131–140 of 204 posts
The HN title does not exactly match the article title, which is: "Neubrutalism is taking over the web" (I have no idea about design so not sure if it's actually significant.)
> "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…
> 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?
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 went to school here, and this one from the OUTSIDE I don't love, but on the INSIDE it's actually a delightful place to read, browse the stacks, study, or nap. And has been beloved by generations of students. https://www.oberlin.edu/mudd-center
University Library at Northwestern University, I find lovely outside as well as pleasant inside: https://www.library.northwestern.edu/ (There are some alternate entrances and terraces which are closed due to notions of "security" in a facility like this, but which would make it even more pleasant and human-oriented if open. I guess that is then one way it's design ended up incompatible with at least current usage demands. I'm curious if they were open to patrons when the building first opened).
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.
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…
> 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 utilit…
Wikipedia seems to agree. (An encyclopedia is a pretty good place to go for a common starting point when we're talking about what a term like this means!)
> Brutalist buildings are characterised by minimalist constructions that showcase the bare building materials and structural elements over decorative design…
> New Brutalism is not only an architectural style; it is also a philosophical approach to architectural design, a striving to create simple, honest, and functional buildings that accommodate their purpose, inhabitants, and location. Stylistically, Brutalism is a strict, modernistic design language that has been said to be a reaction to the architecture of the 1940s, much of which was characterised by a retrospective nostalgia.[29] Peter Smithson believed that the core of Brutalism was a reverence for materials, expressed honestly…
> A common theme in Brutalist designs is the exposure of the building's inner-workings—ranging from their structure and services to their human use—in the exterior of the building…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm no expert in architecture history, but I don't think it is so obvious. Le Corbusier's projects such as the Cité Radieuse or the Plan Voisin, which largely defined modernism, seem to me to be quite clearly the starting point of early brutalism, which didn't look all that brutal. Le Corbusier is also the source of the "béton brut" phrase, apparently.
> the Plan Voisin, which largely defined modernism, seem to me to be quite clearly the starting point of early brutalism, which didn't look all that brutal. “Raze a third of Paris, it is Too Messy!” isn’t “all that brutal”?
The Plan was more or less a marketing scheme. It brought attention to the problems modernism was to solve: it was large-scale, clean, egalitarian, bright, full of greenery, and paid attention to transportation — all things Paris had issues with at the time. (1920s Paris still had slums!)
> People simply get bored with how their apps and websites look after six to seven years. They need a change. Is there any research that supports this claim? If I use an app for 6 years, why would I suddenly need a change? I'm still ocassionally using a 10 y/o version of Photoshop. In fact, I'm very happy that it does not change. I wouldn't want to spend time on re-learning the UI. The same is true for many apps that…
If a site or app has a dated design, I usually discount it. I assume that it is going to be outdated in functionality as well. And that it will have a myriad of unsolved bugs, none of which is ever going to be fixed. New bugs have one advantage over old bugs: they have a better chance of somebody caring enough to fix it.
I'd assume the opposite in regards to bugs: My assumption would be that older software has fewer bugs since, the longer the software is used, the more likely it is for bugs to be discovered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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…
The drawback is that in most cases you'd want to draw attention to the actual content, not the appearance of the page. Starker contrast is sensible for page elements that the user can meaningfully interact with, but ISTM that the "claymorphism" style is more effective at managing that trade-off.