Sandro Chetcuti is fat and ugly and should be forced to have reconstructive surgery. In my humble opinion, that is.

I am almost hoping to be sued for this; I want an opportunity to bring to the public’s attention what really should be already obvious to everyone – that aesthetics are a subjective matter about which there are no facts. I’m reasonably certain there is someone in the world who could find Chetcuti attractive, but that does not change the fact that the sight of him repels me. There is just no agreement to be had on the matter of whether he is ugly or not.

You would think that everyone who has completed secondary school should be aware that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. Yet it is incredible how aesthetic values are often being rejected these days in order to justify the need for some new hotel here, a shopping complex there. The owners of exhausted quarries all seem to be suddenly discovering their social consciences, and rushing to apply for permits to ‘beautify’ their property by building on it.

I was at a meeting where we discussed the conversion of an abandoned farm into an ‘eco-hotel’. The main argument raised by the developer and his PR people was all about how much prettier this hotel would be compared to the present structure, a publically recognized ‘eyesore.’ Chetcuti made similar arguments recently, and I’ve also heard it at PA board hearings.

Developers are incredulous when I point out that I do not see their proposals as an improvement. Perhaps Chetcuti will take less offence if he thinks I have weird tastes. When it comes to aesthetic values in the countryside, however, I have thought about my reasons, and I’m sure many others will recognize them from their own experience.

One of the most important aesthetic values that can be found in the countryside, for many of us, are the open, unobstructed views. The sense of peace that can be found in nature increases in proportion to the extent of open skies and open horizons. That is why high places and cliffs are so popular. Any incursion into your field of vision is going to significantly alter the experience, which therefore cannot be improved by replacing a building with a similarly sized one. Abandoned structures in the countryside are considered an ‘eyesore’, not necessarily because they are abandoned but because they are structures, and give us a sense of being closed in.

The fact of their being abandoned can actually add to their aesthetic value in the countryside. The Jerma Hotel, for example, and the Selmun Barracks have provided a canvas for some very inspired art. After 50 years, stone takes on a more naturalized look, vegetation begins to grow in the cracks and such places become the backdrop for many childhood adventures. Yes, they can be dangerous, but that sense of excitement adds to their aesthetic value too. In any case, such structures will never look as ugly to me as brand new concrete and glass additions, with the inevitable traffic they bring. Using wood might make things a little bit better, but not much.

That brings me to the final point, one which, again, really should be obvious to all. Aesthetic values are relative. Sandro Chetcuti is gorgeous compared to Cthulhu but that doesn’t mean I’d choose him over Thor. In the same way, when developers present their plans as being better than a current eyesore, that doesn’t mean we can’t envisage anything better. Personally, if there are underutilized structures in the countryside which we all agree are ‘eyesores’, then I think we should pull them down, clear the debris, and let nature do the rest. In my eyes, that would lead to the most beautiful outcome. 

Of course there are all sorts of other arguments to be made; economic, ownership rights and so on, but these are not my concern here. I just want to narrow down our focus on this appeal for aesthetic values which keep popping up everywhere. Because this argument is so insidious, it is important that we prevent certain widespread misconceptions from occurring. We might agree that certain buildings on Malta and Gozo are ugly, but that does not mean we must agree with anything else that is proposed as a replacement. Developers seem to be latching onto our sense of what is ugly. With time, perhaps they will understand our sense of beauty too.