If I hypothetically make something that is widely accepted as beautiful, then I reproduce it and put it everywhere so that everyone in the United States will see it at least once a day, but probably more than that, will it be considered less beautiful?
If so, why do objects become less beautiful if they become more accessible? How much do wonder, curiosity, and imagination contribute as factors in defining something's aesthetical value?
A friend of mine studying architecture said this: "In the context of architecture, the original modernist designs were considered stunning in their simplicity... but once they were reproduced over and over, and classical/victorian/old buildings were knocked down and destroyed, the situation reversed: those old buildings were considered beautiful again and the now over-abundant modernist buildings were now just noise in the background."
How much of aesthetics is determined by the attribution of favorable nonaesthetic traits? If I look at a logo for a company whose functional work I am impressed with, and whose business model is beyond admirable, do I associate its sense of design with beauty? Is beauty a byproduct of functional compatibility?
[Note: I realize there are many questions here, and I don't anticipate answers for all of them -- the one I'm most curious about is our attribution of accessibility to aesthetics.]
Read another response by Richard Heck
Read another response about Beauty