4 ms·
> Because they’re pleasant to look at. I expect that this is less a case of "bricks have long been used because they’re pleasant to look at", and more a case o
by SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> Because they’re pleasant to look at.
I expect that this is less a case of "bricks have long been used because they’re pleasant to look at", and more a case of "Bricks are considered pleasant to look at, because they have long been used, and have that old-timey feeling"
- imtringued 5y agoI don't think so. I see a lot of buildings that are 30 years old and they look ugly because they don't have any complexity in their facade, just a single color of paint. Bricks add natural complexity to a facade. You can make a single color building look nice by adding details.
- necovek 5y agoActual clay bricks even more so with their imperfect uniformity and consistency. FWIW, at least here, in construction even the thermal insulation clay blocks (basically, any wall-construction material made from clay, those red blocks :)) is called "bricks". They are laid exactly like the regular (uniform, filled) bricks, so I would assume that's what's mostly used in construction everywhere even when not going for looks (they are lighter and have better thermal properties).
- saalweachter 5y agoIt's funny how hard it is to fake imperfections. People frequently try to mass-manufacture imperfections by having a larger block with smaller imperfect sub-blocks artistically arranged. It looks fine at first, but once you notice the repetition of the imperfections at regular intervals...
- yreg 5y agoI went to an exhibition (Sagmeister & Walsh: Beauty) where they dedicated some part to this. They claim that classical buildings are usually beautiful thanks to all the details and that modernist buildings are usually not so beutiful thanks to the missing details. They also had this experiment where the visitors choose shapes and colours they find pretty. Rectangles and brown-red were the least favourite by far. And then they asked why do we build buildings out of the vomponents we find the most hideous? ---- I have my doubts whether their reasoning is valid, but it is somewhat relevant to your comment.
- dazc 5y agoAlso people like to think they are buying something substantial that is literally made of bricks - even if those bricks are just a façade.
- Closi 5y agoThis is the reason for a lot of design trends - This morning I have been: * On a laminate wooden desk, in a room with laminate wooden floor (The same logic - neither are real wood, just an old-timey construction). * Wearing a knitted jumper (which again could be considered stylish from an old-timey perspective, as the manufacturing could have used less thin cotton, but thick cotton is supposed to make it look hand woven) * In a office which has LED lights hanging down which are designed to look like exposed old lightbulbs (same logic) * While typing email on my laptop (the logo to which is an envelope, arguably to remind you of the old-timey mail system). Heck, even my headphones have some fake leather on them, which is effectively just a fake material just to look like older materials which are actually less soft, and my coat has some fluff that is designed to make it look like coats used to look like when they were made from animal fur (even though, now, that is considered abhorrent, fake fur is still a thing, everyone just knows it's simulating the old material for whatever reason, because that was the old style). So I think design trends in general come from historic use-cases in the context.
- Chris2048 5y agoThese aren't always aesthetic though, sometimes they are practically: leveraging knowledge of the well-known tech to help people understand the new.