The Cybertruck is not brutalist
inverse.com
The Cybertruck is not brutalist
1–10 of 187 posts
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#2Maybe it's not brutalist, but it's certainly brutal to the eyes.
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#3It's also more subtly curved than most people give it credit for. I know a guy that is creating 3D models of the truck for some people that want to simulate it in simulated wind-tunnel. He was flabbergasted at how much they could keep the straight looking form while also smuggling in critical curvatures here and there to stop eddy currents from forming.
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#4The Cybertruck can't be brutalist because it us not ugly enough... At least it is far less ugly than anything properly called brutalist.
Its rather nice, comparable (but not as good) as e.g. the Lamborghini Countach and similar designs.
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#5People have a habit of equating ugly with brutalist.
The Cybertruck is just ugly.
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#6Maybe it's not brutalist, but it's certainly brutal to the eyes.
Behold the power of a mistranslation:
> The term ‘brutalism’ was coined by the British architects Alison and Peter Smithson, and popularised by the architectural historian Reyner Banham in 1954. It derives from ‘Béton brut’ (raw concrete) and was first associated in architecture with Le Corbusier, who designed the Cite Radieuse in Marseilles in the late-1940s.
But since the word can be used as an insult in English, it's used with no reference to its original meaning, obscuring the fact it's a botched translation.
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#7I disagree. If one definition of Brutalism is to be honest about materials - then Cybertruck nails that. Unpainted stainless steel is as brutalist as it gets.
We can argue about the design intent of the way it looks and whether that’s Brutalism. Aesthetics is only one aspect of Brutalism.
Another aspect of Brutalism is to expose innards without guilt - If Cybertruck doesn’t have non-structural decorations, farings, etc and it doesn’t attempt to cover things up, that’s pretty fucking Brutal.
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#8As a person with personal interest in visual arts I never have seen the appeal of appearance of many popular "great looking" cars of today's variety. Even muscle cars and luxury models.
Cars up to 70's and 80's were really nice and aesthetically pleasing, and I find the Elon Musk's vision to be really nice and refreshing.
It might be that I'm partial to science fiction in general, but I really would like to see this vision developed further.
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#9Brutalist philosophy always sounds cool with its honesty and showing of how it works. But then you look at what it actually produces and it's usually, you know, brutal. If brutalist architects could just find it in their hearts to make their buildings have nice shapes along with all the other properties, maybe they wouldn't be so reviled.
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#10so it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, an walks like a duck, but isn't a duck, because whoever made it wasn't thinking about ducks at the time.
i disagree. it's brutalist. the article says so. it meets all the criteria, except: it's a truck.
c'mon. that's reductive pedantry at its worst.