Fascism via "vokisch" movements and ideas attempted to more or less co-opt and own romanticism, classicism, and other forms of non-"modernist" aesthetics. As a result you had a counter-reaction that labeled these things fascist and embraced intentionally minimal, modernist, or decadent themes in rebellion against them.
The solution is probably to de-fascize(?) classical and romantic aesthetics. Not sure how you'd do it though since if you search Twitter for random people with greek and classical looking avatars they're inevitably raging racist totalitarians or nihilistic /pol troll types.
Maybe you could do it with shocking-to-fascists heresy like "woke" propaganda wrapped in neoclassical high culture aesthetics. No idea.
Of course it could also be useful to just point out that fascism is really a form of "high modernism." Fascism is a form of "we are smart people who know better and are going to centrally plan and re-make culture the way we think it should be," which is precisely what's wrong with the high modernist approach to the inhabited landscape.
> Fascism via "vokisch" movements and ideas attempted to more or less co-opt and own romanticism, classicism, and other forms of non-"modernist" aesthetics.
In my opinion, it's not so much that "fascism" (sort of a useless label in today's world) has co-opted traditional aesthetics, it's that the left has run away from the actual concept of beauty.
As an example: look at the body positivity movement. Everybody, no matter how obviously repulsive, is celebrated as beautiful no matter what. They're not just having their dignity as people recognized which is a great thing, but their actual level of beauty. How can the concept of aesthetics exist in a realm where everything is automatically labelled as beauty?
To have beauty, some must be recognized as better than others.
"Body positivity" is not about labeling everything as beautiful but rather not labeling people who may not match traditional standards of beauty as "ugly."
Is this actually how it's practiced? I know this is the professed meaning of the term/movement but when it comes to the implementation it seems to be turning into something much different. Also, in this definition of beauty where do you draw the line for "ugly" or is it now a word without a meaning?
I'm in a lot of these circles and usually it's exactly how it works.
You see a fat person, someone says they're beautiful.
Do you A: call them ugly to make them feel bad
or
B: keep moving.
The basis of body positivity is to help folks have less self hate while being like "wtf dude, don't be a dick" to the people constantly criticizing them.
I don't think body positivity is needed for that, just manners. Is there actually a problem that is being solved by body positivity that can't be solved by just being polite?
> The solution is probably to de-fascize(?) classical and romantic aesthetics.
This is all so funny. Rewind a generation or two and all this "fascist" talk was directed at folk who admired men wearing togas while emitting Latin. Back then, 'to strip down to its essence and meaning' was the revolutionary act.
> [Architecture] is a form of "we are smart people who know better and are going to centrally plan and re-make culture the way we think it should be,"
And that is the point of architecture (vs mere act of building). Your myths, religions, literature, music, philosophy, and architecture and most matter of significance that is part and parcel of your culture was most likely created and promoted by a tiny (tiny!) subset of the population. Always has been. Everywhere.
> to centrally plan and re-make culture the way we think it should be,"
Is, has been, and will always remain the prerogative of the ruling class. All this aesthetic talk is blather masking the underlying and reasonable social angst regarding the highly distorted wealth and power distribution among the population. The clique in power sets the tone and direction of culture. Heck, your kings used to have dreams, wake up and change religions, and then presto pagans become Christian or Jew or Muslim. [Don't shoot the messenger. Just pointing out facts.]
And if you think this gray "putty" business is bad, I invited you to review K-Mart catalogues from 70s. Everything came in two neon colors - some washed out puke blue and a variation of 'dirt color'. I remember asking my dad when we first came over to US (and I got my first k-mart shock) as to why won't they make nicer colors for the common people. It remained a puzzle for a long time, this insistence on making cheap consumer items look even cheaper.
So this gray is actually the progression from K-Mart Puke Pallet -> Gap's B&W T -> faux-thoughtful "gray". It is progress, of a sort, believe it or not.
Those people you mention, as far as I understand you are identifying what we call the 'Intelligentsia'. They are the ideological siblings of the Fascists, so no wonder they have the same / very similar approach.
The solution is probably to de-fascize(?) classical and romantic aesthetics. Not sure how you'd do it though since if you search Twitter for random people with greek and classical looking avatars they're inevitably raging racist totalitarians or nihilistic /pol troll types.
Maybe you could do it with shocking-to-fascists heresy like "woke" propaganda wrapped in neoclassical high culture aesthetics. No idea.
Of course it could also be useful to just point out that fascism is really a form of "high modernism." Fascism is a form of "we are smart people who know better and are going to centrally plan and re-make culture the way we think it should be," which is precisely what's wrong with the high modernist approach to the inhabited landscape.