141–150 of 173 posts
Brutalism seems like the wrong comparison to make with this new wave of design. The way I see it, brutalist websites would be websites with little or no CSS (see: http://www.motherfuckingwebsite.com/ ). They expose the "concrete of the web". The examples in the article seem more punk, if anything. Which, that's cool too, but different. They actually require a lot of images and really tricky CSS to create that look, e…
I think there is a difference between design that is deliberately raw, and something that hasn’t been designed at all.
Brutalism was about focusing on function, with no consideration given to making it pretty for the sake of prettiness. If you treat this as a design style, you're missing the point.
Please no. Branding through UX is bad UX. Simple, reliable, transferrable, easy to understand UX is good UX. Not everything has to be a billboard. I don't want a hammer where the handle is an iron rod embossed with the maker's logo. I just want an ergonomic wooden handle that does the job.
> Please no. Branding through UX is bad UX. I agree. > Simple, ..., transferrable, easy to understand UX is good UX. I disagree. I think the first part of OP raised some good points. The copy everyone's copying and that everyone understand may just be an inferior local maxima. I think this podcast gets at some of the lost potential: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/of-mice-and-men/
Yup. But the way out of those inferior local maxima is by focusing on making UX more "simple, reliable, easy to understand". By focusing on being different and expressing your brand identity, you go towards even worse state than the local maximum you're trying to escape.
I'm confused. I don't see what makes most of the examples cited here "Brutalist" in any meaningful fashion. Brutalism is, of course, a fuzzy (and contentious) label to begin with. But the article cites two interpretations of the term that we could use to evaluate how Brutalist a given design is: honest, unpretentious and anti-bourgeois and a sense of roughness, exposed structures and visible thought processes The pro…
Web pages, and really everything on the computer screen are a rendering of something. They don't have materials or material properties, they only represent or imitate them. So really they can never be honest to the materials. They can only imitate or evoke 'ideas' of brutalism.
I'm confused. I don't see what makes most of the examples cited here "Brutalist" in any meaningful fashion. Brutalism is, of course, a fuzzy (and contentious) label to begin with. But the article cites two interpretations of the term that we could use to evaluate how Brutalist a given design is: honest, unpretentious and anti-bourgeois and a sense of roughness, exposed structures and visible thought processes The pro…
Yeah, I think it's impossible for a web page or application to really be brutalist. Web pages, and really everything on the computer screen are a rendering of something. They don't have materials or material properties, they only represent or imitate them. So really they can never be honest to the materials. They can only imitate or evoke 'ideas' of brutalism.
Bare HTML with no styling (inline or CSS).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Le Corbusier's French descriptor for 'raw concrete' was lost in translation and reinterpreted by English commentators as brutal, I always thought that argument as flimsy, since the word brute exists in French and has exactly the same meaning as in English.
Francophone here. There is a difference between "Une brute" (a brute) and, as mentioned, "béton brut" (raw/rough concrete).
It's similar to the way 'crude' can be used to refer to a person or oil that hasn't been through a refining process.
I'm confused. I don't see what makes most of the examples cited here "Brutalist" in any meaningful fashion. Brutalism is, of course, a fuzzy (and contentious) label to begin with. But the article cites two interpretations of the term that we could use to evaluate how Brutalist a given design is: honest, unpretentious and anti-bourgeois and a sense of roughness, exposed structures and visible thought processes The pro…
Brutalism is stupid, anti-beauty, and destructive of mental health; which is why people who are just smart enough, and can afford too much beauty, thirst so much for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is an "exposed structures and visible thought processes," website: http://motherfuckingwebsite.com
Came here for this and to also link http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com
I'm confused. I don't see what makes most of the examples cited here "Brutalist" in any meaningful fashion. Brutalism is, of course, a fuzzy (and contentious) label to begin with. But the article cites two interpretations of the term that we could use to evaluate how Brutalist a given design is: honest, unpretentious and anti-bourgeois and a sense of roughness, exposed structures and visible thought processes The pro…