What the Milano Cortina Opening Ceremony Reveals About Singapore’s Public Aesthetics — Jay Chau

For Singapore, improving public aesthetics is not about introducing flashy or radical design. It is about creating institutional space for independent aesthetic judgment in the public realm.

The opening ceremony of the Milano Cortina Winter Olympics did not rely on technological spectacle or emotional manipulation. Instead, it presented a sophisticated and restrained visual language—one that conveyed a sense of elegance, confidence and composure, leaving a lasting impression on audiences around the world.

The Olympic rings were presented through a precise interplay of kinetic mechanical aesthetics, light and visual art, evoking Leonardo da Vinci’s geometric thinking as well as the Italian tradition of *armonia*, or harmony. The Olympic ideals of unity and coexistence were communicated through an almost silent force, rather than through emotional excess or an accumulation of symbols designed simply to please the audience.

This aesthetic effect was not accidental. It was the concentrated expression of Italy’s long accumulation of public taste: a continuity extending from historical culture to contemporary design. It exists not only in major ceremonies, but also in the everyday public spaces of the city.

Milan itself is a living example of this tradition. From the glass-vaulted Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II, where late-19th-century architectural history meets modern industrial technology, to urban squares such as Piazza del Liberty, where historic elements are integrated into contemporary public space, and the Porta Nuova regeneration district, where openness and social vitality coexist, Milan’s urban fabric is more than a collection of visually appealing spaces. It reflects a public aesthetic system that is usable, inhabitable and conducive to interaction. The appearance of the city itself becomes part of urban life.

Even at the smaller scale of everyday surroundings, this aesthetic logic can be seen in multiple forms. Milan’s early Liberty-style architecture, including Palazzo Castiglioni, as well as the Teatro alla Scala, demonstrates how carefully crafted ornament in the city centre can bring aesthetic expression into dialogue with social function. Contemporary design culture—from designer-led spaces in Brera to public art initiatives supported by foundations—further illustrates how Milan creates an ongoing aesthetic conversation between the historical, the contemporary and the future.

The Problem of Public Aesthetics in Asian Cities

Compared with Milan, three Asian cities reveal very different approaches to the governance of public aesthetics, each with its own limitations.

The first is Shanghai. Shanghai certainly does not lack aesthetic sophistication. In commercial visual culture, branded environments and consumer-facing spaces, it has reached an international standard. Yet this sophistication is largely driven by commercial logic. Commercial aesthetics increasingly encroach upon the everyday nature and usability of public space.

The Bund is a telling example. Its architecture and nightscape are highly polished, but the waterfront is increasingly constructed as an urban spectacle to be viewed rather than as a genuine setting for public life. Public space can begin to resemble a controlled stage for consumption, with aesthetic decisions shaped by brands and the pursuit of attention rather than by shared use and the needs of everyday life.

Beijing represents a second model. Its public aesthetics are to a considerable extent shaped by symbolic narratives and the representation of authority. Grand axes, symmetrical layouts and ceremonial spaces carrying strong symbolic meanings create a powerful visual order. Yet this aesthetic order can overwhelm the everyday character and human scale of urban space, turning many public areas into stages for the projection of authority rather than places where ordinary citizens can freely interact and share everyday life.

Singapore represents a third condition.

It possesses an exceptionally strong foundation for the governance of public aesthetics: stability, usability and low levels of controversy are among its greatest strengths. Public spaces are orderly, visual systems are coherent, and infrastructure design is closely integrated with urban management, ensuring functional efficiency and public safety.

Yet this very success also creates an institutional ceiling.

In Singapore, public aesthetics are often absorbed into systems of risk management and compliance, defined primarily by whether something is unlikely to go wrong. As a result, the city rarely produces public aesthetic moments that provoke widespread discussion, create lasting cultural memories or carry genuine emotional tension.

The spaces are correct and dependable, but they can lack cultural generative power and the capacity to stimulate public imagination.

A Path Forward for Singapore

Milan’s experience suggests that mature public aesthetics are neither instantaneous visual spectacles nor the result of simply accumulating striking forms. They are a long-term institutional capacity.

In cities such as Milan, this capacity is reflected in several dimensions: the integration of historical continuity with contemporary design; respect for the settings of everyday life; and the creation of spaces that the public can genuinely use and experience.

Milan does not rely solely on the aesthetic expression of monumental ceremonies. Its aesthetic character is continuously produced through ordinary streets, public squares, commercial environments and spaces of everyday life.

For Singapore, improving public aesthetics is therefore not about making the city more flamboyant or introducing radical forms of design. It is about creating institutional room for independent aesthetic judgment.

There are at least three ways to begin.

First, Singapore needs to rethink the role of public aesthetics. Public space is not merely a place that must be safe, clean and functional. It can also become part of a city’s culture and civic life. Design decisions should be allowed to incorporate genuine aesthetic judgment rather than being determined entirely by engineering requirements, regulations or risk considerations.

Second, Singapore could institutionalise the idea of *controlled failure*. In selected public projects, aesthetic experimentation should be permitted. A design that generates debate, or is not universally liked, should not automatically be treated as a failure of governance. It can instead be understood as part of urban innovation and experimentation.

Third, public space should be capable of carrying a richer range of history and emotion. It should not exist merely as a neutral, safe environment. The stories of the city, its cultural memories and the lived experiences of its residents should be allowed to find expression in the physical environment. This is what gives a city greater warmth, depth and identity.

What the Milano Cortina Olympic opening ceremony demonstrated was a society’s long-established trust in public aesthetics.

Its sense of sophistication came not only from the accumulation of cultural tradition, but also from the relationship between modern design rationality and social life.

The challenge facing Singapore is therefore not how to make the city more beautiful. It is whether Singapore is prepared to accept a more fundamental reality: aesthetics is not a management task that can be fully regulated. It is a public capacity that requires society to trust, negotiate and carry it together.

*Originally published in Chinese by Lianhe Zaobao (Singapore) on 20 February 2026.*

——————