4 ms·

It says it's for web applications, which is a slightly different goal that can justify the use of JS. That said, "brutalist" strikes me as a pretty silly conce

It says it's for web applications, which is a slightly different goal that can justify the use of JS. That said, "brutalist" strikes me as a pretty silly concept to apply to the web. In the architecture of buildings, there can be a direct relationship between the technology used and the visual result. The same doesn't really apply to the web, unless for example you use pure HTML with no CSS or JS. As soon as you introduce CSS, you're putting a "facade" on the system that's the equivalent of draping a brutalist building in, say, marble or glass. Deliberately using that styling to look "as if" it's something else turns brutalism into a facade itself. And as you say, once you introduce JS, all bets are off. So, the philosophical and artistic foundations here seem dubious, undermining the integrity behind the original idea, and making the whole exercise seem faddish.

krsdcbl 8y ago
This is another way to look at it, for sure - but the same would hold true of Google's "Materials", in the digital realms everything is just a metaphor. But the idea of "barebones" in brutalism really means to embrace the scaffolding and raw form of what you build. The comparison of css to the facade or to "ornament" in architecture can't be made here, as css also takes up a big part in the actual "shape of the building". The reference to brutalism in regards of css can therefore be understood as a directive to moderation, paint, not marble. But what disturbs the concept of brutalism to me is building the dom with js - this is where we leave the "building block of the web" part of js and go off the original intention of the brutalist metaphor. As i said, why not? But it does feel like a bandwagon thing, defiant of the general idea
- antonvs 8y ago
  > The comparison of css to the facade or to "ornament" in architecture can't be made here, as css also takes up a big part in the actual "shape of the building". CSS didn't even used to exist on the web. One of its primary purposes is to provide ornament. It also does provide structure - so I suppose you could impose some artificial limits on how you use it, focusing on the structural and limiting the ornament, but that highlights the problem: you're not using some technology and living with its capabilities and limitations, you're using a much more advanced technology with somewhat arbitrary constraints to simulate the design and look of a less complex technology. > The reference to brutalism in regards of css can therefore be understood as a directive to moderation Yeah. It seems like a weak analogy to me, though. > building the dom with js - this is where we leave the "building block of the web" part of js That seems arbitrary to me. The same moderation you can apply to using CSS can be applied to building the dom with js. There are certainly important benefits to using moderation in one's choice of how to use technology. But the comparison to brutalism seems to me force-fitting an idea that doesn't really fit well - unless one took the concept seriously, in which case the results would not be likely to be well received.
robinsloan 8y ago
Even with elaborate CSS in play, I think the web has deep characteristics that you can either lean into or struggle against. For example, there's the simple fact of scrolling; does your web page embrace that default behavior, or override it with fancy scroll effects, or replace it entirely with, say, some kind of horizontal page-flipping simulation? I think often of Frank Chimero's visual essay about this, titled "The Web's Grain": https://frankchimero.com/writing/the-webs-grain/ https://frankchimero.com/writing/the-webs-grain/
- antonvs 8y ago
  > I think the web has deep characteristics that you can either lean into or struggle against. I completely agree with that, but I don't get the impression that this is what most brutalist web approaches are really going for. Besides, I've followed a version of the leaning into principle for all my technology work for many years, because I'm "lazy" in the programmer sense and impatient - struggling to achieve some specific vision of a solution when I can achieve the same end goal more pragmatically and much more quickly is a no-brainer choice for me. I've often successfully convinced clients of this, too. I don't plan to start calling this brutalism :)

krsdcbl 8y ago

This is another way to look at it, for sure - but the same would hold true of Google's "Materials", in the digital realms everything is just a metaphor. But the idea of "barebones" in brutalism really means to embrace the scaffolding and raw form of what you build. The comparison of css to the facade or to "ornament" in architecture can't be made here, as css also takes up a big part in the actual "shape of the building". The reference to brutalism in regards of css can therefore be understood as a directive to moderation, paint, not marble. But what disturbs the concept of brutalism to me is building the dom with js - this is where we leave the "building block of the web" part of js and go off the original intention of the brutalist metaphor. As i said, why not? But it does feel like a bandwagon thing, defiant of the general idea

antonvs 8y ago
> The comparison of css to the facade or to "ornament" in architecture can't be made here, as css also takes up a big part in the actual "shape of the building". CSS didn't even used to exist on the web. One of its primary purposes is to provide ornament. It also does provide structure - so I suppose you could impose some artificial limits on how you use it, focusing on the structural and limiting the ornament, but that highlights the problem: you're not using some technology and living with its capabilities and limitations, you're using a much more advanced technology with somewhat arbitrary constraints to simulate the design and look of a less complex technology. > The reference to brutalism in regards of css can therefore be understood as a directive to moderation Yeah. It seems like a weak analogy to me, though. > building the dom with js - this is where we leave the "building block of the web" part of js That seems arbitrary to me. The same moderation you can apply to using CSS can be applied to building the dom with js. There are certainly important benefits to using moderation in one's choice of how to use technology. But the comparison to brutalism seems to me force-fitting an idea that doesn't really fit well - unless one took the concept seriously, in which case the results would not be likely to be well received.

robinsloan 8y ago

Even with elaborate CSS in play, I think the web has deep characteristics that you can either lean into or struggle against. For example, there's the simple fact of scrolling; does your web page embrace that default behavior, or override it with fancy scroll effects, or replace it entirely with, say, some kind of horizontal page-flipping simulation? I think often of Frank Chimero's visual essay about this, titled "The Web's Grain": https://frankchimero.com/writing/the-webs-grain/ https://frankchimero.com/writing/the-webs-grain/

antonvs 8y ago
> I think the web has deep characteristics that you can either lean into or struggle against. I completely agree with that, but I don't get the impression that this is what most brutalist web approaches are really going for. Besides, I've followed a version of the leaning into principle for all my technology work for many years, because I'm "lazy" in the programmer sense and impatient - struggling to achieve some specific vision of a solution when I can achieve the same end goal more pragmatically and much more quickly is a no-brainer choice for me. I've often successfully convinced clients of this, too. I don't plan to start calling this brutalism :)