What's Your Opinion of Brutalist Architecture?

[Forsher]

would it have even been feasible, economically or politically, to build social housing developments with wrought iron ornamentation in the 1960's? Probably not.

Which is why I find paens like Robinson's so unsatisfying - they rail at the various tyrannies and totalitarianisms seemingly generated by modernism, where in reality they are reflections of scarcities and constraints imposed by very concrete (geddit) material forces.

It's certainly a valid point, but without the ideological suppression of demand, you'd have less scarcity, which would make it more possible.

See, I don't think that association of totalitarianism with ruthless "efficiency" and imposed misery is actually a sensible one, in and of itself. Of course a dictator is hardly going to care for the aesthetic preferences of their people, but dictators have their own aesthetic preferences. Is it not perfectly reasonable to believe that a dictator would want the nation they command to be adorned with symbols of national pride, of righteous faith, of monuments to their own power? When I imagine totalitarianism it's not unadorned and aggressively functional blocks of concrete and steel, it's art and beauty meant to please only one person in the whole nation, a misappropriation of the styles of a bygone age, applied so as to create a pleasant view from the dictator's balcony or motorcade, an imposed vision that harkens back to whatever false glorious history they believe they're restoring. I think of Saddam Hussein living in a gilded palace, not British council housing. Or of Qatari stadia that may as well be built on foundations of bones.

Duvniask has already said it is not about association of Brutalism with any particular regimes but rather the nature of its built forms that evoke totalitarianism yet here you are talking about the association of particular styles with particular groups. Insofar as ignoring Duvniask's paradigm is reasonable what you should be doing is going out and trying to find data to determine what architecture should remind a viewer of totalitarianism, but instead you've decided to prattle on in a vainglorious assertion of Ifreann's entitlement to agency at the expense of Duvniask's.

Fortuitously we live in a modern age and we can just tell ChatGPT to tell us what Totalitarian Architecture looks like. It is a very naive synthesist and so it's just going to end up telling us what features dominate in the discussion.

If you are looking at totalitarian architecture, you are likely observing buildings and structures that are characterized by grandeur, monumentality, and a sense of power and control. Some specific features that you may be seeing include:

• Large, imposing buildings, such as government buildings, monuments, and public squares
• Symmetry and geometric shapes, such as circles, squares, and triangles
• Bold lines and sharp angles
• Little or no ornamentation, with a focus on functionality
• A sense of uniformity and conformity, with buildings often being part of a larger complex or ensemble
• A lack of concern for the needs and comfort of the individual, and a focus on the needs of the state or ruling party.

It's worth noting that totalitarian architecture is not limited to a specific style or period and it can be seen as a common denominator of multiple architectural styles that emerged in the 20th century.

We can backtransform as well. This was the prompt:

Large, imposing buildings, such as government buildings, monuments, and public squares
Symmetry and geometric shapes, such as circles, squares, and triangles
Bold lines and sharp angles
Little or no ornamentation, with a focus on functionality
A sense of uniformity and conformity, with buildings often being part of a larger complex or ensemble
A lack of concern for the needs and comfort of the individual, and a focus on the public function/the use of the building for the state

If this is what I am seeing give me a list of the seven most likely places for me to be, with a brief justification of no more than 20 words.

And the result:

1. Soviet-era architecture in Eastern Europe
2. Bauhaus architecture in Germany
3. International Style architecture in the United States
4. Brutalist architecture in the United Kingdom
5. Functionalist architecture in Scandinavia
6. Socialist Realism architecture in the Soviet Union
7. Modernist architecture in Japan

Whether this supports Duvniask (two of the options are totalitarian states & it has described basically what Brutalism looks like in describing totalitarianism) or Ifreann (five of them are not) I leave to personal taste, but I also asked ChatGPT to justify its selections:

Soviet-era architecture in Eastern Europe - This type of architecture was characterized by large, imposing buildings such as government buildings, monuments, and public squares. The buildings often featured bold lines and sharp angles, with little ornamentation and a focus on functionality. The architecture also had a sense of uniformity and conformity, with buildings often being part of a larger complex or ensemble. This style of architecture was typically associated with the Soviet Union and its satellite states.

Bauhaus architecture in Germany - Bauhaus architecture was a style that emerged in Germany in the early 20th century. This style of architecture was characterized by symmetry and geometric shapes, such as circles, squares, and triangles. The buildings were designed with a focus on functionality, and little ornamentation was used. Bauhaus architects also had a lack of concern for the needs and comfort of the individual, instead they focused on the public function/the use of the building for the state.

International Style architecture in the United States - The International Style was a popular architectural movement that emerged in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s. This style of architecture was characterized by bold lines and sharp angles, with little ornamentation and a focus on functionality. The buildings often had a sense of uniformity and conformity, with a focus on the public function/the use of the building for the state. This style of architecture was heavily influenced by the work of European architects such as Le Corbusier and Walter Gropius.

Brutalist architecture in the United Kingdom - Brutalist architecture was a style that emerged in the United Kingdom in the 1950s and 1960s. Buildings in this style are characterized by large, imposing forms, bold lines and sharp angles, and a lack of ornamentation. The focus is on functionality and materials, often exposed concrete is the main element. The architecture also had a sense of uniformity and conformity, with buildings often being part of a larger complex or ensemble.

Functionalist architecture in Scandinavia - Functionalist architecture is a style that emphasizes functionality, rationality and simplicity in design. This style of architecture is characterized by symmetry and geometric shapes, with a focus on functionality and a lack of concern for the needs and comfort of the individual. The architecture often features clean lines and minimal ornamentation, and is associated with the Nordic countries, particularly Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

Socialist Realism architecture in the Soviet Union - Socialist Realism was the officially approved architectural style in the Soviet Union during the Stalin era. The architecture was characterized by large, imposing buildings with bold lines and sharp angles, little ornamentation, and a sense of uniformity and conformity. The buildings often had a focus on the public function/the use of the building for the state and were designed to convey a sense of power and strength.

Modernist architecture in Japan - Modernist architecture in Japan is characterized by symmetry and geometric shapes, with a focus on functionality and a lack of concern for the needs and comfort of the individual. The architecture often features clean lines and minimal ornamentation, and is influenced by traditional Japanese architecture as well as European modernist architecture. The style is associated with the modernization and westernization of Japan following World War II.

Note that I had to re-prompt for justification, so I decided I might as well get a more detailed justification back.

[Nilokeras]

It's certainly a valid point, but without the ideological suppression of demand, you'd have less scarcity, which would make it more possible.

When has brutalism ever been so in vogue as to 'suppress' demand for other styles of building? The era of brutalism was filled with other styles of architecture. More importantly, the types of artisan work required to build things like mass production wrought iron fixtures were gone long before brutalism came about.

[Heloin]

I mean, all of those. You think it's ugly, that's a fine point of view but honestly that's the extent of your point. Your point that it's a bad form of architecture rests on everyone also finding it ugly. I think Sagrada Família is a hideous building but I understand that it's a wonderful example of modernisme even if it's not for me. Not all art is for everyone, my favorite painting is Composition with Red Blue and Yellow and that's difficult explanation to go through, that architecture is art at such a scale for living in doesn't change that it still is art.

I was writing an essay but got fucked. Not in that way.
My point is a purely subjective one because it's a matter of opinion; I don't know why you bothered to point that out.

Because your opinion relies on an objective point which isn't true. I gave you an out that you could work it, one you have now chosen not to take.

I also don't think that Brutalism is a bad form of architecture;

It's still not a good form of architecture, though.

architecture that doesn't fall apart and does its job is "good"- just that brutalism is often ugly and rarely ever works. There are times when it does, yes- but those are exceptions and not the norm... and as a result I cannot consider brutalism to have any amount of beauty.
There are architectural styles that prioritize functionalism that do the same job as well or better than brutalism without sacrificing any and all artistry for a concrete slab. Architecture does not need to have grandiose decorations and engravings everywhere to look appealing; modernist architecture does a great job at looking visually appealing despite how simple and minimalistic its design often is. Brutalism simply takes "minimalism" too far- and yes, that is the point... but the point of Brutalism is niche; it serves no other purpose but to reconstruct a country from ruins such as in post-ww2 Britain. Other than that if a country is not in desperate need to ration materials there is no reason not to use another form of functionalist architecture.

It feels like I'm standing with you in an art gallery looking at a Barnett Newman that you're insisting is objectively bad. The practical reason you stated is just not true. Sure there was space to build in European cities after the war but it's popularity was global lasting decades and its origins were in neutral Sweden. That you state is as a point is a frankly lazy one to deride something you don't like as only existing out of a brief decade long necessity when it just wasn't. If this is the best point you can make then I will not pay mind to any others you care to write.

[Forsher]

It's certainly a valid point, but without the ideological suppression of demand, you'd have less scarcity, which would make it more possible.

When has brutalism ever been so in vogue as to 'suppress' demand for other styles of building? The era of brutalism was filled with other styles of architecture. More importantly, the types of artisan work required to build things like mass production wrought iron fixtures were gone long before brutalism came about.

Brutalism is but one manifestation of the bias against ornamentation. It's not a comment about Brutalism specifically, but a comment about how all in vogue styles share an anti-ornamentation bias.

[Nilokeras]

When has brutalism ever been so in vogue as to 'suppress' demand for other styles of building? The era of brutalism was filled with other styles of architecture. More importantly, the types of artisan work required to build things like mass production wrought iron fixtures were gone long before brutalism came about.

Brutalism is but one manifestation of the bias against ornamentation. It's not a comment about Brutalism specifically, but a comment about how all in vogue styles share an anti-ornamentation bias.

Again, how much is it 'bias' and how much is it an attempt to work with the material conditions available to them? Why is brutalism a reaction to a style of ornamentation that went defunct more than 60 years before it became in vogue?

[Alcala-Cordel]

It really depends on the specific design and its location. Sometimes brutalist architecture is awesome, other times it just stands out in an ugly way.

[Forsher]

Brutalism is but one manifestation of the bias against ornamentation. It's not a comment about Brutalism specifically, but a comment about how all in vogue styles share an anti-ornamentation bias.

Again, how much is it 'bias' and how much is it an attempt to work with the material conditions available to them?

Like I said, it's a valid point. But people don't make what they think no-one wants. For example, I'd be completely amazed if stuff like this is hand crafted rather than manufactured by a largely automated/mechanised production process. You'd have to paint the second house a different colour, but you could easily do, at least the street frontage, in panels like that. There is a question of why it's not done and the answer isn't "because they can't". And insofar as the answer is "they won't because they want money", the article acknowledges that material relationship:

For many socialists in the 20th century, the abdication of decorative elements and traditional forms seemed to be a natural outgrowth of a revolutionary spirit of simplicity, solidarity, and sacrifice. But the joke was on the socialists, really, because as it turned out, this obsession with minimalism was also uniquely compatible with capitalism’s miserable cult of efficiency. After all, every dollar expended on fanciful balusters or stained glass rose windows needed to produce some sort of return on investment. And since such things can be guaranteed to produce almost no return on investment, they had to go. There was a good reason why, historically, religious architecture has been the most concerned with beauty for beauty’s sake; the more time is spent elegantly decorating a cathedral, the more it serves its intended function of celebrating God’s glory, whereas the more time is spent decorating an office building, the less money will be left over for the developer.

They'd still do it if ideology required it, though. Houses for people to live in rarely come with the barely polished concrete floors of big box businesses, for example. Carpets, floorboards, tiles and whatever represent additional, pointless expenses, but the ideological home doesn't have a concrete floor, so you're only going to be able to save money if the client specifically wants it.

Why is brutalism a reaction to a style of ornamentation that went defunct more than 60 years before it became in vogue?

I didn't say it was. I don't even know what you could be reading to even entertain the possibility I said it.

[The Republic of Western Sol]

"Brutalist buildings are characterised by minimalist constructions that showcase the bare building materials and structural elements over decorative design.[4][5] The style commonly makes use of exposed, unpainted concrete or brick, angular geometric shapes and a predominantly monochrome colour palette;[6][5] other materials, such as steel, timber, and glass, are also featured.[7]"

In theory, I like the idea, but the execution often looks like a kid made a round in his parents' liquor cabinet and then started putting Legos together. I do appreciate the cold and imposing nature of Brutalism, but it seems like an architectural style that's easily prone to ill design. That being said, it has a distinct aesthetic character and I don't think the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater.

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

https://cdn.home-designing.com/wp-conte ... allery.jpg

Is the third image from the bottom the gorillaz plastic beach house?

[Portzania]

Bad opinions like not wanting to live in the most dreary, totalitarian-esque structures imaginable?

Bad, incoherent critiques driven by passively absorbed reactionary politics, yes.

And sure, lump everyone who dislikes it in with anti-Semites while you're at it.

if the trad 'this is what they took from you' neoclassical wedding cake fits

SO TRUE! Everyone who dislikes brutalist architecture IS a closet reactionary anti semetic crypto fash....
I love using buzzwords!

[Duvniask]

It's very obvious when someone only superficially reads an article and decides to nitpick on some minor comment, rather than craft an actual argument with weight behind it.

If I was talking to Nathan J. Robinson five years ago then I might put some effort into actually responding to his article, but I'm talking to you now so I didn't bother myself too much.

I would respect it more if you simply said you didn't care to read it in the first place.

As the article notes:

For many socialists in the 20th century, the abdication of decorative elements and traditional forms seemed to be a natural outgrowth of a revolutionary spirit of simplicity, solidarity, and sacrifice. But the joke was on the socialists, really, because as it turned out, this obsession with minimalism was also uniquely compatible with capitalism’s miserable cult of efficiency. After all, every dollar expended on fanciful balusters or stained glass rose windows needed to produce some sort of return on investment. And since such things can be guaranteed to produce almost no return on investment, they had to go. There was a good reason why, historically, religious architecture has been the most concerned with beauty for beauty’s sake; the more time is spent elegantly decorating a cathedral, the more it serves its intended function of celebrating God’s glory, whereas the more time is spent decorating an office building, the less money will be left over for the developer.

But let’s leave aside God’s glory—what about ordinary human happiness? One of the most infuriating aspects of contemporary architecture is its willful disdain for democracy. When people are polled, they tend to prefer older buildings to postwar buildings; very few postwar buildings make it onto lists of most treasured places. Yet architects are reluctant to build in the styles that people find more beautiful. Why? Well, Peter Eisenman has spoken for a lot of architects in being generally dismissive of democracy, saying that the role of the architect is not to give people what they want, but what they should want if they were intelligent enough to have good taste. Eisenman says he prefers to work for right-wing clients, because “liberal views have never built anything of value,” due to their incessant concern with public process and public needs. (On a side note, it’s no accident that Howard Roark, protagonist of Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead and the arch-hero of the American conservative literary canon, is an architect who intentionally dynamites a public housing project because somebody had the gall to add balconies to his original design without his consent.)

A strange point for him to raise in opposition to modern architecture, because what democracy was there in architecture before hated modernity invented ugliness? Cathedrals weren't approved by referendum of the local parishioners. The beauty he praises was dictated by designers, as far as their patrons would allow them discretion in design. An entirely top-down process with two decision-makers. But now when the government or a corporation commissions an architect this same process reveals arrogance and disdain.

There is nothing strange about this at all. In fact, let's make a little step-by-step process of the argument:

-People like the old style.
-People don't like the new style.
-Elites are (now) forcing people to live with the new style, which they do not like.
-Given this development, perhaps people should have more of say.

Is this hard to understand? It's not like Mr. Robinson can teleport into the past and tell the old architects how things should be done, so why are you acting like his argument is supposed to apply retroactively or something? It's simply good fortune that yesterday's elitism happened to produce something people like; that doesn't belie the point that it's bad for architect weirdos to impose their psychotic vision (just take notice of how bizarre some of Eisenman's work has been) on people.

To sum up the point advanced above and in other places of the text, it invokes totalitarianism by virtue of that very imposing dreariness and soullessness that is integral to the style. Its "raw honesty" belies the sort of contempt for human life one sees most clearly reflected in a totalitarian dictatorship that, rather than build things that accord with human well-being, joy and spirituality, imposes ruthless "efficiency" alongside reminders that you are a slave - minimal ornamentation and minimal cost with the exception of making the edifice as domineering and alienating as possible. Its association with both totalitarianism and the Soviet Union comes not from circumstance, but because it embodied the reality of that society to a T.

See, I don't think that association of totalitarianism with ruthless "efficiency" and imposed misery is actually a sensible one, in and of itself. Of course a dictator is hardly going to care for the aesthetic preferences of their people, but dictators have their own aesthetic preferences. Is it not perfectly reasonable to believe that a dictator would want the nation they command to be adorned with symbols of national pride, of righteous faith, of monuments to their own power? When I imagine totalitarianism it's not unadorned and aggressively functional blocks of concrete and steel, it's art and beauty meant to please only one person in the whole nation, a misappropriation of the styles of a bygone age, applied so as to create a pleasant view from the dictator's balcony or motorcade, an imposed vision that harkens back to whatever false glorious history they believe they're restoring. I think of Saddam Hussein living in a gilded palace, not British council housing. Or of Qatari stadia that may as well be built on foundations of bones.

You say nationalistic celebration, I say fascist austerity (just google fascist architecture and you'll see some spartan edifices).

However, that's besides the point, because totalitarianism need not be limited to one style. The extreme opulence that comes with gold palaces can perhaps even be soulless and alienating in its own way. That doesn't mean brutalism doesn't project an atmosphere of totalitarianism, though. Because while you're associating totalitarianism with nationalism (certainly, the two mix), I am thinking of it in terms of thought police, extreme alienation and hopelessness for the future - and that atmosphere is perfectly encapsulated in buildings that look cold, hostile and like they were built with the specific purpose of reminding people that they're worthless proles.

[Nilokeras]

Like I said, it's a valid point. But people don't make what they think no-one wants. For example, I'd be completely amazed if stuff like this is hand crafted rather than manufactured by a largely automated/mechanised production process. You'd have to paint the second house a different colour, but you could easily do, at least the street frontage, in panels like that. There is a question of why it's not done and the answer isn't "because they can't". And insofar as the answer is "they won't because they want money", the article acknowledges that material relationship:

The Wood and Perot foundry was a pretty mechanized affair too - you don't run a catalogue with thousands of entries and the capacity to produce a very sizeable percentage of all the wrought iron fixtures in the US without it. Their bankruptcy was also not due to a lack of demand, but the turbulent financial dynamics of the late 19th century. People still bought and commissioned wrought iron fixtures, they just weren't nearly as complex as before because the specialized capacity to create those sorts of fixtures at that level of complexity and with that many variations died with them.

Like let's consider your panel here - that's a very simple template that's probably cut out by a machine on a production line out of cheap cedar. Does the factory even have the capacity to create any of the wood filigree work you posted earlier? Of course not - if you pull up their product line for this paneling they have a whopping seven patterns to choose from. All of which are the same template-driven manufacturing process.

And that's the rub there of course, the material factor that Robinson ignores: it requires zero skilled labour to make those panels. Considering it's Robinson and the man has never met a craft union he doesn't want to bust, it's perhaps not surprising. In the Wood and Perot ironworks, a lot of the finishing work had to be done by hand by skilled craftspeople. Those craftspeople are expensive, both in terms of their labour cost and the level of skill they built up over the years of working in the factory. When they lost their jobs in the crash of 1878, odds are they did not carry their skills with them - in the downturn, they went to whatever foundry could employ them, and became unskilled labour in a much more generalist factory.

There was no cultish demand for simplicity in an aesthetic sense, just the material forces driving the development of a modern industrial economy.

They'd still do it if ideology required it, though. Houses for people to live in rarely come with the barely polished concrete floors of big box businesses, for example. Carpets, floorboards, tiles and whatever represent additional, pointless expenses, but the ideological home doesn't have a concrete floor, so you're only going to be able to save money if the client specifically wants it.

What even is 'the ideological home'?

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

Hating brutalism is usually a good litmus test for having bad opinions about architecture and public spaces, particularly since brutalist public architecture was one of the last movements to actually incorporate any public amenities in the spaces they built. Complaints about its ugliness are usually followed by mushy outpourings about some neoclassical pile built by a guy who hated Jews and bulldozed a minority neighbourhood to build their thing of choice.

Also 'brutalism' is not about being brutal in the sense of being purposefully ugly or offensive, it's merely a translation of the french word for 'raw' - ie the unadorned concrete used in brutalist construction.

This is a really bad take. Classical, Renaissance, Victorian, etc architecture are beautiful. What those people believed when they built them doesn't matter. A beautiful painting can still be beautiful even if someone with shit beliefs painted it. And the idea that Brutalism is the last movements to have amenaties is also very stupid. You can incorperate amenaties into literally any architecture type, including the aforementioned ones (and many do). You can also not incorperate them into any architecture type (including brutalism), and many do that too. You can have a beautiful building and a water fountain, they aren't mutually exclusive. Bringing architectural styles into the modern times with amenaties to match has been going on for millenia and will continue to happen.
Brutalism is an ugly architectural style. That's all it is. Hating it because of that while still wanting amenaties in your buildings is about the most sensible take possible. And it's been seen that being surrounded by beautiful surroundings DO have a genuine impact on a person's mental health. Why make buildings uglier if it makes people sadder and gives no gain?

[HISPIDA]

brutalist architecture goes hard as fuck sorry not sorry

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

brutalist architecture goes hard as fuck sorry not sorry

I didn't even know people COULD like brutalist architecture before now. It's the most awful, disgustingly ugly, depressing architecture style ever created and people still enjoy it. It seems to be almost entirely communists too. Weird.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Ive always kind of liked it honestly, yeah its "ugly" looking but i dont know why ive always thought there was a certain charm to it. Though it was never an architectural style i looked at much in University, but then again architecture was never my focus, it was fine art so didnt look at a ton of architectural stuff that much to begin with.

brutalist architecture goes hard as fuck sorry not sorry

Agreed fam

[Nilokeras]

"sorry dude, classical architecture is beautiful. And brutalism' is ugly. Why? Because classical architecture is beautiful. And brutalism is ugly. What do you mean explain yourself? Classical architecture is beautiful, and brutalism is ugly. I don't understand what you mean by 'give your reasoning', classical architecture is beautiful. Why is there blood pouring out of my nose, I don't" *thump*

[Portzania]

^ said no one

[Forsher]

Like let's consider your panel here - that's a very simple template that's probably cut out by a machine on a production line out of cheap cedar. Does the factory even have the capacity to create any of the wood filigree work you posted earlier? Of course not - if you pull up their product line for this paneling they have a whopping seven patterns to choose from. All of which are the same template-driven manufacturing process.

The only possible relevance is that the lack of diversity means people aren't going to stick the ornamentation on houses because they don't want cookie cutter homes. The problem with this argument is that while there may be a lack of ornamentation, there certainly isn't a lack of cookie cutter homes. Hell, if you watch something like Over the Hedge, having every property be identical is something some people want.

There was no cultish demand for simplicity in an aesthetic sense, just the material forces driving the development of a modern industrial economy.

We have established that certain kinds of ornamentation are fiscally irresponsible, but that doesn't establish that all ornamentation is. We aren't talking about why complex ironworking or intricate wood filigree don't exist. We're talking about why we're living in an period where buildings have essentially no ornamentation whatsoever.

They'd still do it if ideology required it, though. Houses for people to live in rarely come with the barely polished concrete floors of big box businesses, for example. Carpets, floorboards, tiles and whatever represent additional, pointless expenses, but the ideological home doesn't have a concrete floor, so you're only going to be able to save money if the client specifically wants it.

What even is 'the ideological home'?

If you say 'house' to someone, the ideological house is what I'm calling the mental image of 'house' that pops into their head... it's the set of ideas about what a house needs and possesses that people hold in their heads. It's everything you can just assume people are already thinking about and therefore everything you have to explain the absence of (e.g. why is there no garage? because you shouldn't own a car if you live here).

I should've said "ideological house" instead of "ideological home" before, but the definition is the same except sub in home for house.

There's probably a jargon term for it (that I don't know), but I thought the meaning was obvious enough. I've asked ChatGPT (by feeding that definition to it) and it thinks "ideal type" is what I'm going for:

Another term that could be used to describe your concept is "ideal type" in architecture. An ideal type is a theoretical construct used to represent the most typical or representative example of a phenomenon. In architecture, an ideal type would be a building or architectural style that embodies the most typical or representative features or characteristics of a particular culture, society or architectural movement.

So, yeah.

[HISPIDA]

brutalist architecture goes hard as fuck sorry not sorry

I didn't even know people COULD like brutalist architecture before now. It's the most awful, disgustingly ugly, depressing architecture style ever created and people still enjoy it. It seems to be almost entirely communists too. Weird.

idk im not an architectural nerd i just like the way it looks

[Portzania]

neo classical architecture be bussin fr ong
Despite being simple, and usually small houses, they have so much personality and love being built into them.
The marble, lighting and bricks used for the houses are so beautiful.

[-Astoria-]

brutalist architecture goes hard as fuck sorry not sorry

Indeed.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

-snip-

When I got my first computer at age 13, I decided that the default desktop background looked too distracting so I changed it with a flat pastel-colour background. That should tell you everything you need to know about my aesthetic preferences.

I like geometric simplicity and dislike complex decorations.

[Nilokeras]

The only possible relevance is that the lack of diversity means people aren't going to stick the ornamentation on houses because they don't want cookie cutter homes. The problem with this argument is that while there may be a lack of ornamentation, there certainly isn't a lack of cookie cutter homes. Hell, if you watch something like Over the Hedge, having every property be identical is something some people want.

Which again, has a very material root - they were built quickly in the postwar era using unskilled labour in the material production and parts that could be shipped on trucks.

Let's again, compare and contrast. The nice turn-of-the-century houses you were posting earlier, odds are, were not produced locally by some small time skilled artisans. They were in fact, ordered out of a catalogue. Sears Modern Homes sold something like 70 000 homes like this between the turn of the century and the beginning of WW2, where whole entire 'kits' were sold and shipped by boxcar on the railway and assembled locally. They were again, based off templates, so factories could be tooled to produce ornamentation cheaply and quickly. You got your Sears catalogue, picked the house model number you liked, had it shipped to you by rail and had assembled by a couple of carpenters like an Ikea kit. The ubiquity and cheapness of rail transport pre- the dominance of cars also made this sort of house construction cost effective.

The death of this mode of building was not, again, due to some cultish demand for efficiency - the Great Depression killed off demand for new construction in general, the war lead to the redirection of rail traffic, and of course the postwar dominance of truck transport and the decline of the railroads sealed its fate.

We have established that certain kinds of ornamentation are fiscally irresponsible, but that doesn't establish that all ornamentation is. We aren't talking about why complex ironworking or intricate wood filigree don't exist. We're talking about why we're living in an period where buildings have essentially no ornamentation whatsoever.

The two questions are intimately tied together. Aesthetics responds to material conditions as much as the other way around.

What even is 'the ideological home'?

If you say 'house' to someone, the ideological house is what I'm calling the mental image of 'house' that pops into their head... it's the set of ideas about what a house needs and possesses that people hold in their heads. It's everything you can just assume people are already thinking about and therefore everything you have to explain the absence of (e.g. why is there no garage? because you shouldn't own a car if you live here).

I should've said "ideological house" instead of "ideological home" before, but the definition is the same except sub in home for house.

I don't think there is any one universal conception of what a home is.

There's probably a jargon term for it (that I don't know), but I thought the meaning was obvious enough. I've asked ChatGPT (by feeding that definition to it) and it thinks "ideal type" is what I'm going for:

If I wanted to ask chatGPT I would ask it. I'm talking to you.

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

"sorry dude, classical architecture is beautiful. And brutalism' is ugly. Why? Because classical architecture is beautiful. And brutalism is ugly. What do you mean explain yourself? Classical architecture is beautiful, and brutalism is ugly. I don't understand what you mean by 'give your reasoning', classical architecture is beautiful. Why is there blood pouring out of my nose, I don't" *thump*

It's my feelings on the matter and feelings are subjective, but if I must:
Brutalism is ugly because it's depressing, drab, undetailed, pure grey buildings that hardly ever appeal to facets that we humans instinctually find beautiful, like symmetry, color, and grandeur.
Classical, Victorian, and Renaissance are beautiful because they appeal to those facets and are usually full of detail and care, etc. It's more than just those but human instincts are hard to easily state. I didn't think i had to go into depth about my opinions of beauty. It's like asking someone to describe exactly why someone is beautiful. It's difficult and not something someone is usually expected to explain. It's just "that person's beautiful", y'know?

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

So yes, brutalist angles and architectural design, but there's a degree of innovation in each building that really makes it stand out.

One other thing - I suspect a lot of Westerners and Americans in particular tend to despise this type of architecture is because it's mostly associated with new(ish) public and civic office buildings that are built strictly for function and not aesthetics or domestic habitation.

I grew up in a country where brutalist architecture was much more common, and had friends who spent their whole lives in Soviet-style public apartment blocks. To me - and people like me who lived in Second and Third World countries where this was the favored architecture style for 60-70 years, brutalist architecture evokes a sense of nostalgia associated with my childhood that would be incomprehensible unless you lived it. We have fond memories of living in such buildings, not just having to report to them for work, court dates, or some inane bureaucracy.

In the west, Brutalism is often actually not built strictly for function. They are distinctly complex in a meaningless and uninspired way. Here's a post with some pics of Western Brutalism (i cant see your images so idk what they look like sorry)

-snip-

When I got my first computer at age 13, I decided that the default desktop background looked too distracting so I changed it with a flat pastel-colour background. That should tell you everything you need to know about my aesthetic preferences.

I like geometric simplicity and dislike complex decorations.

That's fine but Brutalism isn't even always simplified. It's often needlessly complex beyond reason, y'know?