Wal-Mart and Murder

Over in kStyle's comment sections, Ann wants to know whether Wal-Mart or murder can be beautiful, in part because I argued, elsewhere in the comments, that functionality can/does "bestow" beauty on something. Ann's question is whether it DOES, by the rules I've already suggested.

I'm insisting on messiness, as I often do, and probably being Kantian, in the sense that I'm arguing (whether or not Kant would agree with me) that an end that is, in itself, problematic (as, i would argue, Wal-Mart is) or downright wrong (as, I would argue, murder is) makes it difficult, perhaps impossible, for the execution of that end to be beautiful. That is, it's not just that something must (or perhaps only should?) be functional in order to have the attribute of beauty, it's also that the thing that is functional must itself be a worthwhile thing. This may be merely a question of whether functionalities must be interlinking and must be considered in that way to judge them properly. For example, Wal-Mart may serve certain kinds of ends, most notably the enprofitulation of its owners, but do a poor job of serving other worthwhile functions that we may properly regard as linked to the functionality of business establishments. That is, if Wal-Mart's functionality at enprofitulation requires treating workers poorly, degrading the quality of merchandise available, etc., then we might argue that Wal-Mart is not, in fact, beautifully functional, unless, of course, I had the luck to be born into the owning family.

The biggest problem with this, of course, is who decides--whether something is worthwhile, whether it's functional, whether it succeeds, on its own or others' terms, at the thing it sets out to do. And, if it does, is it beautiful? A spoon may function perfectly well as a spoon--which gets it some points, in my book--but not be notable in any other way. Is that a sufficient condition for beauty? (Probably not. Mere functionality may be a worthwhile goal, but may not suffice for beauty.)

On the other hand is the question Anne posed, i.e., the one raised by the decorative impulse. That is, some things, jewelry and paintings being the objects in question, don't serve an obvious or utilitarian function, even if they serve a decorative function. If we're not sure whether "decoration" is properly regarded as a function, then we must ask whether functionality is a necessary condition for beauty. Even if we do regard decoration as a proper function, this is obviously a situation where it's easy for the decorative impulse to take over, as it were, and overwhelm functionality. (Most "fashionable" clothing, for example, suffers from this.) So, I think, I'm insisting that something not just be functional, but that the function it serves be worthwhile (or moral).

Who decides all of this? I do. Well, and you, too. i think the interactive aspects of life require that we all take part in these conversations.

As you might imagine, I could say more, but it's time to make the croissants.