4 ms·

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 th

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.

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.