Meanwhile, CyberTruck isn't allowed in West-Europe due to safety concerns. It bends too little in case of an accident.
Nobody has crash-tested a Cybertruck yet...
The Cybertruck is not brutalist
71–80 of 187 posts
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but everyone has equal legitimacy in their opinion on this. Why is everyone's opinion equal? When building a bridge, is the opinion of a civil engineer equal to that of a cook? No, clearly not - but we only recognize this because the effects of building faulty bridges are obvious and immediately noticeable, whereas the effects of cultural ignorance are far more subtle and wide-reaching. The fields of art and aesthe…
You take position of authority, criticize, but you are not educating. > The fields of art and aesthetics have a long, complex history and have been studied and written upon by thousands of intelligent scholars, designers, artists, philosophers, and religious figures. So, let me ask you, why should I care? I care about design e.g. "The Design of Everyday Things": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY96hTb8WgI But what is…
You should care because (presumably) you don't want to be an ignorant person (as in, lacking knowledge). If you don't see why being ignorant is undesirable, then I can't really help you.
If you're genuinely interested in learning about aesthetics, then you'll have to do a lot of reading. As with pretty much any complex topic, there are no easy one-line answers. I recommend starting with the Wikipedia page, browsing some articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and then finding some books in areas that you find interesting. If you're a software engineer, for example, then I'd recommend Aesthetic Computing.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics
- https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=aestheti...
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but everyone has equal legitimacy in their opinion on this. Why is everyone's opinion equal? When building a bridge, is the opinion of a civil engineer equal to that of a cook? No, clearly not - but we only recognize this because the effects of building faulty bridges are obvious and immediately noticeable, whereas the effects of cultural ignorance are far more subtle and wide-reaching. The fields of art and aesthe…
It's not about practicality. A Formula 1 car or high-performance sailboat has no practical value, but I trust engineers far more than kindergartners about Formula 1 or yacht design. On the other hand, I've seen gifted kindergartners draw things which I thought were pretty good -- on par with some respected artists. It's about having real-world validation. Anyone can have an opinion about art and literature. If your o…
You do realize that the activity of art-making and the field of aesthetics (defined broadly as philosophical thought about art-making) are thousands of years old? And that just as there are arguments for certain political systems over others, there are arguments for certain ways of interpreting and valuing art over others?
The idea that artistic value is only based on modern academics is really quite myopic.
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#74It’s likely by this pedantic definition that no automobile could ever be brutalist. Architectural gatekeeping.
“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.” Literally no product you can buy would meet this definition. I guess you could make a brutalist city bus?
I definitely think it could be argued that there are many examples of brutalistic public transport - a great comparison would be New York City’s aluminium cans (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/MT...) versus London’s tube trains with their curves and glass (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Shiny_an...)
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about practicality. A Formula 1 car or high-performance sailboat has no practical value, but I trust engineers far more than kindergartners about Formula 1 or yacht design. On the other hand, I've seen gifted kindergartners draw things which I thought were pretty good -- on par with some respected artists. It's about having real-world validation. Anyone can have an opinion about art and literature. If your o…
You do realize that the activity of art-making and the field of aesthetics (defined broadly as philosophical thought about art-making) are thousands of years old? And that just as there are arguments for certain political systems over others, there are arguments for certain ways of interpreting and valuing art over others? The idea that artistic value is only based on modern academics is really quite myopic.
I'm curious as to what the argument actually is against the idea that it is perfectly reasonable to value Bach and JK Rowling's Harry Potter with the latter having more "value" than the former. What argument do aestheticians put forth to say that my judgement is incorrect, or worse, than that of the Bach scholar?
It seems to me that the challenge for the "objective" theory of aesthetics is pretty much the same as the one for moral realism. Yes, the fact that people disagree about artistic value doesn't mean that artistic value is subjective - but I'm yet to be convinced that it's objective in any meaningful sense. In the end, though, you're right about disagreement over political systems (despite some attempts to do away with political relativism, e.g. Badiou) - but only because different people have different, mutually exclusive, visions of what society is and should be, and the methods to get there. The arguments you're talking about in politics only have any meaning once at least one set goal is agreed upon - e.g. human freedom. But I struggle to think of any such goal that the Bach scholar and the Harry Potter fan are going to agree on.
I think there's a reason why even die-hard Adorno "fans" have given up trying to argue why jazz music is so bad.
When someone can think up an argument to convince a Harry Potter fan that they should really judge Bach's music as more beautiful, pleasing, of higher artistic value etc. than Harry Potter, then I'm curious.
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
its better to think of it more as public harm reduction than public "good"
If people didn't see vehicles as a net positive compared to the alternative they wouldn't own them.
Not really. I see them as a necessary evil. Everyone else has one and expects me to be able to get around, so I have one too. If public transit were decent, I wouldn’t own a car.
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize that the activity of art-making and the field of aesthetics (defined broadly as philosophical thought about art-making) are thousands of years old? And that just as there are arguments for certain political systems over others, there are arguments for certain ways of interpreting and valuing art over others? The idea that artistic value is only based on modern academics is really quite myopic.
I'm curious as to what the argument actually is against the idea that it is perfectly reasonable to value Bach and JK Rowling's Harry Potter with the latter having more "value" than the former. What argument do aestheticians put forth to say that my judgement is incorrect, or worse, than that of the Bach scholar? It seems to me that the challenge for the "objective" theory of aesthetics is pretty much the same as the…
Aestheticians don’t frame the question as “objective vs. subjective” so I wouldn’t use that as a goal or a starting point. There are various approaches and none is more “objective”, just as the X political philosophy is not more objective than Y political philosophy. They are constructed of arguments, evidence, worldviews, and other things that have nothing to do with arriving at some standard of “objectively better.”
My criticism of the “ignorant relativist” is that he is uninformed on the reasoning of his position and of other positions, not that he thinks art is subjective.
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#78Besides the political slant, they appear to claim it isn’t brutalist because it has no visible connectors or internals ... and then show photos of allegedly brutalist architecture with no visible connectors or internals.
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
"As a person with personal interest in visual arts" With all due respects, isn't this an entirely meaningless saying? Everyone has an interest in aesthetics and visual appeal, and has a subjective opinion on what they find appealing. We are a social species so invariably people infect each other's opinion so we have trends and movements towards/from opinions, but everyone has equal legitimacy in their opinion on this…
> but everyone has equal legitimacy in their opinion on this. Why is everyone's opinion equal? When building a bridge, is the opinion of a civil engineer equal to that of a cook? No, clearly not - but we only recognize this because the effects of building faulty bridges are obvious and immediately noticeable, whereas the effects of cultural ignorance are far more subtle and wide-reaching. The fields of art and aesthe…
"Why is everyone's opinion equal? When building a bridge, is the opinion of a civil engineer equal to that of a cook?"
Engineering is objective. It is provable. It yields foundational precepts that, if you annihilated society and it grew again, would recur in the same form. Aesthetics/art has gone through countless cycles -- often completely contradictory states -- and at any one time you can find any number of adherents of virtually any belief.
Looking at the disastrous CyberTruck, though, which subjectively almost everyone hates, and saying "I'm kind of into this stuff, so my opinion means more" is absurd. It is 100% subjective, and it is something that everyone has an equal opinion on.
A design that was the result of the limitations of forming stainless steel and pretending like it is some heightened presentation is farce.
Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious as to what the argument actually is against the idea that it is perfectly reasonable to value Bach and JK Rowling's Harry Potter with the latter having more "value" than the former. What argument do aestheticians put forth to say that my judgement is incorrect, or worse, than that of the Bach scholar? It seems to me that the challenge for the "objective" theory of aesthetics is pretty much the same as the…
Aestheticians don’t frame the question as “objective vs. subjective” so I wouldn’t use that as a goal or a starting point. There are various approaches and none is more “objective”, just as the X political philosophy is not more objective than Y political philosophy. They are constructed of arguments, evidence, worldviews, and other things that have nothing to do with arriving at some standard of “objectively better.…
How is the question framed, then? Either everyone's aesthetic judgement is equally valid, or there are some judgments that are better than others. I'm interested in the defense of the latter position. By what reasoning can an aesthetician convince me that Bach is better (in some, in any way) than Harry Potter? Or if that's not the right question either: by what reasoning can an aesthetician argue that a particular interpretation or assignment of value is better than another?
Yes, I arrived at my position out of ignorance, but I've had this kind of argument online before, and nobody has been able to offer me an argument for the side which says we can arrive at value judgments about art that are independent of the person, or whatever the opposite opinion to "art is subjective" is supposed to be.