We've all had that moment while perusing a flea bazaar or clutter abundance if you blunder above an account and accept to yelp, "Good lord, that is ugly!" So ugly, in fact, you accept to curiosity that it even got fabricated in the aboriginal place.
But what is it in actuality that makes an commodity ugly? Account a Rococo room, with every inch covered in scrolling gold ornamentation, awash with abounding cherubs and vaguely amative aberrant shapes. Do you feel abashed or fascinated? Compare that with the spare, apple-pie curve of Shaker allowance with simple, affected board furniture. Is it the account of beatific accord or aching boredom? Does folk art make you cringe, or do you see chapped adorableness in its imperfections? Does irised carnival glass accomplish you jump for joy or avoid your eyes?
You ability feel revolted by an object, but if you try to considerately explain why it is ugly, it's harder than you think. A lot of bodies are afflicted by the ascendant tastes and appearance sensibilities of their generation, class, and indigenous group, and if you abolish those factors from the equation, an exact, accepted analogue of "ugliness" becomes about absurd to pin down.

Top: The basilica at Ottobeuren Abbey in Germany was congenital in adorned Rococo appearance in the 18th century. (Photo by Johannes Böckh & Thomas Mirtsch, via WikiCommons) Above: These folk-art automatons, hand-carved in the 1930s, represent Popeye and Olive Oyl’s date night.
British architectonics analyzer and cultural analyst Stephen Bayley was up for the challenge, autograph a book alleged Ugly: The Aesthetics of Everything, aboriginal appear in 2012. But as Bayley—who is unapologetically bedeviled with his Modernist adaptation of beauty—delved into the action of analytical what he and others accede ugly, he begin that the anamorphosis would vanish.
Still, anybody has an automatic faculty of ugliness—things we acquisition troubling, aggressive, or annoying—and we apperceive it if we see it. "We all apperceive what beastly really means," Bayley says. "The English chat comes the Old Norse word, 'uggligr,' which agency 'aggressive,' which is why we allocution about an 'ugly customer' in English. Beastly things are things which we acquisition disturbing. But at the aforementioned time, advancing things are aswell interesting."
Ugliness is aswell decidedly harder to architectonics on purpose, as Bayley apparent both teaching and speaking with architectonics students. "If you accord a chic of architectonics acceptance a project, adage 'Please architectonics an beastly building,' they in actuality acquisition that difficult. It's absolute difficult to actualize ugliness, although you wouldn't accept it by walking about in any big city. Anamorphosis generally is just an accident, but it's generally in actuality fascinating."
Bayley explains that advisers belief "neuro-aesthetics," which he calls "this new about pseudo-science," are attempting to map the beastly brain's acknowledgment to what's admirable and what's repulsive. But scientists accept been attempting to quantify adorableness for ages.
This 1960s Danish Modern teak board and a new iPhone actualize Stephen Bayley’s ethics of admirable design.
As far as we know, age-old Greek mathematicians like Pythagoras and Euclid were the aboriginal to account what's accepted as the Golden Ratio, an aesthetically adorable arrangement begin generally in nature. Centuries later, a medieval Italian mathematician alleged Leonard Fibonacci gave the arrangement a afterwards sequence. It's begin in the petals and berry active of flowers, in pinecones and pineapples, in timberline branches, nautilus shells, circling galaxies, beastly faces, beastly bodies, and DNA sequences. It's aswell the abject of archetypal Greek and Renaissance architecture.
Paradoxically, if every individual affair in the apple were absolute and altogether proportioned, bodies would be miserable. In fact, too abundant accomplishment can even be disturbing, as scientists apparent if they alien bodies to humanoid robots too absolute to be absolute people. The approach of the "uncanny valley" explains why bodies are revolted by simulations that are "almost human" but not quite. Similarly, Bayley finds anamorphosis in actuality necessary.
These 1940s “feature matches” are violent, racist, and active above function. (Photos by Frank Kelsey)
"We charge array and we charge strife. We charge artful conflict. In this sense, anamorphosis may be a absolute acceptable thing. We charge a assertive admeasurement of anamorphosis in adjustment to adore the beautiful. But how abundant anamorphosis do we need? Should 30 percent of the apple be ugly, or 40 percent? I don't know."
In his book, which Bayley says is hardly tongue-in-cheek, he reiterates this complaint that the democratization of burning meant that altar were fabricated to allure the broadest customer abject possible, by ambrosial to the everyman accepted denominator—the aforementioned criticism amusing critics accept launched at television programming for decades.
"Before automated production, alone the absolute affluent could buy arbitrary goods. Everybody abroad subsisted on ability production," Bayley explains. "But the Automated Revolution angry everybody into consumers, and aggregate became an chance in the history of taste. Bernard Berenson, the abundant art historian, already said that aftertaste begins if the appetence is satisfied. And that's what happened, really, in the 19th aeon to a absolute abounding degree: The appetites of these new consumers were satisfied.
A 1930s photo Walter Potter’s “Rabbit School” diorama, if it was still on affectation at his Bramber, Sussex, museum. Potter was an aboriginal abecedarian taxidermist who created dioramas of animals accomplishing beastly activities in the mid-1800s. (Via Wikipedia, Creative Commons license)
And so, accepted Victorians abounding up their homes with knick-knacks and "conversation pieces" like art canteen paperweights, which, Bayley writes, "represent in miniature the nineteenth-century attitude to design: at already marvels of the industry, but aswell artful horrors. … If the accessible had a aberrant appetence for the marvellous, again the baron and entrepreneurs who bogus paperweights were able-bodied able to activate and amuse it."
Expectant mothers generally acclimated stork-shaped altar like these adornment scissors. Stork-shaped clamps were even acclimated to cut umbilical cords.
Victorians were able-bodied acquainted of their own excesses and ridiculousness. In 1852, Henry Cole, the architect and administrator of the academy that became accepted as the Victoria and Albert Museum, opened a Gallery of False Principles demonstrating bad design, which came to be accepted as the acutely accepted "chamber of horrors." In a 2001 commodity in the Guardian's magazine, Sarah Wise describes the accumulating absolute things like a blush canteen shaped like a snake, a flower-pot shaped like reeds angry with a chicken ribbon, scissors shaped like a stork, a morning-glory shaped gas-jet lamp fabricated of canteen and bizarre brass, a jug in the anatomy of a timberline trunk, a chintzy papier-mâché tray, and blindingly active wallpaper.
In Germany, architectonics babysitter Gustav E. Pazaurek followed in Cole's footsteps, aperture his "Cabinet of Bad Taste" at the Stuttgart State Crafts Architectonics in 1909 to authenticate what he advised architectonics mistakes. His archive of architectonics offenses includes annihilation fabricated of fur, bones, or teeth; beastly trophies; absolute acclimated to imitate added materials; banal altar apery handcrafted ones; berserk ornamentation; lies of function; odd proportions; aciculate edges; boundless iridescence; anachronisms; architectonics assuming adopted cultures; affected folk art; jingoistic, religious, racist, or sexist kitsch; and toys that abuse children.
The morning celebrity gas-jet lamp begin in Henry Cole’s “chamber of horrors.”
To rid the Apparatus Age of all this bad design, the aboriginal after-effects of Mid-Century Modernism accustomed as the Bauhaus academy in 1919 and as Art Deco, or Streamline Moderne, in 1925. This time, the elite, accomplished apple of architectonics would adorn and abridge accepted banal customer objects, alms the army accessible top-down taste, through admirable and apprehensible things such as Catalin radios and Bauhaus chairs.
"Mass-produced getting doesn't accept to be ugly," Bayley says. "Mass assembly requires standards, and standards advance to excellence, or so Le Corbusier believed. Accumulation assembly frequently leads to affected and adorable solutions. That's the accomplished chance about the chance of Modern design. It was meant to accomplish adorableness commonplace and democratic. That's a admirable idea."
For example, iconic artist Raymond Loewy even adapted domiciliary machines, such as the Coldspot refrigerator, Coke dispenser, and Singer exhaustion cleaner, into chrome-trimmed works of art during the 1940s and '50s. In 1956, according to Ugly, Dieter Rams accomplished the acme of Modern celebrity with the radio-turntable dubbed "Snow White's Coffin."
Dieter Rams’ 1956 SK4 Braun radio, alleged “Snow White’s Coffin,” is Modernist accomplishment in Bayley’s eyes. (From “Ugly,” address of Wright)
In the 1950s and '60s, the sleek, efficient, and futurist attending of Mid-Century Modern was captivated into accumulated culture, as it bedeviled offices adorned with Knoll furniture. Buildings fabricated in the Modernist subset accepted as Brutalism—so alleged afterwards the French phrasebeton brut, acceptation "raw concrete"—were heavy, large, arty things with bulging angles that attending alarming to bodies now.
"Most bodies do acquisition Brutalism airedale today," Bayley concedes. "But in England, there's a change of taste. That's why I put England's a lot of acclaimed Brutalist building, the Trellick Tower in West London, on the aback anorak of my book. It's afresh been listed by English Heritage as a architectonics of civic celebrated architectural importance. Any minute now, I affiance you, Prince Charles, who acclimated to adjudge these things, will be cogent us that Trellick Tower is a affair of beauty."
The Trellick Tower in London, commissioned in 1966 and completed in 1972, is getting accustomed for its absolute acceptation as an archetype of Brutalist architecture. (Via WikiCommons)
In Ugly, Bayley names a few of his affliction offenders from their book's agreeable page, including novelties and gags; Aloha shirts; bobbleheads; Tupperware; artificial Christmas trees; tattoos; Troll dolls; polyester; Day-Glo; macramé; pet clothing; abandoned rugs; snowglobes; collapsed chairs; and candle art.
One account item, "Breasts (enormous)" seems like body-shaming, until you apprehend the Sterns are not talking about living, breath women themselves. Instead, they're apropos to the U.S.'s civic attraction with objectifying big breasts by depicting them on absolute azoic altar from Barbie dolls to girlie glasses and bank gift mugs shaped like aerial boobs. Assertive car bumpers were even crassly dubbed Dagmars, because they resembled the abounding apprehension band of a 1950s extra Virginia Ruth Dagmar. All this cheap and sexist leering makes bodies in the aristocratic architectonics apple cringe. But at the aforementioned time, they accede it tasteful and not at all chargeless these canicule to betrayal baby breasts on runaways and in appearance shoots, what some critics accept dubbed "fashion tits."
This atrocious gag box from the 1950s highlights America’s attraction with objectifying abounding breasts. (Courtesy of Mardi and Stan Timm)
Today, Apple articles like iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks actualize Bayley's ethics of affected and anatomic design, but, he says, Apple will anon accept no best but to accomplish them added gaudy. "Apple's run out of account aesthetically," he explains. "You can't accomplish annihilation added authentic than the accepted iPhone or iPad. They're traveling to accept to go Baroque—which they've already started to do. You see it with their new products, like the iPhones in ablaze colors. Their English chief carnality admiral of design, Jonathan Ive, is a ablaze guy. What he's accomplishing is ultra-sophisticated. He created these technologically close articles application a craftsman's address and abilities because his father's a silversmith and he in actuality knows how metal works. These admirable things in our easily are alone allegedly simple. They're in actuality extraordinary. They're not commonsensical at all, but abundantly attenuate and contrived. I affiance you, in 5 years' time, they'll be absolute different."
Writing Ugly, Bayley ran accurately into addition contradiction: If good, anatomic architectonics with apple-pie curve telegraphs top morals, again what about the Colt .45, "the gun that won the West," which functions excellently? Many beautiful, alarming altar accept been designs for "ugly" purposes, such as death, war, and accumulation destruction. Colt .45s and added automated accoutrements in the 1800s were sometimes embellished—plated in gold or argent and hand-engraved with intricate designs.
Saddlemaker Edward H. Bohlin endemic this cased Individual Action Army Revolver, bogus by Colt’s Patent Fire Arms Manufacturing Company, about 1903. He engraved it himself, and Gene Autry eventually bought this gun. (Courtesy of the Autry Civic Center)
"Again, I'm abrasive some of the assumptions of the Modernist movement, which said annihilation well-designed would be beautiful," Bayley says. "That's acutely not true, because a lot of things which plan absolute able-bodied like oil refineries, few bodies acquisition them beautiful. Equally, with things like accoutrements and military aircraft, lots of bodies would accede that they're beautiful, but again they accept a anatomic purpose which a lot of bodies acquisition repellant. That's why I wrote the little affiliate about the B-52. What an amazing machine. It's awe-inspiring, the abstruse ability it suggests. I alone acquisition it a physically admirable affair as well, with admirable shapes and details. But this beautifully advised apparatus was created in adjustment to could cause destruction. What array of adorableness is that?"
Perhaps accuracy is not beauty, afterwards all.
(To apprehend more, aces up Stephen Bayley's "Ugly: The Aesthetics of Everything" at Overlook Press. Acquisition added of Bayley's books at his web site.)
Related Links:
Velvet Underdogs: In Praise of the Paintings the Art Apple Loves to Hate
Taxidermy Comes Alive! On the Web, the Argent Screen, and in Your Active RoomStyle Gone Wild: Why We Can't Shake the 1970sHow Your Grandpa Got His LOLsKem Weber: The Mid-Century Modern Artist Who Paved the Way for IKEA
This article has been excerpted with permission from Collectors Weekly. To apprehend in its entirety, head here.
To subscribe to updates from Collectors Weekly, you can like them on Facebook here or chase them on Twitter here.