The mid in fake midcentury modern • Hacker News Board

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#31

Post by voldacar » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 3:08 PM UTC

recursivedoubts wrote: post #5

World Wars 1 & 2 happened, shattering the remaining sense of aesthetic unity we had that was followed by modernism which purity spiraled into the ubiquitous glass box, which was then followed by a post-modernist surface-level, purely negative rejection of modernism the post-modernists were unable to return to any pre-modern sense of aesthetics due to their ideological commitment to the ur modernist impulse of pride (…

A lot of people responsible for 20th century architecture believed more or less that beauty is Literally Fascism, so that's another component. The ugliness isn't always accidental.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#32

Post by halpmeh » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 3:08 PM UTC

badpun wrote: post #15

I think the reason might be mechanisation and mass-production. Before that, everything was done by hand, so it wasn't that much more expensive to produce interesting architecture or say hand-crafted ornaments details on buildings. Right now, costs of that would be gigantic (which is shown in giant costs of renovation of historic buildings, which needs to be done using the older methods), compared to a standard boxy b…

From the industrial revolution to some time in the early-to-mid 20th century, materials were more expensive than labor. It made total sense to ornately decorate things as the cost was not much more than the material itself.

Now labor is vastly more expensive than materials. Making this easy to build makes them way cheaper.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#33

Post by Pxtl » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 3:08 PM UTC

I gotta say this essay is a bit disappointing. It seems mostly an excuse for the author to grouse and enjoy their own flowery prose. It's the kind of writing I'd expect to see in a Neal Stephenson novel, and it's fun, but it's not really useful as an essay -- it offers very little insight or information.

I've often been curious - besides the obvious problems of municipal red-tape, why is construction so expensive now? Here in the first world we have more money than ever and condos were going for a million apiece, so why do we build with the cheapest imaginable materials? Why can we no longer afford solid steel and concrete and ornament? The leftists blame corporate greed, but surely with margins that huge somebody would be cutting in and either making buildings that were either actually affordable or that used proper materials.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#34

Post by actionfromafar » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 3:09 PM UTC

fullmoon wrote: post #24

samsquire wrote: post #3

I don't reject goodness, rightness or truth. If you reject any of these things you receive ugliness. A building can be right - fit for purpose, beautiful.

Is this an Ayn Rand quote out of her novels? It sounds that way but I can’t find it.

Also, where does the ugly truth come in.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#35

Post by xyzelement » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 3:10 PM UTC

The article is down for me so I am guessing at it based solely on the comments, which is dangerous.

Something that has become apparent to me is the connection between aesthetic expression and religious expression, which I think used to reign but now is missing from the process.

To use an obvious examples, consider something "small detail" like the ornate doors of an old European cathedral, they were crafted beautifully because their beauty added to the religious experience for congregants, they would see the beauty and catch an emotional glimpse of the divine.

Similar, I think, the classical composers and painters who saw their arts, at least in part, as a conduit for divine beauty into this world.

While this ethos still exists in religious art and architecture/ design, mainstream society's aesthetic has diverged from serving a religious purpose, so it no longer aspires to make you feel awed in the same way. And what you don't aspire to, you don't achieve.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#36

Post by scythe » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 3:10 PM UTC

When I look at pretty old buildings, what sticks out are hand-molded wrought iron, hand-laid brick quoins, hand-carved window siding, hand-assembled decorative fences — surely, you can see the common factor?

So it's cost disease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease

Modern buildings are made principally of prefabricated components designed to be packaged and shipped efficiently and assembled quickly. Why lay bricks when you can nail on a layer of fake brick?

Hopefully, 3D printing will save us.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#37

Post by Pxtl » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 3:11 PM UTC

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #22

crazygringo wrote: post #8

There's so much in this essay to unpack, it's all over the place -- more of an extended rant than any particularly cohesive argument. But one of the early points is "why is everything so gray instead of colorful?" Which is easy to answer -- when all your cars and buildings are super-colorful, they clash. They become garish and ugly and screaming for attention. Thank god we've moved to more neutral tones that actually…

The rational explanation why the majority of items are neutral tones/grey is because this maximizes the market. This can be seen on automobiles, where silver is the most common color because it’s easier to sell second hand, so manufacturers learned to optimize for this.

And that's self-reinforcing. I bought my first new-from-dealership car (a Prius Prime) a few years back and wanted to get one with a color, and learned that this would mean waiting months and paying more, while the grey one was on the lot right now. Because the grey is the most plentiful option, it's also now the easiest to acquire unless you're really looking to go out of your way for color.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#38

Post by fulltimeloser » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 3:11 PM UTC

recursivedoubts wrote: post #5

World Wars 1 & 2 happened, shattering the remaining sense of aesthetic unity we had that was followed by modernism which purity spiraled into the ubiquitous glass box, which was then followed by a post-modernist surface-level, purely negative rejection of modernism the post-modernists were unable to return to any pre-modern sense of aesthetics due to their ideological commitment to the ur modernist impulse of pride (…

Modernism started and co-evolved with the industrial revolution, long, long before World War 1.

Esthetics is a favorite topic for far right thinkers where the demise of civilization is caused by some art that confuse them.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#39

Post by tgv » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 3:11 PM UTC

voldacar wrote: post #31

recursivedoubts wrote: post #5

World Wars 1 & 2 happened, shattering the remaining sense of aesthetic unity we had that was followed by modernism which purity spiraled into the ubiquitous glass box, which was then followed by a post-modernist surface-level, purely negative rejection of modernism the post-modernists were unable to return to any pre-modern sense of aesthetics due to their ideological commitment to the ur modernist impulse of pride (…

A lot of people responsible for 20th century architecture believed more or less that beauty is Literally Fascism, so that's another component. The ugliness isn't always accidental.

The weird thing is: that aesthetic is also completely gone in fascist art. Look at New Rome, or Speer's plans. The human aspect is gone.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#40

Post by pdntspa » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 3:11 PM UTC

This article calls everything ugly without even defining what it thinks it -- or beauty -- are. (And if they did past the first paragraph or two of what looks to be an incoherent rant, they did so way too late)