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

291–300 of 512 posts

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#291

Post by wizofaus »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #254
galfarragem wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More down-to-earth and simplistic answer: the classless society (Socialism and derivates like Social democracy) with the need to provide reasonable housing for the masses and the spread of industrial concrete[0] took us to the optimal solution: the concrete box. Once Alvaro Siza (Pritzker prize) was asked if his architecture was minimalist. He answered (paraphrasing): "No, it's just a minimalism of costs". From wikip…

Architecture has almost nothing to do with it... Hipodromo in Mexico City is one of the most beautiful neighborhoods in the world. Architecturally, it's a bunch of hideously ugly buildings. But there's trees and plants everywhere, and they're beautiful, and that's all you see. The reason everything is ugly is because we don't have trees and nature anymore - we just have roads and parking instead. There's tons of beau…

I'd agree it's possible to have a neighbourhood where most of houses aren't especially beautiful but the general layout, and in particular the placement and extent of greenery can lend a sense of overall beauty - I'd even say I live in such a suburb. But it would be far better still if the houses themselves had their own aesthetic appeal, and had been built to last hundreds of years. Plus greenery can only go so far when you're talking about larger buildings (4+ storeys). But yes, the dominance of cars in our towns and cities is almost certainly part of the problem - when you're rushing through a place at 70 or 80 k/h who cares if it's ugly?

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#292

Post by danans »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #56
sph wrote: post #10

There are two schools of thought: those that think that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and those that think, like Steve Jobs famously quipped, that some people just have no good taste. After fighting with this concept for years, I decided to embrace the superiority and smugness that comes with the latter: the vast majority of people have no understanding of beauty and aesthetic. The only thing that stops the w…

Keep going though. It’s not just about “taste”. We have always needed opinionated people to be able to push their ideas. That’s what Linus is, Jobbs was, like him last year or hate him this year Musk, Eminem, Pulitzer, Jefferson, Tesla or Edison, Stuart Mill, the Wrights, and so on to any major or minor scale… The best things come from opinionated people who were told they couldn’t go against the grain like that. We’…

> We’ve conditioned ourselves into conformity because being opinionated is to be “an asshole”.

Asshole is just a shorthand for "inconsiderate of others". Not everyone who is opinionated is an asshole, but some are. And some of those assholes even have valuable opinions, which we do consider, but still recognize them as being assholes.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#293

Post by com2kid »

blue039 wrote: post #106
sph wrote: post #10

There are two schools of thought: those that think that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and those that think, like Steve Jobs famously quipped, that some people just have no good taste. After fighting with this concept for years, I decided to embrace the superiority and smugness that comes with the latter: the vast majority of people have no understanding of beauty and aesthetic. The only thing that stops the w…

There is nothing objectively beautiful about modern architecture. Brutalism, for example, is talentless nonsense. Before the advent of "everyone gets sued", the ADA, nuclear war, etc there was actual creative freedom. Now, everything is just one size fits all. Just in case you happen to attract the wrong attention. Architecture really is a reflection on how mind numbingly dull modern life actually is.

> There is nothing objectively beautiful about modern architecture.

I drive by multiple, lovely, modern houses every day. Some are incredibly well restored mid century pieces, others are tastefully done new buildings.

I'd argue that examples such as

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Einstein...

http://inspirationist.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/223.jpg

https://mediacloud.theweek.com/image/upload/f_auto,t_content...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stillman_Photo_2.jpeg

are great examples of modern exteriors.

It is also worth noting that modern buildings are largely about interior spaces. Tons of natural light all day long, and beautiful interiors that work as canvases to hang the art that one gathers throughout life.

You want to know what is ugly? Almost everything built in America in the 40s.

Cape cod houses.

Saltbox houses

Modern architecture encompasses a wide set of styles. Yes the crap "modern" houses being thrown up now days with bad vinyl siding are ugly. They also didn't have a single architect involved in their creation.

The good modern houses, the ones that play with textures and colors, that use natural materials mixes with the modern, those are far from ugly.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#295

Post by OJFord »

idiotsecant wrote: post #282
OJFord wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My European house is older.

Side question - always been curious. Surely these houses were not designed for plumbing, electrical, efficient insulation, etc. Do they just bodge these things onto the outside of walls, or how does that work?

Mixed, but sometimes there's trunking on walls yes. I have a little bit of that (for something disused actually, plan to remove, I've not long moved in) but it's mostly under floorboards. (There are also would-be exposed pipes in the kitchen, hidden behind counters, I believe - but they probably would have done that anywhere, that's a relatively modern extension.)

Insulation is a more complicated topic - if you're going to do it you need to do it differently, since modern new-builds and modern insulation is designed around making everything air & water tight, which will make an old house very damp and rotten (which will lead to woodworm/boring beetle) - the structure needs to 'breath'.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#296

Post by recursivedoubts »

gffrd wrote: post #274
rob74 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in Europe (in Germany to be more precise), but believe you me, new buildings that I would describe as "beautiful" are few and far between here too. I think most of it is due to what I would call cookie cutter mentality. For most architects, a building is just a job. They don't realize that even the most unassuming building is something that may be used for 100 years and more, that will influence the lives of thou…

> even the most unassuming building […] will influence the lives of thousands of people (if only because they see it and seeing it makes their day a bit better or worse) This bears repeating. The amount of people who have to contend with a building will always far outnumber the number of people who inhabit or profit from the building. How should we build, knowing that?

this makes architecture particularly important, in a way that other forms of art is not

painters are free to create ugly works of art all they like, to a first order of appoximation we are in a position to ignore them

not so with the built environment

a long conversation...

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#297

Post by forgotusername6 »

rob74 wrote: post #136
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…

I'm in Europe (in Germany to be more precise), but believe you me, new buildings that I would describe as "beautiful" are few and far between here too. I think most of it is due to what I would call cookie cutter mentality. For most architects, a building is just a job. They don't realize that even the most unassuming building is something that may be used for 100 years and more, that will influence the lives of thou…

There are road bridges I pass in the UK where I think, wow that is really nice. These aren't big things, but they are beautifully designed non the less. They were of course built many years ago.

I do wonder if there is a bit of survivorship bias here. The pretty objects survive, the ugly ones do not. Though there are also changes in taste. In the UK people today like the rows or terraced houses. They were built to be the cheapest possible dwellings, but the style is now popular.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#298

Post by throwaway4aday »

trs8080 wrote: post #266
logicalmonster wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fascism via "vokisch" movements and ideas attempted to more or less co-opt and own romanticism, classicism, and other forms of non-"modernist" aesthetics. In my opinion, it's not so much that "fascism" (sort of a useless label in today's world) has co-opted traditional aesthetics, it's that the left has run away from the actual concept of beauty. As an example: look at the body positivity movement. Everybody, no ma…

"Body positivity" is not about labeling everything as beautiful but rather not labeling people who may not match traditional standards of beauty as "ugly."

Is this actually how it's practiced? I know this is the professed meaning of the term/movement but when it comes to the implementation it seems to be turning into something much different. Also, in this definition of beauty where do you draw the line for "ugly" or is it now a word without a meaning?

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#299

Post by booleandilemma »

gfxgirl wrote: post #267

This is the equivalent to "why does modern music suck" (said by every generation of the next generation's music) Scott Alexander posted something similar https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/whither-tartaria And the response he got was arguably predictable..., others didn't agree that modern architecture is ugly. Sure there are some ugly buildings. But, for example, for me. I went to some 1929 building that I'm sure…

This is the equivalent to "why does modern music suck" (said by every generation of the next generation's music)

At first I agreed with you but then I clicked the submission article and saw those ugly mouse statue things.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#300

Post by shadowfoxx »

sph wrote: post #10

There are two schools of thought: those that think that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and those that think, like Steve Jobs famously quipped, that some people just have no good taste. After fighting with this concept for years, I decided to embrace the superiority and smugness that comes with the latter: the vast majority of people have no understanding of beauty and aesthetic. The only thing that stops the w…

I'd like to put forth the idea that taste is cultivated. Might seem like I'm splitting hairs but I don't like the idea that 'taste' is something you're born with - that its innate - you either got it or you don't. Its like saying some people can cook and others can't, etc etc. That's a story we like to comfort ourselves with. I disagree with the premise /almost/ entirely.( I promise I'm fun at parties. An individual claiming they "just can't do X" is shorthand but "There are people who are born incapable to do X, no matter the effort" is where I take issue)

Like any talent, its a pursued interest. I seriously think the world would be a better, more beautiful place if people were willing to push back on social norms and peer pressure more often; Especially when the stakes are so low.

I'm not the one to do it but I'm willing to bet we could agree on an aesthetic that is based around Flip-Flops and Socks - the Japanese might want to have a word or socks with those Adidas sandals.

The reality of human pursuits is that regardless of how we like to think of history, we aren't actually being led by a few Omega-Tier mutant geniuses who gift us with ~ A E S T H E T I C S ~ (Tm) but we collaborate and try things and fail and try again. A culture where more people feel more free to express themselves is one where the Art gets better, IMHO.

Post reply on HN