but also an industrial, unfinished quality that feels more like machinery than a consumer vehicle. For fans of a rough, brutalist aesthetic, this look is appealing; for others who prefer refined, polished finishes, it comes across as crude and unsophisticated.

Elon Musk and Tesla have built a brand around breaking conventions, and the Cybertruck embodies this ethos perhaps more than any other product. Its design is both functional and symbolic, an attempt to shatter the mold and create something unapologetically different. Fans see it as a bold vision of the future; detractors view it as disruptive for disruption’s sake. The Cybertruck’s design thus reflects Tesla’s rebellious brand identity, making it a statement vehicle that polarizes as much through its association with the company’s philosophy as through its design itself.

The Cybertruck exudes a raw, unfiltered sense of power, appealing to those who interpret this as toughness or resilience. Others find this emphasis on power unsettling, seeing it as emblematic of a cultural trend toward oversized, domineering vehicles on the road. The truck’s design may even strike some as a hypermasculine flex, attracting those who admire it and repelling those who view it as an exaggerated assertion of dominance.

In its extreme minimalism, the Cybertruck pushes a modern aesthetic trend to its limit, stripping away ornamentation to embrace an “antidesign” ethos. For minimalism’s proponents, this is a statement of honesty or purity in design; for others, the truck’s stark simplicity feels unfinished or even crude. This tension reflects a broader debate about minimalism itself: Does simplicity enhance beauty, or can it become too stark and alienating?

In recent essays, cultural critic Ted Gioia questions whether beauty is becoming a lost art in our increasingly utilitarian world. He suggests that aesthetic values are vanishing from daily life, replaced by industrial design, functionality and minimalism. In a world where function often overshadows form, Gioia asks: Has society lost its soul?

Gioia contends that beauty is not a luxury but a necessity for human well-being. He argues that beauty shapes our sense of place, identity and emotional health, offering more than superficial pleasure by reflecting core human values. Drawing on Gaudí, Gioia suggests that a design emphasizing beauty embodies qualities of grace, organic forms and respect for nature. This stands in contrast to what he sees as modern design’s inclination toward intimidation and power.

While Gioia’s argument rings true in many respects, it is overstated. Not all designers have abandoned beauty for functionality. Architects Santiago Calatrava and Frank Gehry, for example, still create buildings of extraordinary beauty that push the boundaries of design. Calatrava’s Milwaukee Art Museum and Gehry’s Guggenheim Bilbao are celebrated for their daring forms, innovative use of materials and integration with their surroundings.

Calatrava’s museum, inspired by organic forms, features a kinetic brise-soleil that resembles wings opening and closing like those of a bird in flight. Situated along Lake Michigan, this movable structure harmonizes with the natural landscape, embodying a sense of grace and movement that brings art and nature together. Inside, the museum’s vaulted white spaces and flowing natural light create an ethereal, almost cathedral-like experience, transforming the act of visiting into a contemplative journey.

Similarly, Gehry’s Guggenheim Bilbao is a striking example of deconstructivist architecture, known for its fragmented, seemingly chaotic forms that challenge traditional aesthetics. Its undulating, metallic surfaces blend with the industrial landscape of Bilbao, reflecting the nearby Nervión River and creating a sculptural interplay between nature and architecture. Inside, the museum’s vast, open spaces invite exploration, enveloping visitors in a fluid, immersive environment that blurs the line between architecture and experience.

However, structures like these are exceptions rather than the rule. Few modern buildings achieve the emotional depth, cultural significance or artistry of the Milwaukee Art Museum or the Guggenheim Bilbao. Many factors contribute to this rarity, from financial and practical constraints to broader shifts in architectural philosophy.

One significant factor is cost. Iconic buildings often demand unique materials and advanced engineering. Gehry’s use of titanium for the Guggenheim Bilbao, for instance, added both expense and complexity. Today’s public and private projects often prioritize efficiency and budget constraints over artistic ambition, allocating funds to functional needs rather than experimental architecture.

This focus on functionality has, over time, shaped a style that prioritizes simplicity, cleanliness and utility, resulting in designs that may be sleek but lack emotional resonance. The rise of minimalist and modular approaches has promoted architecture that values uniformity and simplicity, yet rarely delivers the warmth and connection that distinctive forms can evoke.

A shift in architectural philosophy also plays a role. The modernist adage “form follows function” has minimized ornamentation and emotional expressiveness in favor of simplicity and practicality. This mindset remains influential, with additional emphasis on environmental sustainability and energy efficiency pushing designers toward streamlined aesthetics that serve ecological goals over expressive ones.

Economic and cultural pressures also discourage the creation of ambitious, artistically driven buildings. Artistic projects often involve risks—cost overruns, uncertain public reception and maintenance challenges—that make institutions cautious. Moreover, many contemporary buildings are designed with a short-term mindset, emphasizing immediate utility rather than long-term cultural impact.

In previous centuries, wealthy patrons commissioned monumental architecture to make cultural statements, a tradition that is rare today. Fewer institutions are willing to back culturally ambitious projects, and corporate or governmental designs often opt for conservative, brand-aligned structures over bold artistic statements.

Education and training also shape architectural output. Architectural programs today emphasize technical skills, such as structural engineering and sustainable materials, over cultivating artistic vision. Often treated as an applied science rather than a fine art, architecture education can limit the creativity and risk-taking needed for expressive, awe-inspiring designs.

Even public perception and taste factor into these trends. Experimental or avant-garde architecture can divide opinion and communities may resist projects that appear unconventional. As a result, developers often pursue designs that meet traditional expectations, prioritizing familiarity over the innovative or daring.

Practical constraints, too, influence architecture. In crowded urban spaces, zoning laws and height restrictions limit experimentation, often resulting in conventional shapes and reduced creative potential.

Yet buildings like Calatrava’s and Gehry’s remind us that architecture can inspire and engage in profound ways. Their work demonstrates how architecture can transcend functionality to provide a sense of place, cultural identity and aesthetic pleasure. As Gioia argues, beauty is not frivolous but essential. It connects us to our environments, enriches our emotional lives and offers a vital counterbalance to the utilitarianism that increasingly defines our world.

---

Few students today receive any introduction to aesthetic theory or the philosophy of beauty. This absence is a missed opportunity, for without a basic understanding of aesthetics, graduates lack the vocabulary and frameworks to discuss the value of design, ornamentation and beauty itself.

Various schools of aesthetic thought have attempted to define beauty, each offering different insights into how art engages the mind and senses, shapes society and influences human development. In a world often dominated by utility, speed and function, aesthetic theory opens up a deeper understanding of life’s intangible, enriching elements that often go unnoticed.

Aesthetic theories explore different criteria for what makes something beautiful, guiding us to see art as more than decoration—as a mirror reflecting complex human experience and as a force that can shape culture.

• Mimesis or imitation theory: Originating with the ancient Greeks, mimesis holds that art is beautiful when it accurately represents or imitates reality. Beauty, in this view, lies in a work’s ability to capture the essence of its subject, offering insight into nature’s or humanity’s truths. This theory fosters an appreciation of art’s realism, encouraging students to value art that reflects life’s complexities with skill and emotional depth.
• Formalist theory: Developed by early 20th-century critics like Clive Bell and Roger Fry, formalist theory shifts the focus from representation to an artwork’s inherent qualities—its shapes, lines, colors and composition. Here, beauty is found in the harmonious arrangement of these elements, independent of narrative or symbolism. For students, formalism reveals how form and structure can convey beauty, teaching them to appreciate art’s purely visual and sensory aspects.
• Expressionist theory: Popularized by theorists like Benedetto Croce and R. G. Collingwood, expressionist theory values art’s capacity to express the artist’s inner emotions, ideas or worldview. It prioritizes emotional resonance over accurate representation or formal qualities. Exposure to this theory encourages students to see beauty as a vehicle for empathy and emotional authenticity, fostering a deeper connection to both the artwork and its creator.
• Pragmatist or functionalist theory: Rooted in John Dewey’s ideas, pragmatist theory posits that beauty lies in art’s purpose within a cultural or social context. Art is valuable not only for its aesthetic qualities but also for its ability to stimulate thought, provoke reflection and foster social bonds. This approach helps students see art’s impact beyond individual experience, understanding its role in shaping collective perspectives.
• Kantian or sublime theory: Immanuel Kant distinguished between beauty and the sublime: Beauty evokes harmony and order, while the sublime triggers awe and a sense of grandeur that transcends ordinary experience. This theory suggests that art can inspire profound reflection on humanity’s place in the universe. The sublime invites students to embrace complexity and mystery as integral to aesthetic experience, challenging them to consider broader existential questions.
• Aesthetic experience theory: Influenced by philosophers like Edmund Burke and George Santayana, aesthetic experience theory emphasizes beauty’s emotional and sensory impact. Here, beauty captivates the viewer, sparking wonder or fascination. Engaging with this theory helps students value beauty’s capacity to heighten awareness and cultivate mindfulness, fostering sensitivity to life’s sensory richness.
• Institutional theory: Developed by George Dickie, institutional theory argues that beauty and artistic value are often defined by cultural and institutional recognition. Art becomes “art” when acknowledged by the art world—museums, critics, galleries. This theory prompts students to question how societal structures influence perceptions of beauty, offering insights into the roles of context and authority in shaping aesthetic judgment.
• Ruskin’s humanist theory of craftsmanship and detail: Influenced by the Arts and Crafts movement, John Ruskin emphasized craftsmanship, attention to detail and visible human effort in creating beauty. For Ruskin, true beauty reflects the labor, care and creativity of its maker. His theory encourages students to see beauty as personal and human, appreciating art for the skill, intention and individuality it embodies.
• Postmodern and deconstructivist theory: Rooted in thinkers like Jacques Derrida, postmodern theory challenges traditional standards of beauty. It values art that questions norms, disrupts conventions and provokes critical thought rather than adhering to established ideas of beauty. Engaging with postmodern aesthetics encourages students to view beauty as a fluid, evolving concept, shaped by cultural, political and personal perspectives.

---

Exposing students to diverse aesthetic theories broadens their understanding of beauty, encouraging them to see art as a complex language that speaks to different aspects of human experience. Through studying these theories, students gain insights into how art can:

Exposing students to diverse aesthetic theories broadens their understanding of beauty, encouraging them to see art as a complex language that speaks to different aspects of human experience. Through studying these theories, students gain insights into how art can:

• Enrich emotional awareness: Expressionist and aesthetic experience theories encourage students to explore emotions, promoting empathy, self-reflection and emotional intelligence as essential components of personal growth.
• Foster cultural sensitivity and historical awareness: Mimesis and institutional theories help students see how art reflects the values, norms and social structures of different times and places, providing a window into the cultural forces that shape aesthetics.
• Encourage critical thinking: Postmodern theory and formalist approaches challenge students to question assumptions and recognize biases, cultivating a mindset that values inquiry and open-mindedness.
• Deepen appreciation for craftsmanship: Ruskin’s humanist theory highlights the importance of labor, skill and dedication, teaching students to value beauty not as an accident but as the product of intention and care.
• Promote mindfulness and presence: Aesthetic experience theory invites students to engage deeply with art, cultivating sensory awareness and presence—offering a counterbalance to today’s fast-paced, utilitarian culture.
• Connect personal growth to larger questions: Kant’s sublime theory encourages students to place their experiences within a larger context, exploring questions about humanity’s relationship to nature, divinity and the cosmos.

By introducing students to aesthetic theory and the philosophy of beauty, colleges offer a more holistic education that balances career preparation with the development of culturally aware, emotionally resilient individuals. Beyond practical skills, aesthetic theory helps students navigate life’s complexities with a richer understanding of meaning, joy and purpose in the world around them.

---

Ted Gioia’s views align with Romantic and humanist perspectives on aesthetics—the idea that beauty is a vital part of human life, necessary for emotional and spiritual nourishment. His appreciation for Gaudí’s work, with its organic, complex forms, echoes Ruskin’s and William Morris’s beliefs that good design should incorporate beauty, craftsmanship and a connection to the natural world. Gioia’s critique also resonates with the moral aestheticism of philosophers like Kant and Schiller, who saw beauty as uplifting and capable of refining human character.

However, Gioia’s disdain for minimalistic or industrial designs echoes 19th-century critiques of industrialism, which often saw functional, mechanistic designs as dehumanizing. His perspective contrasts with modernist thinkers like Walter Gropius or Le Corbusier, who valued form that follows function, seeing beauty in the simplicity and practicality of modern design. This contrast raises questions about whether Gioia’s focus on beauty’s emotional appeal overlooks the intellectual and social dimensions of aesthetics that modernists and minimalists championed.

Gioia’s concerns expose what we may lose when aesthetic experience is sidelined. The issues he raises reveal a modern aesthetic landscape that values uniformity, utility and speed over the richness of detail, warmth and human connection. As beauty fades from everyday life, replaced by designs rooted in functionality, minimalism and uniformity, we face a quiet cultural impoverishment. Here are some key dimensions of this shift:

1. From craftsmanship to mass production: In earlier eras, craftsmanship infused even utilitarian objects with artistic value. Artisans poured time and skill into intricate designs, blending functionality with beauty. With mass production, however, quantity and efficiency have largely replaced quality and artistry. Objects are now designed to be replaced rather than cherished, contributing to a culture of disposability. While this approach makes goods more affordable and accessible, it often comes at the cost of character and uniqueness in the items that fill our lives.
2. The minimalist aesthetic’s rise: Minimalism, with its clean lines and sparse compositions, has dominated much of contemporary design, from architecture to consumer products. While minimalism can evoke serenity, it frequently sacrifices warmth, individuality and emotional connection. The result is that many modern spaces feel sterile and impersonal, prioritizing practicality over the creation of environments that feel welcoming and resonant. The minimalist focus on simplicity often eliminates the textures, colors and intricate details that foster a sense of belonging.
3. Utility and economic efficiency above all: In a world that prizes economic efficiency, beauty is often treated as a luxury. Buildings are increasingly designed to be cost-effective and easy to replicate, with little regard for ornamentation or cultural identity. The prioritization of utility leads to uniform urban landscapes, where glass-and-steel structures replace the architectural diversity that once defined cities. This homogenization detracts from the aesthetic diversity that gives places character and identity, creating visual monotony instead of inviting inspiration.
4. Industrial design’s push for uniformity: Industrial design now often emphasizes brand consistency, resulting in products that lack the distinctiveness that once characterized craftsmanship. Whether in household items, technology or public infrastructure, uniformity has become the standard, often at the expense of richness and memorability. We are left with objects and spaces that are functional but forgettable, lacking the aesthetic details that elevate everyday experiences and bring personality to our surroundings.
5. Impact on emotional and psychological well-being: Aesthetic variety and beauty contribute to emotional well-being, offering moments of joy and solace. Functional, efficiency-driven spaces, on the other hand, may evoke detachment or unease, meeting physical needs but failing to nourish the soul. The absence of beauty in our surroundings can subtly erode mental health, limiting our capacity for wonder, peace and connection. Studies have shown that beautiful environments foster positive emotions, while overly functional ones may leave us feeling unfulfilled.
6. Digital interfaces and the loss of tangibility: As daily life increasingly moves to digital screens, our interactions with beautifully crafted physical objects diminish. Reading, for instance, has transitioned from tactile books—designed with care for materials and aesthetics—to streamlined digital devices that prioritize functionality. This shift not only removes the sensory pleasure of interacting with physical forms but also reduces our exposure to varied, meaningful aesthetics, replacing them with uniform, impersonal screens.

Interestingly, as beauty becomes less common, it is also more coveted. There has been a resurgence in appreciation for artisanal crafts, historic preservation and design that prioritizes aesthetics. Independent shops, handcrafted goods and preserved architectural spaces are increasingly valued as refuges from the uniformity of mass-produced items. This trend suggests that beauty remains important to people, even as it becomes rarer, reflecting a cultural longing for the richness and character that efficient, functional designs often lack.

---

Can we reintroduce beauty as an essential, everyday value?

Doing so would require a cultural shift that elevates aesthetics alongside efficiency and utility. Designers, architects and urban planners can play a vital role by prioritizing beauty and variety in their work, crafting environments that inspire rather than merely serve. Likewise, consumers can contribute by valuing well-crafted, aesthetically pleasing items, even if they come at a higher cost, supporting a renewed demand for quality and artistry over disposability and convenience. On a larger scale, communities can invest in public art, green spaces and distinctive architecture that enhance shared spaces, signaling that beauty is something to be celebrated and preserved.

While our world has grown more functional (and disposable), it has often done so at the expense of aesthetic richness, leaving many of us in an environment that feels stripped of depth and warmth. Beauty, however, is far from a luxury; it connects us more deeply to our surroundings, nourishes our emotional well-being and underscores our capacity to create meaning beyond mere functionality.

The challenge today lies in restoring a balance between practical demands and our innate need for beauty—an element that brings joy, soul and a sense of transcendence to daily life. Embracing beauty in our shared spaces and everyday objects could reawaken a deeper connection to our humanity, reminding us that life’s true value lies beyond the purely utilitarian.