The Cybertruck is not brutalist

Other features of brutalist design:

* By exposing the skeleton, the object shows itself as a platform that can be built upon. However, the Cybertruck's convex hull and covered, armored plating do not lend themselves to confident self-expression, but instead drown out any attempt at customization.

* The purpose of the object is apparent and plain in its construction. The Cybertruck's wheels give away that it is a rolling vehicle of some sort, but otherwise its design does not indicate that it is road-worthy, fast, durable, rideable, etc.

* One of the article's main points: The object should, in its humility, elevate a shared societal viewpoint. Quoting from one of the experts in the article:

> The truck is consumerist, whereas brutalism’s monumentality is civic. The truck’s boldness serves the bravado of an individual, whereas brutalism’s visual power was meant to project the shared dignity of the public realm.

The other quote that is worth repeating:

> [But] we don’t see any bolts or gaskets or other details of joinery. Brutalist architects would never allow this. They wanted the method of making and the assembly of parts to be legible — to be put on display as a way of being vividly honest. This was a core principle, and the sleek machined quality of the Cybertruck is ultimately a disqualifying characteristic.

There's good and bad cars from every era. Some vehicles have aged well. Some vehicles still look stupid today. I find middle of the road vehicles that were neither designed to make a statement nor was aesthetic design ignored generally look good regardless of the era they're from (which makes sense considering that a bunch of professionals had to sign off on its mass-market appeal). The stuff that tries to push the limits is what either looks iconic or terrible in hindsight.

in english, in the modern age, brutalist implies brutality.

Literally no product you can buy would meet this definition.

I guess you could make a brutalist city bus?