3 ms·
While an interesting study in aesthetics, web brutalism or html brutalism isn't really brutalist at all. They all seem hyper-focused on exposing raw building ma
by chefandy 6y ago
While an interesting study in aesthetics, web brutalism or html brutalism isn't really brutalist at all. They all seem hyper-focused on exposing raw building materials when that totally misses brutalism's goals. A simple, small, unpainted cinder block shack doesn't hide its materials, is made of raw concrete, but probably isn't brutalist. Neither is a brick victorian.
The idea that beautiful forms can come from purely functional design without needing to cover things up with baroque decoration is really a central theme. As is making these huge structures with small, modular elements designed at human scale to get something that's truly people-focused. All of this stems from a utopian idea that scaling production can provide functional, beautifully designed buildings for use by all people, rather than just the privileged few. While the style is polarizing, I'd say it often accomplished its goals. In my experience, well-designed brutalist buildings are easy to navigate, have large open spaces, have lots of little nooks and crannies to foster human interaction, and have really beautiful forms.
While the page has nice enough lines and makes good use of color, the html tags have quite the opposite effect that a brutalist-era designer would hope to bestow upon the user. In this way, I'd say that this website is a far better example of brutalism than that website.
- systemvoltage 6y ago> A simple, small, unpainted cinder block shack doesn't hide its materials, is made of raw concrete, but probably isn't brutalist. Neither is a brick victorian. > The idea that beautiful forms can come from purely functional design without needing to cover things up with baroque decoration is really a central theme. Huh? These two are contradictory statements. I recommend giving this a read, Architecture is where brutalism first sprung up: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/t-magazine/design/brutalist-architecture-revival.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/t-magazine/design/brutali...
- ummonk 6y agoA small cinder block shack isn't very functional, so not brutalist. A brick victorian is intentionally ornate (it exposes the brick as part of its aesthetic, not because of a reluctance to decorate) ergo it isn't brutalist.
- chefandy 6y ago> These two are contradictory statements. They are not remotely contradictory. Something being beautiful because the architect or a stylist added beautiful decorations is entirely different from something being beautiful because the lines, forms, and overall composition of the functional form, by itself, is beautiful. Much of the material on a brick victorian is purely for decoration. A small cinder block box, unless it was purpose-built to store boxes, was not built carefully to consider how it interacts with its occupants. I'm not sure if you just skimmed most of my comment, but it was pretty clearly discussing architecture.
- chuckSu 6y agok Guess there always has to be that one person
- shrimp_emoji 6y agoFor context, this is a meme of modern architecture called "truth to materials", "which holds that any material should be used where it is most appropriate and its nature should not be hidden. Concrete, therefore, should not be painted and the means of its construction should be celebrated by, for instance, not sanding away marks left by timber shuttering"[0]. It's why so many modern buildings[1] are white or brown. Also, brutalism is beautiful[2]. Even in its stark outside, it fosters an equal-and-opposite beauty within, like if Nine Inch Nails was buildings. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_to_materials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_to_materials 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_architecture#International_Style_(1918%E2%80%931950s) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_architecture#Internatio... 2: https://images.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/15150528/brut.jpg https://images.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/151...
- onecommentman 6y ago“Brutalism is beautiful”? Brutalism is cost-effective, and the rest is making a virtue of a necessity IMHO. Chacon à son goût/À chacon son goût, as long as you don’t force people to look at it everyday. But neighborhoods must live with the buildings long after the architect moves away to that charming Greek island, hence the problem. The eternal problem of urban architecture and public art in general...
- chefandy 6y agoAny building can become blighted. Any architectural trend can be misused. Not all brutalist buildings are cheaply constructed.
- PTOB 6y agoPlus, there is zero concrete used here.
- chefandy 6y agoI'd consider that a minor semantic point if the overall spirit of brutalism was honored in these sites... but honestly, that would be pretty boring!