4 ms·

If everything appears ugly to you, ask yourself: 1. Is it really? Or this is some weird sentiment towards things that passed? I prefer modern “ugly” architectu

If everything appears ugly to you, ask yourself: 1. Is it really? Or this is some weird sentiment towards things that passed? I prefer modern “ugly” architecture and “modern” medicine, then flamboyant, impractical and wasteful building accompanied by poor health; maybe we just recentred our attention? … alternatively 2. you are depressed; and I don't mean it in a snark way; futility, greyness and ever present gloom can be signs that you're getting depressed.

beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
Your binary only really allows for the author to like "modern" (which should really be called "modernism" to accentuate its aesthetic name), or be depressed. But they could a) think it's ugly and b) responsible for the sense of alienation or discontent. They might believe that the aesthetic makes life worse without their life being depressingly bad, for instance.
- openplatypus 4y ago
  My binary response is to the absolutist tone of “everything” is ugly. Not everything is ugly. Some buildings are ugly. Some are not ugly, but simply cheap. I don't like a lot of stuff in my city. I am not calling it ugly.
jona-f 4y ago
I would describe your second point as gaslighting. Tastes are different and many people dislike modern (and post-modern) architecture. Talking with architects about this, they told me that building differently today is too expensive, doesn't go well with industrialized construction. I argue that architecture is an academic shitshow. It's design for competition juries and not for the people using it. Which is btw very contrary to the initial ideas of Bauhaus, which is why i personally consider it a big failure, despite it's apparent success.
- openplatypus 4y ago
  Tastes are different. The author could have written, some buildings are ugly. I don't like them. Yet, the author wrote, “everything” is ugly.
  - MockObject 4y ago
    The author is expressing his aesthetic judgement, so overliteral interpretations are really not applicable here.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    The author also cites polls that show the majority seems to agree with them.
- projektfu 4y ago
  I disagree. In the post-postmodern period Architecture, as a whole, has been trying to better understand the needs of the users of the building and has been less about flashy design wins. New stadiums, for example, have been architected for flow, utility, and outdoor air conditioning, while trying to maintain a good look. New standalone business buildings are more oriented toward usefulness, accessibility, and comfort, than they are about making a statement. The proliferation of many lower-cost construction models (1+5, for example), show that practicality is important.
  - jona-f 4y ago
    Yes, they've being trying, but as far as i noticed failed, cause the underlying systemic problems haven't changed. Buildings are status symbols, designed top-down. Those deeper societal issues, like classism, have gotten even worse. "Outdoor air conditioning" sounds totally ridiculous and a quick search suggests it's just as bad as it sounds. There should be no world cup in Qatar to begin with.

beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago

Your binary only really allows for the author to like "modern" (which should really be called "modernism" to accentuate its aesthetic name), or be depressed. But they could a) think it's ugly and b) responsible for the sense of alienation or discontent. They might believe that the aesthetic makes life worse without their life being depressingly bad, for instance.

openplatypus 4y ago
My binary response is to the absolutist tone of “everything” is ugly. Not everything is ugly. Some buildings are ugly. Some are not ugly, but simply cheap. I don't like a lot of stuff in my city. I am not calling it ugly.

jona-f 4y ago

I would describe your second point as gaslighting. Tastes are different and many people dislike modern (and post-modern) architecture. Talking with architects about this, they told me that building differently today is too expensive, doesn't go well with industrialized construction. I argue that architecture is an academic shitshow. It's design for competition juries and not for the people using it. Which is btw very contrary to the initial ideas of Bauhaus, which is why i personally consider it a big failure, despite it's apparent success.

openplatypus 4y ago
Tastes are different. The author could have written, some buildings are ugly. I don't like them. Yet, the author wrote, “everything” is ugly.
- MockObject 4y ago
  The author is expressing his aesthetic judgement, so overliteral interpretations are really not applicable here.
- int_19h 4y ago
  The author also cites polls that show the majority seems to agree with them.
projektfu 4y ago
I disagree. In the post-postmodern period Architecture, as a whole, has been trying to better understand the needs of the users of the building and has been less about flashy design wins. New stadiums, for example, have been architected for flow, utility, and outdoor air conditioning, while trying to maintain a good look. New standalone business buildings are more oriented toward usefulness, accessibility, and comfort, than they are about making a statement. The proliferation of many lower-cost construction models (1+5, for example), show that practicality is important.
- jona-f 4y ago
  Yes, they've being trying, but as far as i noticed failed, cause the underlying systemic problems haven't changed. Buildings are status symbols, designed top-down. Those deeper societal issues, like classism, have gotten even worse. "Outdoor air conditioning" sounds totally ridiculous and a quick search suggests it's just as bad as it sounds. There should be no world cup in Qatar to begin with.