I really resonate with your comment - to me, beauty is not only aesthetic, but a much more profound concept. The Japanese have special indescribable words that all mean beauty - but in various contexts and sensibilities.
To have presented cartographically accurate, factual information + aesthetic creativity would be so much more beautiful.
I see this in art where the beauty of the piece is "shallow" - i.e., aesthetic. The other end of this spectrum is conceptual art and the whole dada thing; beauty here is conceptual. When an art piece combines both, it makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up (for e.g. Francis Bacon's paintings). The more you try to find out about the piece, the more you get "sucked" into the abyss of its beauty.
Francis Bacon's work is not about beauty (conceptual or painterly).
It's one thing to dislike the work linked to the original post, but something else altogether to indulge yourself by wheeling out a bogus, trivial and pretentious personal theory of art. As has been noted before, claiming expertise in areas about which one knows nothing is a very HN characteristic.
To have presented cartographically accurate, factual information + aesthetic creativity would be so much more beautiful.
I see this in art where the beauty of the piece is "shallow" - i.e., aesthetic. The other end of this spectrum is conceptual art and the whole dada thing; beauty here is conceptual. When an art piece combines both, it makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up (for e.g. Francis Bacon's paintings). The more you try to find out about the piece, the more you get "sucked" into the abyss of its beauty.