The building in question was the Eiffel Tower.
It's beautiful in many way, certainly iconic and has grandfathered its way into our idea of Paris, but I understand Maupassant and I think if they built it today, I would feel the same way.
Who would have the gall to say something like "most people" don't think it's beautiful? People on hacker news really are opinionated about everything, aren't they.
Compare that to Notre Dame. Also really very tall, but with no iron skeleton, no continuum mechanics. Geometry, in fact, holds it together - an architect had no other tool at the time - but the basic shapes are subtle, and don't scream at you "I am a curve on the Cartesian plane"
Note quite, people today see the Eiffel Tower as a world wonder and a symbol of France itself. But back in the late 1800's many Parisians considered it gaudy and several prominent artists bitterly contested its construction.
It's iconic and arguably the symbol of Paris, but it's not really something you would think of when thinking of architectural or functional beauty.
It's an amazing structure and nothing like that was possible before. Only after the construction of it could people get a view of Paris never before possible.
You should read Robert Hughes' book "The Shock of the New" or watch the series. I think it's online on Youtube. It begins with the Eiffel Tower as the starting point and centerpiece of modernism and works through to the modern day to see how art and architecture have evolved for better and worse.
It may give you a new appreciation for the structure within the context of history.
That doesn't make it beautiful but an engineering feat.
Ugly is the wrong word. Conformity is. If you consider conformity ugly, you will see it as ugly, if you do not, it will not be ugly. It's all subjective.
"it's ugly" is a very compelling argumentation
i think there is a difference between the Eiffel Tower and the random office building in the middle of Roma
I also didn't say the Eiffel Tower was ugly, I said most people don't think it's an exemplar of beauty, even those that like it.
To use an example: if a person in New York City said that "all the restaurants taste the same and it's all just subjective," would you buy a dining tour guide book from them? Or would you buy a book from someone that has made an effort to understand what makes a restaurant good or not?
I have been to 'good' restaurants. Excellent food, immaculate plating, perfect service. Immense cost.
This is why I'm heavily discounting your opinion here, because there seems to be a massive amount of axises that are being neglected that make these products 'good'.
Energy use per product, general product acceptance to the massive to lower per unit cost, product fungibility are all metrics that can subtract from both subjective and in some cases objective beauty. You could have the most objectively beautiful object in the world, but if I can't have it because it's too difficult to manufacture in bulk or too expensive, then subjectively I think your product isn't that great at all.
Most of us don't actually use restaurant guides, and we don't say "wow that was awesome" unironically when we didn't like it but the "experts" told us otherwise.
Aesthetics is fairly subjective, yes.
Use "an" only if the following word starts with a vowel (with few exceptions) -> "The Eiffel Tower is an abomination".
It is a modernist monstrosity.