4 ms·
No, it is not ugly at all.
by account73466 7y ago
No, it is not ugly at all.
- Fricken 7y agoI'm going to borrow a term from architecture. It's brutal. It's a brutalist truck.
- barry-cotter 7y agoBrutalism is ugly. There are no beautiful brutalist buildings though there are plenty of interesting ones. It’s like the joke about how everyone in central Paris wants to work in the Tour Montparnasse because then you can’t see the Tour Montparnasse.
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoSorry, no. Sounds like you just don't personally find any brutalist forms beautiful.
- madaxe_again 7y agoNot true. Their starkness and utilitarianism is beautiful, in the eye of the right beholder - and I am one such beholder. I think brutalist architecture is beautiful as it’s bold in its intent, honest in its functional form (it has thingness), and speaks of dreams of the future. I look at a well-executed brutalist structure and get a shiver down my spine - it’s not the thing itself, but what it represents. Brutalism has a deep beauty, that ramifies intricately as you examine it further, in the thought and process that went into this triumph of function. Much of what we describe as beauty is no more than skin deep - a veneer of curves and shine, under which lurks incredible ugliness in both function and intent. Perhaps we are confusing pretty and beautiful.
- teucris 7y ago> I look at a well-executed brutalist structure and get a shiver down my spine Well, yes, well-executed things tend to imbue some value or ideal. The vast majority of humans are exposed to extremely poor brutalism that is simply oppressive.
- slg 7y agoI don't like the truck, but I strongly disagree with the idea that no brutalist building can be beautiful. The library at UC San Diego is one prime example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisel_Library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisel_Library
- gpm 7y agoI don't know, that's good enough looking that it barely counts as brutalist. Robarts at UofT is a brutalist library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robarts_Library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robarts_Library
- mint2 7y agoBrutalist buildings don’t work. Smaller objects may work. Source: I worked in a brutalist building for several years. It literally stood in as a prison in movies: terrible every day environment. The truck is such a slap in the face to the standard car aesthetic. It’s jarring because it feels different and causes dissonance with what I know cars are allowed to look like. Some people will hate it purely because of that knee jerk reaction. I’m not sure I like the look but I really like how iconoclastic it is.
- xchaotic 7y agoBrutalist buildings are also way more practical than say Victorian ones. Same goes for this car - it won’t win the beauty contest but should hopefully be a lot more practical for those living in rural areas
- ARandomerDude 7y agoRural areas typically involve longer distances, which is not something this vehicle will excel at.
- erikpukinskis 7y agoBrutalist is frightening, it’s cold. It’s uncaring. Whether you find that beautiful probably depends on how jaded you are. But it’s a matter of taste.
- gerikson 7y agoGuy de Maupassant is said to have eaten lunch in the Eiffel Tower every day, because it was the only place in Paris he couldn't see the Eiffel Tower.
- tomp 7y agoI don’t like this truck, but it looks like it’s from the future. Brutalism is just ugly. Although maybe when it was trendy, brutalism looked like it was from the future too. Maybe in 20 years, this truck will be “just ugly” as well.
- Fricken 7y ago'Ugly', as a term, is vague and subjective. 'Brutal' is more specific. Brutalist architecture frequently gets used in sci-fi films and television: https://www.phaidon.com/agenda/architecture/articles/2018/september/20/do-you-recognise-these-brutalist-buildings-from-the-big-screen/ https://www.phaidon.com/agenda/architecture/articles/2018/se...
- takeda 7y agoIt look's like from 80s future.
- driverdan 7y agoBrutalism is concrete. This truck is not concrete.
- thom 7y agoBrutalism has as much to do with using unadorned, primitive materials as it has to do with actual concrete. It's clearly inspired by expressionism, and I think the expressionists have found their car here.
- erikpukinskis 7y agoAlso volume and scale. Brutalism is about ignoring the human scale and treating us as livestock. Brutalist forms make you feel like a flower in a crack in the sidewalk.
- buboard 7y agocome on. look at the front bumper's angles. It could be more symmetrical even with a boxy look. They intentionally made it ugly. And not in some "retro" kind or "artistic" kind of angled look - it s not reminiscent of a style. It will almost look better crashed.
- gnode 7y ago> it s not reminiscent As is the nature of futurism.
- buboard 7y agoOK to be clear this is close to the futurist style of the 70s, but not exactly https://d14e8oeg5e788p.cloudfront.net/content/56310/c8d689872ca49866b61b46d3e0d2c5e5.jpg https://d14e8oeg5e788p.cloudfront.net/content/56310/c8d68987... http://oldconceptcars.com/wp-content/uploads/lancia_stratos_zero_concept_8.jpeg http://oldconceptcars.com/wp-content/uploads/lancia_stratos_... it's definitely not what is considered futurist today. It's not only ugly, but doesnt even fit well in a retro futurism classification. i know that there's no accounting for taste, but this is a uniquely ugly car, and not in an innovative way.