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

The mid in fake midcentury modern

nplusonemag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 512 posts

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#161

Post by pixl97 »

oliv__ wrote: post #115

I think things are ugly now because they are fake: made of fake, cheap materials. It's much harder to make an ugly cottage home with beautiful wood than it is with vinyl. Similarly, I'd say that music has become ugly because of autotune and the like.

Um, when I put drywall in my house I assure you it was 'real' certified drywall.

Nothing is stopping you from making your house out whatever it is you consider real, well, other than you are not wealthy enough to actually afford it. There are 8 billion people on this planet and if each of them goes and cuts down the old growth trees to make their cottage we just have a deforested planet which is something much less beautiful than having a house with fiberboard siding. Or would you rather going to have 4 generations of your family living with you without modern conveniences like sewer, water, and power?

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#162

Post by cdrini »

epolanski wrote: post #103
pavlov wrote: post #12

Reminds me of the Parisian art critic who was appalled when they built a modernist colossus that destroyed the beautiful harmony of his home city. The rest of his life he would scrupulously choose walking routes to avoid seeing the monstrosity. The building in question was the Eiffel Tower.

I don't think most think of the Eiffel Tower as something beautiful. It's iconic and arguably the symbol of Paris, but it's not really something you would think of when thinking of architectural or functional beauty.

Responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33896179

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#163

Post by cdrini »

keiferski wrote: post #66
pavlov wrote: post #12

Reminds me of the Parisian art critic who was appalled when they built a modernist colossus that destroyed the beautiful harmony of his home city. The rest of his life he would scrupulously choose walking routes to avoid seeing the monstrosity. The building in question was the Eiffel Tower.

I'm not sure anyone thinks the Eiffel Tower is a masterpiece of beauty. More like a hyper-marketized symbol of Paris. And frankly the area would probably be nicer if it wasn't there at all.

Responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33896179

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#164

Post by rahen »

ericmay wrote: post #131
trilbyglens wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it that America can still be traumatised from the world wars architecturally but europe is not? I don't really buy the argument that america builds badly because of fear of destruction. It's more that we are an utterly utilitarian culture. We have nothing old, and cannot imagine that anything might become old. Our goals are to maximize profits while minimizing cost, so we end up building $10m houses out of shi…

> How is it that America can still be traumatised from the world wars architecturally but europe is not? Europe is too, it's just that a lot of the older things survived. You can see brutalist and similar architecture that sprang up in the Soviet bloc. I don't think Europeans are that much more "sophisticated" than Americans or anyone else. It's more of an inheritance by happenstance. Europe (in general) didn't have…

> Europe (in general) didn't have the wealth to build car-only infrastructure so it never really suburbanized and mass-manufactured homes like America did.

Western Europe had the wealth to, it just refused, sometimes with mass protests. A good example is Amsterdam Jokinen Plan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokinen_Plan

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#165

Post by Renevith »

yunwal wrote: post #112
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…

All that it takes is to travel to Mexico to understand this is wrong. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3Y5ULj_0l3o/UrYr0ys5RTI/AAAAAAAACo... This kind of architecture works it just requires a kind of unity and dedication to a common ideal that we no longer have.

I think it's hideous and I wouldn't want to live there. There's nothing "wrong" (nor "right") about the idea that lots of bold colors will tend to clash and be unpleasant. It's just subjective and different people hold different opinions about it.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#166

Post by 1auralynn »

When it comes to lighting, I've realized that a portion of the population (possibly the majority) prefers everything extremely brightly lit with overhead lights. I prefer soft warm lighting with many small lamps scattered around and lots of darker areas, but through experience I've learned that this makes some people super uncomfortable, especially those with vision issues.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#167

Post by projektfu »

jona-f wrote: post #75
openplatypus wrote: post #44

If everything appears ugly to you, ask yourself: 1. Is it really? Or this is some weird sentiment towards things that passed? I prefer modern “ugly” architecture and “modern” medicine, then flamboyant, impractical and wasteful building accompanied by poor health; maybe we just recentred our attention? … alternatively 2. you are depressed; and I don't mean it in a snark way; futility, greyness and ever present gloom c…

I would describe your second point as gaslighting. Tastes are different and many people dislike modern (and post-modern) architecture. Talking with architects about this, they told me that building differently today is too expensive, doesn't go well with industrialized construction. I argue that architecture is an academic shitshow. It's design for competition juries and not for the people using it. Which is btw very…

I disagree. In the post-postmodern period Architecture, as a whole, has been trying to better understand the needs of the users of the building and has been less about flashy design wins. New stadiums, for example, have been architected for flow, utility, and outdoor air conditioning, while trying to maintain a good look. New standalone business buildings are more oriented toward usefulness, accessibility, and comfort, than they are about making a statement. The proliferation of many lower-cost construction models (1+5, for example), show that practicality is important.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#169

Post by renewiltord »

kodyo wrote: post #149
actionablefiber wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got to think a utilitarian culture would say something like "huh, maybe we should build homes that are easily served by transit." But American culture is much more strongly opposed to this than most those in most other countries.

One thing you notice if you've been in an airplane is that there's a lot of room to spread out if people want to.

As they should, but a thing that needs planning maps and isn't visible from an airplane is that those who don't want to spread out can't not spread out.

So the freedom is one-way.

Example: almost all of SF bans building apartments

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#170

Post by nemo44x »

epolanski wrote: post #103
pavlov wrote: post #12

Reminds me of the Parisian art critic who was appalled when they built a modernist colossus that destroyed the beautiful harmony of his home city. The rest of his life he would scrupulously choose walking routes to avoid seeing the monstrosity. The building in question was the Eiffel Tower.

I don't think most think of the Eiffel Tower as something beautiful. It's iconic and arguably the symbol of Paris, but it's not really something you would think of when thinking of architectural or functional beauty.

> It's iconic and arguably the symbol of Paris, but it's not really something you would think of when thinking of architectural or functional beauty.

It's an amazing structure and nothing like that was possible before. Only after the construction of it could people get a view of Paris never before possible.

You should read Robert Hughes' book "The Shock of the New" or watch the series. I think it's online on Youtube. It begins with the Eiffel Tower as the starting point and centerpiece of modernism and works through to the modern day to see how art and architecture have evolved for better and worse.

It may give you a new appreciation for the structure within the context of history.

Post reply on HN