I don’t know, you can look at it as because gaudy, ostentatious displays of wealth have become impossible, we’ve become able to focus on other things (yes, including subtler displays of wealth).
If the ornamentation had value outside of signaling, it’s now readily available to everyone, as the article says.
But I’m not sure how much I believe that. Fashion is fashion. I’m sure there is a hypothetical present where minimalism isn’t valued nearly as much. But I still think that’s mostly orthogonal to how much people care about aesthetics.
We've lost more than intricate ornamentation. We've lost ornament as a thing that regular people 'ought' to be around. I think it's interesting how Americans often assume that ornament is meant to display wealth, and is thus some sign of show-offness. I think the opposite is often the case. Ornament displayed in public is actually meant for public enjoyment. It's a form of philanthropy when done by a private wealthy individual, and a form of public works when done by the state. Humans deserve to live in beautiful environs. We should strive for that, but we've regressed greatly, with even wealthy neighborhoods being devoid of nice beautiful public spaces (except for a handful in particular cities).
The average Roman peasant would have been exposed to more ornamentation in their life than the typical American. Whereas Americans would be driving by endless McDonalds, Starbucks, and strip mall number 523, a Roman peasant would have seen the great triumphal arcs, the facades of the great buildings, etc. It's just a complete loss. Anyone who's been to an older city in Europe or Asia knows exactly what we're missing. When ornament is a thing that exists, whether private or public, the whole public enjoys it regardless.
The average Roman peasant would have been exposed to more ornamentation in their life than the typical American.
You'd have to count ornamentation very selectively for that to be true. Every corporate logo is ornamental. A modern American farmer probably encounters more ornamentation before they get into their ornamentally bright-green tractor. The rivet in their pants is ornamental, the mirror-polish on the bezel of their phone is ornamental, the 'World's Best Mom' on their coffee mug is ornamental, etc.
If the ornamentation had value outside of signaling, it’s now readily available to everyone, as the article says.
But I’m not sure how much I believe that. Fashion is fashion. I’m sure there is a hypothetical present where minimalism isn’t valued nearly as much. But I still think that’s mostly orthogonal to how much people care about aesthetics.