Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Neubrutalism is taking over the web?

hype4.academy

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 204 posts

Re: Neubrutalism is taking over the web?

#121

Post by ogogmad »

KaiserPro wrote: post #105

I think neobrutalism is the wrong name. I think it gives it a gravitas that is undeserved. This is better described as word95 or ms-bobism. The colours, the style is firmly rooted in the mid 90s graphic design style of liberated desktop publishing. Brutalism was all about function over form, using concrete to make a space that is functional, large light and bright.

Brutalism has earned a bad reputation, so this term is at best backhanded praise if not an insult.

I personally much prefer a realistic 3-dimensional "skeuomorphic" design to flat-looking stuff. Highly technical imitation of reality is quite pleasing on the eyes. It also looks more serious, while the flat stuff often looks like a cartoon for nursery children.

Re: Neubrutalism is taking over the web?

#122

Post by Semiapies »

Vox_Leone wrote: post #112

Brutalism is about exposing the innards of a building. It is nothing about chaos (quite the contrary). The best webdesign analogy of brutalism would be a literate programming interface like a Jupyter Notebook.

Yes, this style is much more like zines and 70s-90s posters for indie band performances.

Brutalism was never about brashness or intentional amateurism. "Neo-DIY" or "New DIY" would be a better name.

Re: Neubrutalism is taking over the web?

#123

Post by tpm »

michaelscott wrote: post #93
yawnxyz wrote: post #48

> Brutalism is a 1950’s architectural trend that was abandoning all decorations, and creating brutally simple buildings made from concrete. They often weren’t even painted to emphasize their brutal nature. So big, brutal blocks of concrete. The word "brut" came from French "Béton brut" which means "raw concrete" — has nothing with how "brutal" we perceive it to be. There's lots of architecture articles covering this…

Correct, brutalism is concerned with total utilitarianism and a complete lack of artifice (the material is irrelevant, although a lot of brutalist architecture is made from concrete). It contrasts itself with minimalism by taking it to the extreme and creating an almost anti-human aesthetic. This makes it appropriate for buildings that are looking to evoke anti-human ideals; churches and monasteries (divinity of God…

> brutalism is concerned with total utilitarianism and a complete lack of artifice

That would be functionalism.

> It contrasts itself with minimalism by taking it to the extreme and creating an almost anti-human aesthetic.

Exactly, and this anti-human aesthetic, inhumanity, intimidation implies that the building must have an emotional or aesthetic impact on the visitor, which is in conflict with the proclaimed utilitarianism. So brutalism in this sense is already moving away from purely functional/utilitarian architecture.

Re: Neubrutalism is taking over the web?

#124

Post by SeanLuke »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #107
yawnxyz wrote: post #48

> Brutalism is a 1950’s architectural trend that was abandoning all decorations, and creating brutally simple buildings made from concrete. They often weren’t even painted to emphasize their brutal nature. So big, brutal blocks of concrete. The word "brut" came from French "Béton brut" which means "raw concrete" — has nothing with how "brutal" we perceive it to be. There's lots of architecture articles covering this…

The English word brutal comes from French or medieval Latin brutalis, brutus, meaning dull, stupid. Hence the word "brute". Savagely violent is only one of the meanings of the adjective. It also means "punishingly hard or uncomfortable" or "direct and lacking any attempt to disguise unpleasantness". These latter two meanings of "brutal" seem particularly apt to describe this architectural style; in fact it seems to m…

Nope. Brutalism refers to concrete, full stop. The author clearly hasn't done due diligence.

Re: Neubrutalism is taking over the web?

#125

Post by smohare »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #94
samatman wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Real world objects rarely change design because of the costs involved What an astonishing claim. Fashion is too easy, you could maybe wiggle away from clothes not being "objects in the real world" although I assure you the Emperor aside they are exactly that. How about cars?

Curiously enough both industries you use in your example (Auto, Fashion) have permanent designers in their payroll which again touches on GP's points. I don't have to learn how to use scissors or paperclips everytime, I use somebody else's stationery. There is a fundamental form to daily objects that does not change or otherwise changes in leap steps often by completely depricating the old object.

Do you leave your house? It’s much more difficult to find everyday objects that do not succumb to constant design changes. Bandages, razors, beverages, literally almost any box of foodstuff…

Re: Neubrutalism is taking over the web?

#127

Post by toopok4k3 »

dgb23 wrote: post #96
ghusto wrote: post #83

> "People simply get bored with how their apps and websites look after six to seven years. They need a change" Real world objects rarely change design because of the costs involved. When they do, the change needs to justify that cost. For example, I'm not going to change the buttons on my microwave because I'm "bored" with them. The costs of changing software design is far less impractical and expensive, and therefor…

> The first is easy, and most of us probably already agree; designers gotta design. They have to justify their salary _somehow_. Designers are typically just _workers_, if it's their own thing, then sure they might want to use that as a canvas to explore things. But generally they produce things and solve problems and don't create them. In my experience and opinion, products are redesigned because: - Users who get bo…

Users who are vocal and complain, cause 95%(out of my ass number) of the users who silently like the software they way it is to suffer.

Re: Neubrutalism is taking over the web?

#129

Post by cproctor »

hprotagonist wrote: post #111
michaelscott wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, brutalism is concerned with total utilitarianism and a complete lack of artifice (the material is irrelevant, although a lot of brutalist architecture is made from concrete). It contrasts itself with minimalism by taking it to the extreme and creating an almost anti-human aesthetic. This makes it appropriate for buildings that are looking to evoke anti-human ideals; churches and monasteries (divinity of God…

> Correct, brutalism is concerned with total utilitarianism and a complete lack of artifice but, every brutalist structure i’ve had the displeasure to work in sucked for humans to occupy and interact with. They completely prioritize artifice over functional matters.

I often find brutalist buildings to be comfortable and inspiring.

Re: Neubrutalism is taking over the web?

#130

Post by jrochkind1 »

yawnxyz wrote: post #48

> Brutalism is a 1950’s architectural trend that was abandoning all decorations, and creating brutally simple buildings made from concrete. They often weren’t even painted to emphasize their brutal nature. So big, brutal blocks of concrete. The word "brut" came from French "Béton brut" which means "raw concrete" — has nothing with how "brutal" we perceive it to be. There's lots of architecture articles covering this…

True, I was thinking about that too.

But one aspect of brutalist architecture is "showing how it's made", making infrastructure visible, making structural apparatus visible. And making raw materials visible for what they are, not trying to make them look like something they're not. That's part of it's "rawness" too, as I've always understood it -- it's not just about using concrete.

That part does seem to some extent apply to what's being called here "neobrutalism" in the web. Stark obvious borders and shadows, instead of subtle gradients that blend in and don't draw your attention to them, or which give you photographic or realistic effects to imitate something they're not. Emphasizing the "computer-y-ness" of what you're looking at. Skeuomorphic tries to look like something other than it is; minimalist design hopes you don't think about what the thing is made of at all to distract you from the information -- but this design we're talking about instead intentionally reminds you that you are looking at a computer screen. That's an honest similarity to brutalism maybe.

So, as an appreciator of architectural brutalism, from the headline (and not knowing much about the web design 'trend') I came prepared to make your point... by the end I was begrudgingly saying, meh, okay, fine, close enough. It does draw your attention to the "way it's made" similar to what I understand as actually one of the core values of architectural brutalism; as well as being kind of a challenge to more polite notions of aesthetics in a way that's similar to brutalism's effect even if it's not what the word "brutal(ism)" was actually meant for (although in English at least I think the 'misunderstanding' may not have been wholly unknown/unintentional originally). I guess it's close enough, I'll allow it, I don't need to pick this fight. (although I too wish the author had talked a bit more accurately about architectural brutalism). (On the other hand this design stuff also has lots of non-functional even playful decorative elements, which is contrary to architectural brutalism).

Post reply on HN