For instance, I don't find natural forests or mountains more beautiful than well maintained cropland or pastures or gardens; they are just different kinds of beautiful. (Since I grew up on a farm, I call this "the farmer aesthetic".) I also don't think I would find well-maintained, visible -- even colorful! -- wind turbines to detract from a scene of natural beauty; it would just be a different scene than it was before, not inherently worse for that difference.
But I acknowledge this is not a universally-held aesthetic.
A lot of buildings used in rural areas definitely aren't aesthetic pleasing, massive industrial buildings where the primary concern is build cost. They provide jobs to the region so people treat it as a necessary evil. People need jobs but power just comes out of the wall... Then can generate it elsewhere (not in my back yard), that's what I believe the primary issue is. Wind turbines also work better on hill and where the surrounding area isn't obstructed, so by definition they're a little tricky to hide.
What I've always found odd is how windmills are loved and wind turbines are hated. Maybe tell people they're windmills?
But in all seriousness, power generation is something that isn't discussed as much as it needs to be. Electric vehicles are coming fast (fuel prices are surprisingly low right now, but it never stays that way..) and when you consider the number of vehicles about, that will take quite a bit of power (or Angry Pixies as a certain Youtuber would say). Energy does have a cost to the environment (there isn't an easyway around that), but it also has a cost to the economy, there's no simple answer which is why I think it isn't discussed enough. I'm pro nuclear, on a renewable energy tariff and I'd argue natural gas makes a lot of sense in the UK - That's just my answer.
> A lot of buildings used in rural areas definitely aren't aesthetic pleasing, massive industrial buildings where the primary concern is build cost.
It's always nicer when things look, well, nice, but the core of the aesthetic is purpose: a thing with a purpose, that fulfills its purpose, is beautiful. An endless field of wheat or corn, a massive concrete grain silo, and an array of windmills all have a purpose which they are exquisitely performing, and so they are beautiful.
(One of my favorite instantiations of the farm aesthetic is the multi-generational farm, with some buildings that are post and beam or stone, some that are cinder block, some that are sheet metal, etc. Each building was simply built according to what was the cheapest vernacular construction technique of the time, but the combination conveys a sense of continuation beyond the simple permanence of an old structure. This farm was fulfilling its purpose generations ago, and will continue to do so for generations still. It is not static; it is living and changing.)
For instance, I don't find natural forests or mountains more beautiful than well maintained cropland or pastures or gardens; they are just different kinds of beautiful. (Since I grew up on a farm, I call this "the farmer aesthetic".) I also don't think I would find well-maintained, visible -- even colorful! -- wind turbines to detract from a scene of natural beauty; it would just be a different scene than it was before, not inherently worse for that difference.
But I acknowledge this is not a universally-held aesthetic.