6 ms·

> Brutalism is a 1950’s architectural trend that was abandoning all decorations, and creating brutally simple buildings made from concrete. They often weren’t e

> Brutalism is a 1950’s architectural trend that was abandoning all decorations, and creating brutally simple buildings made from concrete. They often weren’t even painted to emphasize their brutal nature. So big, brutal blocks of concrete. The word "brut" came from French "Béton brut" which means "raw concrete" — has nothing with how "brutal" we perceive it to be. There's lots of architecture articles covering this but basically, the author hasn't done their research: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Brutalism https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Brutalism

webscout 5y ago
Upvote from a Champagne drinker ;)
- tokamak-teapot 5y ago
  Pah, neobrutalism is just sparkling concrete.
_dain_ 5y ago
I'm sick of hearing this, it was obviously a double meaning from the start. They revelled in how brutal it was.
- regentbowerbird 5y ago
  I'm no expert in architecture history, but I don't think it is so obvious. Le Corbusier's projects such as the Cité Radieuse or the Plan Voisin, which largely defined modernism, seem to me to be quite clearly the starting point of early brutalism, which didn't look all that brutal. Le Corbusier is also the source of the "béton brut" phrase, apparently.
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    What I'm annoyed by is the assumption that "brutal" only means violent. Brute-dull, stupid. Brutal honesty-direct and unvarnished honesty.
  - hprotagonist 5y ago
    > the Plan Voisin, which largely defined modernism, seem to me to be quite clearly the starting point of early brutalism, which didn't look all that brutal. “Raze a third of Paris, it is Too Messy!” isn’t “all that brutal”?
    - regentbowerbird 5y ago
      Apologies if it was unclear, I meant that Le Corbusier's projects together largely defined modernism, rather than just the Plan Voisin. The Plan was more or less a marketing scheme. It brought attention to the problems modernism was to solve: it was large-scale, clean, egalitarian, bright, full of greenery, and paid attention to transportation — all things Paris had issues with at the time. (1920s Paris still had slums!)
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
akoncius 5y ago
in that case, why it is called 'brutalism' instead of 'brutism' ? I'm not implying you are wrong, but probably it's the reason of confusion: * brutal - brutalism * brut - brutism
- throw0101a 5y ago
  Ask Hans Asplund: > The term Nybrutalism (New Brutalism)[16] was coined by the Swedish architect Hans Asplund to describe Villa Göth, a modern brick home in Uppsala, designed in January 1950[9] by his contemporaries Bengt Edman and Lennart Holm.[10] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture#History > Asplund's neologism caught on in Stockholm and was picked up by British architectural pilgrims to that city, among them Oliver Cox, Graeme Shankland and Michael Ventris, the decoder of Linear B (an ancient script seen as one of the great linguistic riddles). Although the epithet signified nothing, or maybe because it signified nothing, it was taken up as a slogan of defiance or something by arty young British architects, none artier than Alison and Peter Smithson and their representative on Earth, Reyner Banham, an architectural critic whose prose may cause all but the entirely insentient to wince. * https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/feb/13/jonathan-meades-brutalism-a-z https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/feb/13/jonatha... Or Reyner Banham why he chose that name in his 1955 essay: > They have created the idea of a Modern Movement – this was known even before Basil Taylor took up arms against false historicism – and beyond that they have offered a rough classification of the ‘isms’ which are the thumb-print of Modernity into two main types: One, like Cubism, is a label, a recognition tag, applied by critics and historians to a body of work which appears to have certain consistent principles running through it, whatever the relationship of the artists; the other, like Futurism, is a banner, a slogan, a policy consciously adopted by a group of artists, whatever the apparent similarity or dissimilarity of their products. And it is entirely characteristic of the New Brutalism – our first native art-movement since the New Art-History arrived here-that it should confound these categories and belong to both at once. * https://www.architectural-review.com/archive/the-new-brutalism-by-reyner-banham https://www.architectural-review.com/archive/the-new-brutali... It opens with an epigraph by Le Corbusier: > L’Architecture, c’est, avec des matières bruts, ètablir des rapports émouvants’rnouvants. (Architecture is, with raw materials, establishing moving and moving relationships.) See also: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Béton_brut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Béton_brut
michaelscott 5y ago
Correct, brutalism is concerned with total utilitarianism and a complete lack of artifice (the material is irrelevant, although a lot of brutalist architecture is made from concrete). It contrasts itself with minimalism by taking it to the extreme and creating an almost anti-human aesthetic. This makes it appropriate for buildings that are looking to evoke anti-human ideals; churches and monasteries (divinity of God over the profanity of man), as well as many governmental buildings of the period (intimidation and hopefully an inhuman/machine-like approach to orderliness and bureaucracy)
- hprotagonist 5y ago
  > Correct, brutalism is concerned with total utilitarianism and a complete lack of artifice but, every brutalist structure i’ve had the displeasure to work in sucked for humans to occupy and interact with. They completely prioritize artifice over functional matters.
  - cproctor 5y ago
    I often find brutalist buildings to be comfortable and inspiring.
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    There are a number of brutalist academic libraries that I find delightful to be inside of, using them for library purposes. Somehow it's a style suited for libraries? I went to school here, and this one from the OUTSIDE I don't love, but on the INSIDE it's actually a delightful place to read, browse the stacks, study, or nap. And has been beloved by generations of students. https://www.oberlin.edu/mudd-center https://www.oberlin.edu/mudd-center University Library at Northwestern University, I find lovely outside as well as pleasant inside: https://www.library.northwestern.edu/ https://www.library.northwestern.edu/ (There are some alternate entrances and terraces which are closed due to notions of "security" in a facility like this, but which would make it even more pleasant and human-oriented if open. I guess that is then one way it's design ended up incompatible with at least current usage demands. I'm curious if they were open to patrons when the building first opened).
blenderdt 5y ago
Indeed. It has more to do with crude as in crude oil. But as a consequence of this style buildings have a brutal feel to it.
jonnycomputer 5y ago
The English word brutal comes from French or medieval Latin brutalis, brutus, meaning dull, stupid. Hence the word "brute". Savagely violent is only one of the meanings of the adjective. It also means "punishingly hard or uncomfortable" or "direct and lacking any attempt to disguise unpleasantness". These latter two meanings of "brutal" seem particularly apt to describe this architectural style; in fact it seems to mirror in the original meaning of "Béton brut" (though I am no speaker of French, so some nuance may be escaping me). So, I'm really not sure that we've gained anything by this "debunking".
- dmos62 5y ago
  So "beton brut" or "cidre brut" (dry cider) refer to the concrete's or cider's dullness or stupidity? No, they refer to their rawness and crudeness. The original commentor was spot on. By the way, a more complete set of the meanings of Latin brūtus is heavy, unwieldy, dull, stupid, brutish.
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    "punishingly hard or uncomfortable" or "direct and lacking any attempt to disguise unpleasantness"
  - gameman144 5y ago
    Taking brute to mean "unrefined", you can see that it fits into both those definitions and scenarios just fine. An unrefined person is dull, stupid, or violent; an unrefined product is raw, crude, or lacking polish.
- SeanLuke 5y ago
  Nope. Brutalism refers to concrete, full stop. The author clearly hasn't done due diligence.
  - Fricken 5y ago
    It's originally a tongue-in-cheek term, first popularized by British Architects Allison and Peter Smithson. The double entendre was not lost on them. Architects have a sense of humour too.
jrochkind1 5y ago
True, I was thinking about that too. But one aspect of brutalist architecture is "showing how it's made", making infrastructure visible, making structural apparatus visible. And making raw materials visible for what they are, not trying to make them look like something they're not. That's part of it's "rawness" too, as I've always understood it -- it's not just about using concrete. That part does seem to some extent apply to what's being called here "neobrutalism" in the web. Stark obvious borders and shadows, instead of subtle gradients that blend in and don't draw your attention to them, or which give you photographic or realistic effects to imitate something they're not. Emphasizing the "computer-y-ness" of what you're looking at. Skeuomorphic tries to look like something other than it is; minimalist design hopes you don't think about what the thing is made of at all to distract you from the information -- but this design we're talking about instead intentionally reminds you that you are looking at a computer screen. That's an honest similarity to brutalism maybe. So, as an appreciator of architectural brutalism, from the headline (and not knowing much about the web design 'trend') I came prepared to make your point... by the end I was begrudgingly saying, meh, okay, fine, close enough. It does draw your attention to the "way it's made" similar to what I understand as actually one of the core values of architectural brutalism; as well as being kind of a challenge to more polite notions of aesthetics in a way that's similar to brutalism's effect even if it's not what the word "brutal(ism)" was actually meant for (although in English at least I think the 'misunderstanding' may not have been wholly unknown/unintentional originally). I guess it's close enough, I'll allow it, I don't need to pick this fight. (although I too wish the author had talked a bit more accurately about architectural brutalism). (On the other hand this design stuff also has lots of non-functional even playful decorative elements, which is contrary to architectural brutalism).
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > Stark obvious borders and shadows, instead of subtle gradients that blend in and don't draw your attention to them. The drawback is that in most cases you'd want to draw attention to the actual content, not the appearance of the page. Starker contrast is sensible for page elements that the user can meaningfully interact with, but ISTM that the "claymorphism" style is more effective at managing that trade-off.
bin_bash 5y ago
For architects this is a popular shibboleth. If you imply that "brutalism" is related to "brutal" then you'll be perceived as an outsider that doesn't have any real design knowledge. This is like implying Java and JavaScript are related.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Of course the real thing to know here on Javascript is that they are related. Eich's crazy scripting language "Livescript" was going to exist independently, but then there was a chance to ride on the coattails of the Java enthusiasm, to do that it needed the inappropriate name, and it needed syntax that looks enough like a semicolon language even though it's a Lisp. Some of the obvious defects in Javascript are (at least if you believe people who were there) excused because Brendan had a tight deadline to ship this or else Netscape would go with the plan where Sun's Java is more closely integrated instead of Eich's Lisp scripting. Every day spent making Javascript less awful is additional risk an executive says no, we are going with Sun on this, stop work on Javascript. I don't know if there's an equivalently nuanced story for Brutalism.
  - bin_bash 5y ago
    You’re missing my point. Perhaps I should’ve said “interchangeable” instead of “related”. My point is that it makes you an outsider. A recruiter that assumes you know JS simply because you know Java is quickly dismissed for good reason—despite any historical merit. This is similar in architecture circles. If you mix up “brutal” with “brutalism” you’ll be perceived as a clueless outsider. I’m sure there are architects out there that argue they are related, but without addressing this faux pas head on it makes the author seem ignorant. I’m married to an architect and have seen this dynamic played out a few times. If you want to make an architect cringe: call brutalism “brutal”.
    - tialaramex 5y ago
      > I’m sure there are architects out there that argue they are related, but without addressing this faux pas head on it makes the author seem ignorant. That's exactly what I was getting at. Every discipline is like this. If some nutjob tries to argue with my pathologist friend N that actually the proteins in your food change your DNA, the nutter is going to have a bad time because that's lunacy. But if N is talking over dinner with another biologist who maybe got her PhD at a different institution, and in the course of conversation the other biologist says she doubts the central dogma (the "central dogma" of molecular biology is that the nucleic acid sequences make proteins, but the proteins don't make nucleic acid sequences, sometimes over-simplified as DNA->RNA->Protein) then N is not going to react the same way, because even though it's apparently the same idea as the nutter, the context is different. The central dogma seems plausible to me (as a lay person), but popular simplifications are now known to be definitely wrong, so who knows, at least it should have a more defensible name, (apparently Crick did not know what the word "dogma" exactly means and was just looking for synonyms for "hypothesis") as of course if it does fail you can expect the first sort of nutter will feel vindicated. In the context of "I too have a PhD in this discipline" doubts about the dogma (ignoring for a moment that in its technical sense you can't doubt a dogma that's the whole point) seem rational, while in the context of "A Big Mac can change your DNA" it's insane. Likewise I'm sure that in the context of basically "I hate all this old concrete crap" pointing out that Brutalism is related to the word "Brutal" just gets you dismissed -- but in the context of arguing about the relative merits of Wyndham Court and the tower block "extension" to South Stoneham House in my city, it doesn't seem so unreasonable to observe that what people didn't like about these two structures wasn't so much their Brutalist architecture as the Brutal reality of living in them...
xboxnolifes 5y ago
Today I learned. This makes a lot more sense to me now knowing it isn't an emotional categorization.

webscout 5y ago

Upvote from a Champagne drinker ;)

tokamak-teapot 5y ago
Pah, neobrutalism is just sparkling concrete.

_dain_ 5y ago

I'm sick of hearing this, it was obviously a double meaning from the start. They revelled in how brutal it was.

regentbowerbird 5y ago
I'm no expert in architecture history, but I don't think it is so obvious. Le Corbusier's projects such as the Cité Radieuse or the Plan Voisin, which largely defined modernism, seem to me to be quite clearly the starting point of early brutalism, which didn't look all that brutal. Le Corbusier is also the source of the "béton brut" phrase, apparently.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  What I'm annoyed by is the assumption that "brutal" only means violent. Brute-dull, stupid. Brutal honesty-direct and unvarnished honesty.
- hprotagonist 5y ago
  > the Plan Voisin, which largely defined modernism, seem to me to be quite clearly the starting point of early brutalism, which didn't look all that brutal. “Raze a third of Paris, it is Too Messy!” isn’t “all that brutal”?
  - regentbowerbird 5y ago
    Apologies if it was unclear, I meant that Le Corbusier's projects together largely defined modernism, rather than just the Plan Voisin. The Plan was more or less a marketing scheme. It brought attention to the problems modernism was to solve: it was large-scale, clean, egalitarian, bright, full of greenery, and paid attention to transportation — all things Paris had issues with at the time. (1920s Paris still had slums!)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

akoncius 5y ago

in that case, why it is called 'brutalism' instead of 'brutism' ? I'm not implying you are wrong, but probably it's the reason of confusion: * brutal - brutalism * brut - brutism

throw0101a 5y ago
Ask Hans Asplund: > The term Nybrutalism (New Brutalism)[16] was coined by the Swedish architect Hans Asplund to describe Villa Göth, a modern brick home in Uppsala, designed in January 1950[9] by his contemporaries Bengt Edman and Lennart Holm.[10] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture#History > Asplund's neologism caught on in Stockholm and was picked up by British architectural pilgrims to that city, among them Oliver Cox, Graeme Shankland and Michael Ventris, the decoder of Linear B (an ancient script seen as one of the great linguistic riddles). Although the epithet signified nothing, or maybe because it signified nothing, it was taken up as a slogan of defiance or something by arty young British architects, none artier than Alison and Peter Smithson and their representative on Earth, Reyner Banham, an architectural critic whose prose may cause all but the entirely insentient to wince. * https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/feb/13/jonathan-meades-brutalism-a-z https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/feb/13/jonatha... Or Reyner Banham why he chose that name in his 1955 essay: > They have created the idea of a Modern Movement – this was known even before Basil Taylor took up arms against false historicism – and beyond that they have offered a rough classification of the ‘isms’ which are the thumb-print of Modernity into two main types: One, like Cubism, is a label, a recognition tag, applied by critics and historians to a body of work which appears to have certain consistent principles running through it, whatever the relationship of the artists; the other, like Futurism, is a banner, a slogan, a policy consciously adopted by a group of artists, whatever the apparent similarity or dissimilarity of their products. And it is entirely characteristic of the New Brutalism – our first native art-movement since the New Art-History arrived here-that it should confound these categories and belong to both at once. * https://www.architectural-review.com/archive/the-new-brutalism-by-reyner-banham https://www.architectural-review.com/archive/the-new-brutali... It opens with an epigraph by Le Corbusier: > L’Architecture, c’est, avec des matières bruts, ètablir des rapports émouvants’rnouvants. (Architecture is, with raw materials, establishing moving and moving relationships.) See also: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Béton_brut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Béton_brut

michaelscott 5y ago

Correct, brutalism is concerned with total utilitarianism and a complete lack of artifice (the material is irrelevant, although a lot of brutalist architecture is made from concrete). It contrasts itself with minimalism by taking it to the extreme and creating an almost anti-human aesthetic. This makes it appropriate for buildings that are looking to evoke anti-human ideals; churches and monasteries (divinity of God over the profanity of man), as well as many governmental buildings of the period (intimidation and hopefully an inhuman/machine-like approach to orderliness and bureaucracy)

hprotagonist 5y ago
> Correct, brutalism is concerned with total utilitarianism and a complete lack of artifice but, every brutalist structure i’ve had the displeasure to work in sucked for humans to occupy and interact with. They completely prioritize artifice over functional matters.
- cproctor 5y ago
  I often find brutalist buildings to be comfortable and inspiring.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  There are a number of brutalist academic libraries that I find delightful to be inside of, using them for library purposes. Somehow it's a style suited for libraries? I went to school here, and this one from the OUTSIDE I don't love, but on the INSIDE it's actually a delightful place to read, browse the stacks, study, or nap. And has been beloved by generations of students. https://www.oberlin.edu/mudd-center https://www.oberlin.edu/mudd-center University Library at Northwestern University, I find lovely outside as well as pleasant inside: https://www.library.northwestern.edu/ https://www.library.northwestern.edu/ (There are some alternate entrances and terraces which are closed due to notions of "security" in a facility like this, but which would make it even more pleasant and human-oriented if open. I guess that is then one way it's design ended up incompatible with at least current usage demands. I'm curious if they were open to patrons when the building first opened).

blenderdt 5y ago

Indeed. It has more to do with crude as in crude oil. But as a consequence of this style buildings have a brutal feel to it.

jonnycomputer 5y ago

The English word brutal comes from French or medieval Latin brutalis, brutus, meaning dull, stupid. Hence the word "brute". Savagely violent is only one of the meanings of the adjective. It also means "punishingly hard or uncomfortable" or "direct and lacking any attempt to disguise unpleasantness". These latter two meanings of "brutal" seem particularly apt to describe this architectural style; in fact it seems to mirror in the original meaning of "Béton brut" (though I am no speaker of French, so some nuance may be escaping me). So, I'm really not sure that we've gained anything by this "debunking".

dmos62 5y ago
So "beton brut" or "cidre brut" (dry cider) refer to the concrete's or cider's dullness or stupidity? No, they refer to their rawness and crudeness. The original commentor was spot on. By the way, a more complete set of the meanings of Latin brūtus is heavy, unwieldy, dull, stupid, brutish.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  "punishingly hard or uncomfortable" or "direct and lacking any attempt to disguise unpleasantness"
- gameman144 5y ago
  Taking brute to mean "unrefined", you can see that it fits into both those definitions and scenarios just fine. An unrefined person is dull, stupid, or violent; an unrefined product is raw, crude, or lacking polish.
SeanLuke 5y ago
Nope. Brutalism refers to concrete, full stop. The author clearly hasn't done due diligence.
- Fricken 5y ago
  It's originally a tongue-in-cheek term, first popularized by British Architects Allison and Peter Smithson. The double entendre was not lost on them. Architects have a sense of humour too.

jrochkind1 5y ago

True, I was thinking about that too. But one aspect of brutalist architecture is "showing how it's made", making infrastructure visible, making structural apparatus visible. And making raw materials visible for what they are, not trying to make them look like something they're not. That's part of it's "rawness" too, as I've always understood it -- it's not just about using concrete. That part does seem to some extent apply to what's being called here "neobrutalism" in the web. Stark obvious borders and shadows, instead of subtle gradients that blend in and don't draw your attention to them, or which give you photographic or realistic effects to imitate something they're not. Emphasizing the "computer-y-ness" of what you're looking at. Skeuomorphic tries to look like something other than it is; minimalist design hopes you don't think about what the thing is made of at all to distract you from the information -- but this design we're talking about instead intentionally reminds you that you are looking at a computer screen. That's an honest similarity to brutalism maybe. So, as an appreciator of architectural brutalism, from the headline (and not knowing much about the web design 'trend') I came prepared to make your point... by the end I was begrudgingly saying, meh, okay, fine, close enough. It does draw your attention to the "way it's made" similar to what I understand as actually one of the core values of architectural brutalism; as well as being kind of a challenge to more polite notions of aesthetics in a way that's similar to brutalism's effect even if it's not what the word "brutal(ism)" was actually meant for (although in English at least I think the 'misunderstanding' may not have been wholly unknown/unintentional originally). I guess it's close enough, I'll allow it, I don't need to pick this fight. (although I too wish the author had talked a bit more accurately about architectural brutalism). (On the other hand this design stuff also has lots of non-functional even playful decorative elements, which is contrary to architectural brutalism).

zozbot234 5y ago
> Stark obvious borders and shadows, instead of subtle gradients that blend in and don't draw your attention to them. The drawback is that in most cases you'd want to draw attention to the actual content, not the appearance of the page. Starker contrast is sensible for page elements that the user can meaningfully interact with, but ISTM that the "claymorphism" style is more effective at managing that trade-off.

bin_bash 5y ago

For architects this is a popular shibboleth. If you imply that "brutalism" is related to "brutal" then you'll be perceived as an outsider that doesn't have any real design knowledge. This is like implying Java and JavaScript are related.

tialaramex 5y ago
Of course the real thing to know here on Javascript is that they are related. Eich's crazy scripting language "Livescript" was going to exist independently, but then there was a chance to ride on the coattails of the Java enthusiasm, to do that it needed the inappropriate name, and it needed syntax that looks enough like a semicolon language even though it's a Lisp. Some of the obvious defects in Javascript are (at least if you believe people who were there) excused because Brendan had a tight deadline to ship this or else Netscape would go with the plan where Sun's Java is more closely integrated instead of Eich's Lisp scripting. Every day spent making Javascript less awful is additional risk an executive says no, we are going with Sun on this, stop work on Javascript. I don't know if there's an equivalently nuanced story for Brutalism.
- bin_bash 5y ago
  You’re missing my point. Perhaps I should’ve said “interchangeable” instead of “related”. My point is that it makes you an outsider. A recruiter that assumes you know JS simply because you know Java is quickly dismissed for good reason—despite any historical merit. This is similar in architecture circles. If you mix up “brutal” with “brutalism” you’ll be perceived as a clueless outsider. I’m sure there are architects out there that argue they are related, but without addressing this faux pas head on it makes the author seem ignorant. I’m married to an architect and have seen this dynamic played out a few times. If you want to make an architect cringe: call brutalism “brutal”.
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    > I’m sure there are architects out there that argue they are related, but without addressing this faux pas head on it makes the author seem ignorant. That's exactly what I was getting at. Every discipline is like this. If some nutjob tries to argue with my pathologist friend N that actually the proteins in your food change your DNA, the nutter is going to have a bad time because that's lunacy. But if N is talking over dinner with another biologist who maybe got her PhD at a different institution, and in the course of conversation the other biologist says she doubts the central dogma (the "central dogma" of molecular biology is that the nucleic acid sequences make proteins, but the proteins don't make nucleic acid sequences, sometimes over-simplified as DNA->RNA->Protein) then N is not going to react the same way, because even though it's apparently the same idea as the nutter, the context is different. The central dogma seems plausible to me (as a lay person), but popular simplifications are now known to be definitely wrong, so who knows, at least it should have a more defensible name, (apparently Crick did not know what the word "dogma" exactly means and was just looking for synonyms for "hypothesis") as of course if it does fail you can expect the first sort of nutter will feel vindicated. In the context of "I too have a PhD in this discipline" doubts about the dogma (ignoring for a moment that in its technical sense you can't doubt a dogma that's the whole point) seem rational, while in the context of "A Big Mac can change your DNA" it's insane. Likewise I'm sure that in the context of basically "I hate all this old concrete crap" pointing out that Brutalism is related to the word "Brutal" just gets you dismissed -- but in the context of arguing about the relative merits of Wyndham Court and the tower block "extension" to South Stoneham House in my city, it doesn't seem so unreasonable to observe that what people didn't like about these two structures wasn't so much their Brutalist architecture as the Brutal reality of living in them...

xboxnolifes 5y ago

Today I learned. This makes a lot more sense to me now knowing it isn't an emotional categorization.