3 ms·

True, I was thinking about that too. But one aspect of brutalist architecture is "showing how it's made", making infrastructure visible, making structural appa

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.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  Well, yeah, I don't honestly love the examples on this page of this 'trend'! (I'm also in my mid-40s, I suspect this is a young person's thing). I'm just saying it's one commonality with architectural brutalism (for better or worse, in either case) that can justify the term. Separate consideration to whether we like the design or think it's effective!
phoehne 5y ago
I think that context matters. Coming out of the 1940's, where fascism preyed on nostalgia and fear, brutalism brings forward a concept of the future that is both fearless and lacks nostalgia. Not seeing the world through your imagination of how you want to see it, but how it really is. Unlike Albert's Spear's or Mussolini's Roman and Greek inspired pieces (setting EUR aside), a brutalist view is honest, simple, and looking forward. There are, of course, counter-examples like the Eastern European memorials - which sometimes favored a heavy grandeur. My take on this is that designers look at something like a concrete building and thing "big", "ugly", "no-like" and then make something that rejects the current overly-clean, friendly design of most sites. It's not brutalist in the sense it is trying to move to a vision of the future free from deception and nostalgia, it's more dank basement bar and garage band esthetic. Some of those sites look like they could be the covers of 1980 punk or new-wave albums. I could see some of it on a Dickies album cover or promoting some 1982 art-house film about sadistic chipmunks.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  Good points. There's probably no way for any contemporary design to capture that historical contextual element of brutalism (or modernism in general), that was a stance particular to that period of time, you can't have that same stance toward the past/future now with an extra 100 years of past behind us and what has happened in it... (And of course it should be said that both Italian and German fascist architecture could also be big into modernism, and a "concept of the future that is fearless", and even in some ways "lacks nostalgia". Fascism is nothing if not contradictory.) I still think there's something notable about the "draw attention to it being a computer screen" that is notable about the designs in OP -- that OP doesn't actually discuss much -- whether or not we call it "brutalism". Interestingly though, I also want to say it kind of wants to draw attention to it's artificiality in a way that seems very contrary to brutalism. Perhaps since the computer screen is such an artificial "simulacrum" kind of environment in the first place, to draw attention to it's true nature is to promote a kind of artificiality, when to draw attention to the true nature of a physical building was in the 20th century thought of as a dismissal of artifice. Anyway, this is maybe getting pretty far afield, but interesting stuff!
- philwelch 5y ago

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.

jrochkind1 5y ago
Well, yeah, I don't honestly love the examples on this page of this 'trend'! (I'm also in my mid-40s, I suspect this is a young person's thing). I'm just saying it's one commonality with architectural brutalism (for better or worse, in either case) that can justify the term. Separate consideration to whether we like the design or think it's effective!

phoehne 5y ago

I think that context matters. Coming out of the 1940's, where fascism preyed on nostalgia and fear, brutalism brings forward a concept of the future that is both fearless and lacks nostalgia. Not seeing the world through your imagination of how you want to see it, but how it really is. Unlike Albert's Spear's or Mussolini's Roman and Greek inspired pieces (setting EUR aside), a brutalist view is honest, simple, and looking forward. There are, of course, counter-examples like the Eastern European memorials - which sometimes favored a heavy grandeur. My take on this is that designers look at something like a concrete building and thing "big", "ugly", "no-like" and then make something that rejects the current overly-clean, friendly design of most sites. It's not brutalist in the sense it is trying to move to a vision of the future free from deception and nostalgia, it's more dank basement bar and garage band esthetic. Some of those sites look like they could be the covers of 1980 punk or new-wave albums. I could see some of it on a Dickies album cover or promoting some 1982 art-house film about sadistic chipmunks.

jrochkind1 5y ago
Good points. There's probably no way for any contemporary design to capture that historical contextual element of brutalism (or modernism in general), that was a stance particular to that period of time, you can't have that same stance toward the past/future now with an extra 100 years of past behind us and what has happened in it... (And of course it should be said that both Italian and German fascist architecture could also be big into modernism, and a "concept of the future that is fearless", and even in some ways "lacks nostalgia". Fascism is nothing if not contradictory.) I still think there's something notable about the "draw attention to it being a computer screen" that is notable about the designs in OP -- that OP doesn't actually discuss much -- whether or not we call it "brutalism". Interestingly though, I also want to say it kind of wants to draw attention to it's artificiality in a way that seems very contrary to brutalism. Perhaps since the computer screen is such an artificial "simulacrum" kind of environment in the first place, to draw attention to it's true nature is to promote a kind of artificiality, when to draw attention to the true nature of a physical building was in the 20th century thought of as a dismissal of artifice. Anyway, this is maybe getting pretty far afield, but interesting stuff!
philwelch 5y ago