There is such a demand for beauty. As PhD student, I keep asking myself how I can inject beauty into my writing, research, and eventual teaching. How do I make things not only informative but beautiful?
It feels additionally important for me as a Catholic. So many great Catholic voices of the past several decades have emphasized the need for beauty.
Somehow, making things more beautiful feels fundamental.
When I lived in Germany for two years. I went to bakeries every single day. The breads are famous, but the pastries I found spectacular. Substantial rather than airy, which is my preference.
The worst wurst almost assuredly beats the best sausage in the US. Germans raised very, very good pork.
Spatzle! Sauerkraut! Kartofflen!
One thing I could not find in Germany was peanut butter, because apparently after WWII, the US practically drowned Germany in it – – cheap & nourishing – – and they basically learned to hate it. Also, one day a neighbor girl was over and we were eating popcorn when her mother popped in and about had a heart attack. Corn was PIG FOOD FULL STOP. We may as well have been eating little Friskies cat food.
Yes, and the restaurant culture in Germany is amazing. Not limited to traditional German food, very international. Typical conversation, “Are we dining at the Italian, the Spanish, or the Indonesian place?” Döner? A bit uninformed to make the statement that appears in the main post.
Also, was the intended suggestion that post-modern architecture is anti-beauty because it does not have a defining style, but instead borrows elements from other styles? You may not like a post-modern building, and it is true that some are badly conceived, but to suggest post-modern architecture can’t be beautiful because it is not a traditional Beaux Arts type of architecture is frankly ridiculous and again uninformed. It’s easy to make bold sweeping statements that make judgments about broad categories of things (and generate comments), but not so easy to do that with accuracy and thoughtfulness.
One could also theorize that the current commercial (and current federal government) culture of today does not value the building of beautiful things as in the past, rather than it being the fault of intellectual culture. It takes $ to build great architecture, not just ideas.
I had no comment on the architecture, only the food because I had some experience, albeit 1000 years ago. So I threw my morsels in Henry’s path, and I regard him as a true treasure of the Internet, podcast conversations, & Substack!
"From 1870-1920, the US undisputedly produced the best architecture in the world" - Living in the Chicago area, I have to agree with this, because this city more than others proves the truth of this statement. It burned down in 1871, so the rebuilding process showcased the best American architects of this crucial period, who suddenly had a great blank space they needed to fill.
I thought it was unprofessional and irresponsible. This is going to introduce a whole new generation to Homer. She sounds bitter. Clearly she’s brilliant but what is her real world experience and/or knowledge base concerning film adaptations? It’s pure conjecture but I think Nolan wanted nothing to do with a cantankerous old academic. She’s most likely exhausting to be around. Good to read you’re viewing it as a hit job.
In defense of Emily Wilson, she is a wonderful, generous, and entertaining person, and a brilliant translator. I enjoyed the movie personally, but it deviates from the epic poem in several aspects including its conception of Odysseus as an individual and a character, the ending, and episodes such as the interlude on Circe’s island Aeaea, as well as others. There are legitimate reasons to disagree about all that.
I’ve never met her. I know nothing about her. Her piece reeked of spite and vindictiveness. This story was passed down through oral tradition for hundreds of years prior to its written form. It was interpreted countless ways by countless people prior to Homer. This was her chance to connect with the younger generation and get them excited about literature in general. She blowtorched that opportunity.
Her publisher says she’s sold over 1,000,000 copies of her translation of The Odyssey so far in 2026 (I didn’t see a number for The Iliad) - she’s doing something for literature.
Her translation had a rapid increase in sales due to Nolan’s movie. Let’s not pretend otherwise. I’m not having some inane back and forth. Good day to you.
There is an emerging movement called neuroarchitecture (a branch of neuroaesthetics) which makes the scientific case for beauty in the built environment as an essential contributor to human flourishing (full disclosure, my book Welcome to Your World: How the Built Environment Shapes Our Lives was an early salvo). Anyway, it's simply untrue that many architecture movements post-1930 wanted to "destroy beauty"-- those were the years of Villaneuva in Venezuela, Niemeyer in Brazil, Aalto in Finland . . . I could go on. And: US architecture 1870-1920? Good and some great buildings, for sure (New York Public Library, for one), but THE BEST? Gaudi's Sagrada Familia? Garnier's Opera? Sacre-Coeur? Art Nouveau in Belgium, France? Viennese Secessionism?
There is such a demand for beauty. As PhD student, I keep asking myself how I can inject beauty into my writing, research, and eventual teaching. How do I make things not only informative but beautiful?
It feels additionally important for me as a Catholic. So many great Catholic voices of the past several decades have emphasized the need for beauty.
Somehow, making things more beautiful feels fundamental.
Au contraire, mon ami! Quelle horreur! Mein Gott!
When I lived in Germany for two years. I went to bakeries every single day. The breads are famous, but the pastries I found spectacular. Substantial rather than airy, which is my preference.
The worst wurst almost assuredly beats the best sausage in the US. Germans raised very, very good pork.
Spatzle! Sauerkraut! Kartofflen!
One thing I could not find in Germany was peanut butter, because apparently after WWII, the US practically drowned Germany in it – – cheap & nourishing – – and they basically learned to hate it. Also, one day a neighbor girl was over and we were eating popcorn when her mother popped in and about had a heart attack. Corn was PIG FOOD FULL STOP. We may as well have been eating little Friskies cat food.
Yes, and the restaurant culture in Germany is amazing. Not limited to traditional German food, very international. Typical conversation, “Are we dining at the Italian, the Spanish, or the Indonesian place?” Döner? A bit uninformed to make the statement that appears in the main post.
Also, was the intended suggestion that post-modern architecture is anti-beauty because it does not have a defining style, but instead borrows elements from other styles? You may not like a post-modern building, and it is true that some are badly conceived, but to suggest post-modern architecture can’t be beautiful because it is not a traditional Beaux Arts type of architecture is frankly ridiculous and again uninformed. It’s easy to make bold sweeping statements that make judgments about broad categories of things (and generate comments), but not so easy to do that with accuracy and thoughtfulness.
One could also theorize that the current commercial (and current federal government) culture of today does not value the building of beautiful things as in the past, rather than it being the fault of intellectual culture. It takes $ to build great architecture, not just ideas.
I had no comment on the architecture, only the food because I had some experience, albeit 1000 years ago. So I threw my morsels in Henry’s path, and I regard him as a true treasure of the Internet, podcast conversations, & Substack!
I was able to read your article in The Critic, thank you, no paywall. Beauty, yes! Ugly buildings and environments depress my soul.
oh good!
"From 1870-1920, the US undisputedly produced the best architecture in the world" - Living in the Chicago area, I have to agree with this, because this city more than others proves the truth of this statement. It burned down in 1871, so the rebuilding process showcased the best American architects of this crucial period, who suddenly had a great blank space they needed to fill.
Fascinating and true.
Mr Oliver… Thank you for your consistently valuable content. What are your thoughts on Emily Wilson’s review of Nolan’s Odyssey?
A real hit job! I didn't appreciate it as much as some others.
I thought it was unprofessional and irresponsible. This is going to introduce a whole new generation to Homer. She sounds bitter. Clearly she’s brilliant but what is her real world experience and/or knowledge base concerning film adaptations? It’s pure conjecture but I think Nolan wanted nothing to do with a cantankerous old academic. She’s most likely exhausting to be around. Good to read you’re viewing it as a hit job.
In defense of Emily Wilson, she is a wonderful, generous, and entertaining person, and a brilliant translator. I enjoyed the movie personally, but it deviates from the epic poem in several aspects including its conception of Odysseus as an individual and a character, the ending, and episodes such as the interlude on Circe’s island Aeaea, as well as others. There are legitimate reasons to disagree about all that.
I’ve never met her. I know nothing about her. Her piece reeked of spite and vindictiveness. This story was passed down through oral tradition for hundreds of years prior to its written form. It was interpreted countless ways by countless people prior to Homer. This was her chance to connect with the younger generation and get them excited about literature in general. She blowtorched that opportunity.
Her publisher says she’s sold over 1,000,000 copies of her translation of The Odyssey so far in 2026 (I didn’t see a number for The Iliad) - she’s doing something for literature.
Her translation had a rapid increase in sales due to Nolan’s movie. Let’s not pretend otherwise. I’m not having some inane back and forth. Good day to you.
I’ll buy whoever first says TL/DR a giant chocolate milkshake. Brobdingnagian ego flex, before a wee bit of sop at the (finally) end.
Agree 100%. I’m sure you’ve read Scruton on beauty.
Yes though I have mixed feelings on his architecture writings
There is an emerging movement called neuroarchitecture (a branch of neuroaesthetics) which makes the scientific case for beauty in the built environment as an essential contributor to human flourishing (full disclosure, my book Welcome to Your World: How the Built Environment Shapes Our Lives was an early salvo). Anyway, it's simply untrue that many architecture movements post-1930 wanted to "destroy beauty"-- those were the years of Villaneuva in Venezuela, Niemeyer in Brazil, Aalto in Finland . . . I could go on. And: US architecture 1870-1920? Good and some great buildings, for sure (New York Public Library, for one), but THE BEST? Gaudi's Sagrada Familia? Garnier's Opera? Sacre-Coeur? Art Nouveau in Belgium, France? Viennese Secessionism?
"There is no ethics without aesthetics."