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

301–310 of 512 posts

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#301

Post by lo_zamoyski »

sbaiddn wrote: post #58
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 never bought into the "eye of the beholder" on aesthetics. I might not understand a particular aesthetic. It might be impossible to formulate logical rules to decide what is beautiful. But beauty is objective, nonetheless. Be it an exquisite Japanese drawing of a bird with ink and rice paper, or Caravaggio, anyone with a soul can see that talent, effort, and a sense of "wholeness" went into creating both. I, person…

> I never bought into the "eye of the beholder" on aesthetics.

Indeed, but I suspect this has a lot to do with the embrace of materialism, a metaphysical view that has far-reaching and destructive intellectual consequences. Once you accept materialism, you have a whole world of phenomena that cannot be explained purely in terms of res extensa which leads some people to a kind of crypto-Cartesian position in which this unexplainable excess is swept under the rug of the "subjective". (I say "crypto-Cartesian" because res extensa cannot accommodate this excess explanatorily, so clearly you've got to pass the buck and squirrel away things in this metaphysical time-out zone that you've conveniently constructed to hold all that things you cannot explain according to your officially stated dogmas.)

Also, philosophical liberalism encourages a kind of indulgence of the subjective, a kind of alternate reality protected from error and insulated from threatening facts. Desire is one such thing kept in the safety of this interior world. It is not possible to have evil or disordered desires (with some ad hoc exceptions). It is not possible to have bad taste. These are "subjective" matters, and since only objective matters can be debated, then, as the saying goes, de gustibus non est disputandum. "That's just your opinion, man!"

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#302

Post by unsupp0rted »

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…

Demonstrably, modern music does suck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVME_l4IwII

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#303

Post by conductr »

ericmay wrote: post #23
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 (…

To latch on to this great post there are a couple of other worthwhile discussion points: We're still in a nuclear war mental model. We can't build beautiful things if we think they'll be destroyed in a war. We still have a societal level PTSD from World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and other things. World War I veterans came back with horrific problems. That's why architects like Frank Lloyd…

Since we're talking about ugly city hall buildings...

> When you do a city hall, it has to convey an image of the people, and this had to represent the people of Dallas ... The people I met – rich and poor, powerful and not so powerful – were all very proud of their city. They felt that Dallas was the greatest city there was, and I could not disappoint them. – I.M. Pei (architect)

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

Despite best intentions this building feel intimidating. Just walking up to it, it hangs over your head, and feels like the weight of government is about to be inflicted upon me and I just want to file a permit for my home security alarm. Just pointing out, the artists themselves have trouble making their designs match their intentions.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#304

Post by pizzalife »

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…

I had a hard time taking this article seriously after seeing the first picture with the caption "new ugliness". The picture depicts art by KAWS, arguably a very successful modern artist - someone must think what he is doing is worthwhile. I personally don't like his art, but saying it's "ugly" is rather subjective..

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#305

Post by ryeights »

jll29 wrote: post #81

No-one has captured this better IMHO than Kunstler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz7oJjWg8_Y .

“Places to care about.” Brilliant framing. Funny to think that 90% of built areas in the US could be nuked into dust without anything great being lost. All this destruction of natural habitat and beauty and for what? The founders of this country would be ashamed.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#306

Post by wizofaus »

itsyaboi wrote: post #127
sbaiddn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a monstrosity.

a* monstrosity Use "an" only if the following word starts with a vowel (with few exceptions) -> "The Eiffel Tower is an abomination".

Technically "if it's pronounced as though starting with a vowel", so "an hour" or "an X-ray" but "a utility". For some acronyms both are possible: a/an FAQ.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#307

Post by catiopatio »

idiotsecant wrote: post #285
catiopatio wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems more likely that brutalist architecture is uniquely terrible, and the ascendant architects of the 1960s simply had horrific taste. If anything, architecture seems to have been almost entirely captured by the avant-garde; people more interested in “new and different” than “classic and beautiful”. I don’t think modern audiences are suddenly falling in love with brutalist architecture; even the best examples lo…

>It seems more likely that brutalist architecture is uniquely terrible Interesting, it seems to me that brutalist architecture is actually pretty appealing aesthetically. I might go so far as to say that objective beauty and taste simply does not exist and anyone claiming that it does hasn't thought about it very hard yet.

You could go so far to claim that, but it’s exactly that point of view that produced so much objectively ugly, human-unfriendly architecture.

Relativists replace the moral imperative of “good for everyone” with “interesting to people like me”, and think they’ve stumbled onto a more sophisticated or accurate view of the world, instead of just vapid sophistry.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#308

Post by anigbrowl »

bnralt wrote: post #73
switch007 wrote: post #2

Why is it the articles which would most benefit from pictures are the ones with the fewest?

It even changes the name of the building it's criticizing to make it more difficult to find. After a search I located it, it's The Greenpoint (not "The Josh" as the article claims). You can look it up on Google maps, it's 21 India St, Brooklyn, NY 11222. It seems fine to me? Not particularly nice, but I'd take it over brutalism or international style buildings any day of the week. If anything, I'd say that modern bui…

Perhaps this was for legal reasons. In the Bay Area there's a rash of similar-looking apartment buildings that all have names like 'The something'. Some marketroid noticed that locals often substitute short nicknames for formal 'The Xyz Building' titles, so they could give the sense of a neighborhood by branding the apartment building with a cutesy nickname. One of these days they'll accidentally get it right and name one of these glass and steel cubes 'The Borg.'

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#309

Post by MSFT_Edging »

ericmay wrote: post #23
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 (…

To latch on to this great post there are a couple of other worthwhile discussion points: We're still in a nuclear war mental model. We can't build beautiful things if we think they'll be destroyed in a war. We still have a societal level PTSD from World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and other things. World War I veterans came back with horrific problems. That's why architects like Frank Lloyd…

I know to each his own, but I love the aesthetic of the Boston City Hall, and while not fully brutalist, a lot of really cool and abstract designs came from brutalism. My favorite college campuses I've been to have fully embraced the brutal with bizarre overhangs, odd shapes, posts, etc.

The ugliest campuses to me are either the ones that create a faux old world feel or just opt for business park chic.

Same goes for neighborhoods. I love seeing neighborhoods from the 60s or 70s that took a more brutalist/abstract inspiration. Large windows, backless stairs, conversation pits, etc.

To me it looks a whole lot nicer than modern home construction trying to mix southern porches with Victorian styles, all on top of a sears foundation.

Post reply on HN