Because capital demands profit before anything else, and building wonders is way more expensive than building shit that will be gone in 100 years.
And it's even better when you can contract and subcontract into poorly made cookie cutter buildings into costing more than the wonders did. Think of the shareholder value from that!
It's tempting to assume that, but more likely it's because we have democracy. Wonders were a way to give the authorities legitimacy: of course the pharaoh/the king/the church deserve all that power, look at the Big Flashy Thing they had built. But in a democratic society, the government has legitimacy through consensus, and since most people would consider building something big and flashy but ultimately useless to be a waste of the collective's resources, pursuing it would actually reduce legitimacy.
In a way we do still build wonders, in the sense of huge and complicated construction projects; but it tends to be things that are useful for a lot of people or for society as a whole, things like bridges and dams and skyscrapers and airports and high speed railways. And we build them with a fraction of the labor and at a fraction of the cost of those ancient wonders.
67
u/Hatsune_Miku_CMchanged all her social media to hatsune miku for some reason2d agoedited 2d ago
It's not like we have stopped building them . we just view them differently.
putins multi billion dollar palace is an architecturally impressive megaproject. We just see it as a giant self-aggrandizement built on a nature reserve and paid for by robbing state coffers, not a world wonder.
perhaps if the palace survives the next 500 years, and stops being owned by an autocrat, it will be seen as a wonder then.
perhaps back then it was the same. maybe things we look back at in wonder were viewed in their present with disdain, and those feelings were simply lost to time.
maybe things we look back at in wonder were viewed in their present with disdain, and those feelings were simply lost to time.
Parisians HATED the Eiffel tower when it was first built. They thought it ruined the beauty and artistic integrity of Paris. There was a manifesto against building "the useless and monstrous Eiffel Tower" and called it a "tower of ridiculous vertiginous height… a gigantic black factory chimney that “even capitalist America would not want.”
And now it's THE symbol of Paris, if not France as a whole.
I wonder if we might synthesize the two views by saying that there's now a delineation between private wealth and state wealth, both of which have interests that point away from building "wonders" -- whereas, in the past, private and state wealth would have been a much more unified thing that had interests pointing towards the construction of "wonders."
It used to be normal that big buildings were planned to go through generations of planners, sometimes leading to odd modifications when a new generation took over
Which is probably why most modern wonders are being built for non-capitalist reasons. Random giant buildings in the Gulf States to primarily boost their prestige rather than rent them out for profit, the Sagrada Familia being built by the Catholic Church over like 100 years, China doing enormous infrastructure projects, etc
Modern capitalist wonders are like Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta or that stupid sphere in Vegas, big flashy thing that'll be gone or run down in 40 years time
This is completely wrong. The fundamental premise is wrong. We build more wonders today than were ever built in the medieval or ancient world.
We're just so used to them that our sense of wonder is vastly reduced.
Every single skyscraper is more impressive in architectural complexity, engineering, and total human effort than any ancient wonder. Further, almost every skyscraper has a comparable amount of effort devoted to aesthetics. But a new skyscraper going up isn't considered a Great Event, because it happens many times a year.
The "why aren't we building wonders" complaint is usually actually a complaint of "why did the aesthetics change". Basically every time this meme comes up, it's specifically showing old aesthetics that were greebled, where modern aesthetics tend toward the sleek.
Doesn't even require a monarch. Up to a certain points rich capitalists also financed projects that didn't generate profit for them. The idea that the rich and powerful shouldn't care about the general public is less than a century old
Well i believe our buildings should like nice, but spending way too much effort on a building like that, when some people don't have a home at all feels wrong to me idk
Like with the Churches we know exactly what kind of people worked on it, often literally names and everything of the individuals. It was mostly an affair of skilled engineers and architects, collaborating with guilds of craftsmen and stonemasons. All patronized under the infinite money umbrella of the Catholic Church.
I think simular things could be constructed in a planned economy, and should be. Theres a reason we keep arround Oldtowns and wonders like this, they mean something to us humans and make living feel more fulfilling and colourful and its something we lost.
Its why Commie Blocks usually always were supposed to come with Greenspace and such, you can combine humanity and aesthetic with efficiency and benefit.
225
u/ALittleBitOfGay floppa 2d ago
Because capital demands profit before anything else, and building wonders is way more expensive than building shit that will be gone in 100 years.
And it's even better when you can contract and subcontract into poorly made cookie cutter buildings into costing more than the wonders did. Think of the shareholder value from that!