4 ms·

Saying "objective" isn't just strong language, it completely invalidates any claim you're trying to make. You're objectively wrong. Personally, I adore the bru

by taejavu 10y ago

Saying "objective" isn't just strong language, it completely invalidates any claim you're trying to make. You're objectively wrong. Personally, I adore the brutalist aesthetic, for example, everything in this photo: http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg Now I'm sure you'll hate it, and that's not because you've overlooked something, but because we have different tastes, ie, it's subjective.

afterburner 10y ago
> it completely invalidates any claim you're trying to make Nah, it's just one word. That doesn't cancel the rest of my arguments. > http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg You're right, I hate it. It's lazy and bland ("you know what's amazing? gray"). I've even been in a place that has a very similar design. It felt like a dead area to me. Looks like the very definition of soul-crushing. People like blue skies over gray skies for a reason.
- taejavu 10y ago
  > Nah, it's just one word. That doesn't cancel the rest of my arguments. It does, because the rest of your arguments are expressing the same attitude. You're saying "I think it's ugly, anyone that doesn't share my tastes is wrong, and no more buildings should ever be built in this style." Which would be fine if it was presented as opinion, but you've presented it as fact, which makes you incorrect.
  - afterburner 10y ago
    I said more than that, go check.
wtbob 10y ago
> Personally, I adore the brutalist aesthetic, for example, everything in this photo: http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg I think that anyone who prefers that to https://www.rhodes.edu/sites/default/files/u321/About%20Rhodes_Our%20Campus.jpg https://www.rhodes.edu/sites/default/files/u321/About%20Rhod... is objectively wrong, in the same sense that someone who thinks Steve Buscemi is more handsome than George Clooney is objectively wrong. With people, being a good person can be more important than looks; with buildings, being well-formed can also outweigh looks. But that, again, is where brutalism tends to fall down: unlike traditional architecture, it tends not to work on the level of the individual human being. It doesn't prioritise the experience of those inhabiting it, but rather the experience of those viewing it (it is, in that respect, 'arch'), nor those who must maintain it for its inhabitants. It's not situated to receive natural light and heat, but rather to receive natural and artificial light to make an interesting play of shadow in photographs. It's not full of little rooms and cubbyholes and shelves, because those wouldn't look as neat in a model. It's not full of decoration and ornament, moulding and waistcoating, glasswork and patterns of colour to delight the eye over decades, in part because those wouldn't show up in the model and in part because its designers simply don't care. Brutalist architecture is, in the end, a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
- taejavu 10y ago
  You clearly do not understand what objective means. Edit: You're using objective for emphasis, in the same way people use the word "literally", when they don't really mean it literally. There is no "objectively" right or wrong when it comes to matters of opinion or taste, they're by definition subjective. I'm shocked I have to spell this out for you.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > You clearly do not understand what objective means. No, I'm saying that your taste is objectively wrong, 'in the same sense that someone who thinks Steve Buscemi is more handsome than George Clooney is objectively wrong.' He's simply not (which says, of course, nothing about his value as an actor or a man, just about his value as a model). Tastes can be wrong. Brutalism is wrong; objectively wrong: it denies life and organic beauty (the only beauty that can exist, because we are living creatures). Some things are indeed matters of taste, but others are not. If one writes the number which consists of adding unity to unity as 2 or II or ٢ or २ or ꤂ or 𐒢 doesn't really matter, but if one writes it as PA͉I͓͍͇͜N̵ ̗̻̗p̴̻͙͚͇̳̹ͅa̦i҉̥̫̥͓n̖̭ ̼͕D̻̤̘̮̼̣͜E̴͇̦̟͚͚A̞͇T̴͎̮͔̣͔H̟̻ ̩̥͕̯͙̘D̶̳̞̘͇̠̳̦e̳̥̖̺̯̺s̤̰̬̺t́r̗̼̳u̲͉͎̩̱c̩̬̮̣̫̭͇͟ţ͉̝i̫̝o̗̞̫n̟̘̹̥̖ ̞̝P̪A͓̞͍̭ͅI͚̲̬͙Ṉ̫͉̥ then yes, one is wrong.
    - taejavu 10y ago
      You clearly do not understand what objective means.
      - saintzozo 10y ago
        He is clearly highly literate. For a similar argument that doesn't make use of the word 'objective', see http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  I prefer the former to the latter. I don't dislike the latter. But, I like the brutalist one better than the imitation English style you've linked (I think the one you've linked at least used local stone, which is nice). You clearly very strongly dislike brutalism, and that's OK. But, you aren't the dictator of what is and isn't in good taste...some people are going to like things you don't like, and you're going to have to accept that. I wonder how age factors into this question. I'm just over 40, and I suspect I might be a little too old to be part of the next generation that seems to have a revived appreciation for brutalism (but, I like it anyway). But, my parents definitely didn't like it, and from what I can tell there's a generation that's about my age and older that may always have unpleasant feelings about brutalism, while younger folks don't have the same baggage about it. So, if you don't mind me asking, are you younger than me, or older?

by taejavu 10y ago

afterburner 10y ago

> it completely invalidates any claim you're trying to make Nah, it's just one word. That doesn't cancel the rest of my arguments. > http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg You're right, I hate it. It's lazy and bland ("you know what's amazing? gray"). I've even been in a place that has a very similar design. It felt like a dead area to me. Looks like the very definition of soul-crushing. People like blue skies over gray skies for a reason.

taejavu 10y ago
> Nah, it's just one word. That doesn't cancel the rest of my arguments. It does, because the rest of your arguments are expressing the same attitude. You're saying "I think it's ugly, anyone that doesn't share my tastes is wrong, and no more buildings should ever be built in this style." Which would be fine if it was presented as opinion, but you've presented it as fact, which makes you incorrect.
- afterburner 10y ago
  I said more than that, go check.

wtbob 10y ago

> Personally, I adore the brutalist aesthetic, for example, everything in this photo: http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg I think that anyone who prefers that to https://www.rhodes.edu/sites/default/files/u321/About%20Rhodes_Our%20Campus.jpg https://www.rhodes.edu/sites/default/files/u321/About%20Rhod... is objectively wrong, in the same sense that someone who thinks Steve Buscemi is more handsome than George Clooney is objectively wrong. With people, being a good person can be more important than looks; with buildings, being well-formed can also outweigh looks. But that, again, is where brutalism tends to fall down: unlike traditional architecture, it tends not to work on the level of the individual human being. It doesn't prioritise the experience of those inhabiting it, but rather the experience of those viewing it (it is, in that respect, 'arch'), nor those who must maintain it for its inhabitants. It's not situated to receive natural light and heat, but rather to receive natural and artificial light to make an interesting play of shadow in photographs. It's not full of little rooms and cubbyholes and shelves, because those wouldn't look as neat in a model. It's not full of decoration and ornament, moulding and waistcoating, glasswork and patterns of colour to delight the eye over decades, in part because those wouldn't show up in the model and in part because its designers simply don't care. Brutalist architecture is, in the end, a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

taejavu 10y ago
You clearly do not understand what objective means. Edit: You're using objective for emphasis, in the same way people use the word "literally", when they don't really mean it literally. There is no "objectively" right or wrong when it comes to matters of opinion or taste, they're by definition subjective. I'm shocked I have to spell this out for you.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > You clearly do not understand what objective means. No, I'm saying that your taste is objectively wrong, 'in the same sense that someone who thinks Steve Buscemi is more handsome than George Clooney is objectively wrong.' He's simply not (which says, of course, nothing about his value as an actor or a man, just about his value as a model). Tastes can be wrong. Brutalism is wrong; objectively wrong: it denies life and organic beauty (the only beauty that can exist, because we are living creatures). Some things are indeed matters of taste, but others are not. If one writes the number which consists of adding unity to unity as 2 or II or ٢ or २ or ꤂ or 𐒢 doesn't really matter, but if one writes it as PA͉I͓͍͇͜N̵ ̗̻̗p̴̻͙͚͇̳̹ͅa̦i҉̥̫̥͓n̖̭ ̼͕D̻̤̘̮̼̣͜E̴͇̦̟͚͚A̞͇T̴͎̮͔̣͔H̟̻ ̩̥͕̯͙̘D̶̳̞̘͇̠̳̦e̳̥̖̺̯̺s̤̰̬̺t́r̗̼̳u̲͉͎̩̱c̩̬̮̣̫̭͇͟ţ͉̝i̫̝o̗̞̫n̟̘̹̥̖ ̞̝P̪A͓̞͍̭ͅI͚̲̬͙Ṉ̫͉̥ then yes, one is wrong.
  - taejavu 10y ago
    You clearly do not understand what objective means.
    - saintzozo 10y ago
      He is clearly highly literate. For a similar argument that doesn't make use of the word 'objective', see http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html
SwellJoe 10y ago
I prefer the former to the latter. I don't dislike the latter. But, I like the brutalist one better than the imitation English style you've linked (I think the one you've linked at least used local stone, which is nice). You clearly very strongly dislike brutalism, and that's OK. But, you aren't the dictator of what is and isn't in good taste...some people are going to like things you don't like, and you're going to have to accept that. I wonder how age factors into this question. I'm just over 40, and I suspect I might be a little too old to be part of the next generation that seems to have a revived appreciation for brutalism (but, I like it anyway). But, my parents definitely didn't like it, and from what I can tell there's a generation that's about my age and older that may always have unpleasant feelings about brutalism, while younger folks don't have the same baggage about it. So, if you don't mind me asking, are you younger than me, or older?