4 ms·

That’s just not true, HTML has natural spacing, fonts, etc. What’s the least amount of code you could possibly write that functions? That’s going to be the most

That’s just not true, HTML has natural spacing, fonts, etc. What’s the least amount of code you could possibly write that functions? That’s going to be the most “minimalist“ design. box-shadow: black is less bits of information than box-shadow: 2px 4px 0.5em 0.2em rgba(100,55, 45, 0.9)

rayiner 9y ago
But those are arbitrary design choices too, just default ones. They don’t reflect the underlying functional structure of the page. Brutalist architecture is intended to reflect the functional structure of the building. That concrete is there for functional reasons; it is sized for functional reasons such as holding up the wall. Concrete is used because it’s a functionally versatile material. All that functional purpose is exposed. Brutalist web design might be something like showing the DOM without styling it. In a Lisp context, it’s be like showing raw s-expressions as output.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  Sure, and the grit of clay at a specific location is arbitrary too, but if that’s the material you have to work with, then that’s the material. I think you’re being too literal about what constitutes material. You think only something the level of hardware or a programming language is “material” and everything above that is arbitrary, but I would argue ALL of the layers of the stack constitute material properties. How about this: form submission. You don’t need it... you can use Ajax. But forms that can be submitted will work in more environments (no JavaScript, forward and back navigation, etc) You can fight that current, but the underlying technology wants you to use forms. I’m not really arguing about Brutalism though, so much as modernism. A modern web page would contain a minimum of changes to what the basic simplest HTML would yield. You start from the raw material with all its idiosyncrasies and you only add a dimension of “designed stuff” when you have a specific articulable rationale for it. (This is totally different from the colloquial definition of “modern web applications” which are anything but respectful of their materials)
  - rayiner 9y ago
    You’re conflating minimalism with Brutalism. Brutalism is about design exposing functionality. Lots of layers in the stack expose functionality (hardware, the OS, the DOM), but presentation is design, not functional. You could switch the default font from one thing to another with zero functional effect.
    - erikpukinskis 9y ago
      I admitted as much in the comment. :) I felt that your comment applied equally to brutalist, modernism, and minimalism. Your assertion that there is no underlying material to expose. All three ideas are ways of grounding the design in material.

rayiner 9y ago

But those are arbitrary design choices too, just default ones. They don’t reflect the underlying functional structure of the page. Brutalist architecture is intended to reflect the functional structure of the building. That concrete is there for functional reasons; it is sized for functional reasons such as holding up the wall. Concrete is used because it’s a functionally versatile material. All that functional purpose is exposed. Brutalist web design might be something like showing the DOM without styling it. In a Lisp context, it’s be like showing raw s-expressions as output.

erikpukinskis 9y ago
Sure, and the grit of clay at a specific location is arbitrary too, but if that’s the material you have to work with, then that’s the material. I think you’re being too literal about what constitutes material. You think only something the level of hardware or a programming language is “material” and everything above that is arbitrary, but I would argue ALL of the layers of the stack constitute material properties. How about this: form submission. You don’t need it... you can use Ajax. But forms that can be submitted will work in more environments (no JavaScript, forward and back navigation, etc) You can fight that current, but the underlying technology wants you to use forms. I’m not really arguing about Brutalism though, so much as modernism. A modern web page would contain a minimum of changes to what the basic simplest HTML would yield. You start from the raw material with all its idiosyncrasies and you only add a dimension of “designed stuff” when you have a specific articulable rationale for it. (This is totally different from the colloquial definition of “modern web applications” which are anything but respectful of their materials)
- rayiner 9y ago
  You’re conflating minimalism with Brutalism. Brutalism is about design exposing functionality. Lots of layers in the stack expose functionality (hardware, the OS, the DOM), but presentation is design, not functional. You could switch the default font from one thing to another with zero functional effect.
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    I admitted as much in the comment. :) I felt that your comment applied equally to brutalist, modernism, and minimalism. Your assertion that there is no underlying material to expose. All three ideas are ways of grounding the design in material.