...Pat wondered what inspiration an artist might find in the attempts of twenty-first-century architects to impose their phallic triumphs on the cityscape. Had any artist ever painted a contemporary glass block, for instance, or any other product of architectural brutalism that had laid its crude hands here and there upon the city?...If a building did not lend itself to being painted, then surely that must be because it was inherently ugly, whatever its claims to utility. And if it was ugly, then what was it doing in this delicately beautiful city?
In this passage, Pat reflects on the influence of modern architecture on the urban landscape and its aesthetic appeal. She questions whether artists find inspiration in the towering, often imposing structures that characterize twenty-first-century architecture, particularly those seen as symbols of masculinity. This leads her to consider whether any contemporary buildings, especially those that embody a brutalist style, have ever been depicted artistically, suggesting a gap between architecture and art.
Furthermore, Pat argues that if a building cannot inspire an artistic representation, it may be fundamentally unattractive, regardless of its practical function. This raises a critical observation about the relationship between beauty and utility in architecture. Her contemplation reveals a tension between the contemporary structures that dominate the city and the delicate beauty of its environment, posing questions about aesthetic value in urban design.
