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

371–380 of 512 posts

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#371

Post by UncleOxidant »

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'm hopeful that ... our desire to become a space faring civilization will reinvigorate the passion of our species.

But don't we need that passion (and hope) before we can become a space faring civilization? We kind of had that space-faring passion back in the 60s when the US/NASA did the Apollo program - at that point the general feeling was that the government was capable of doing good things. That general feeling has been gone for a while now and has been replaced with a general distrust of institutions like government. To some extent it seems like you need some level of hope before you can trust.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#372

Post by [deleted] »

OJFord wrote: post #281
nine_k wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. There are many houses in Europe that survived 3-4 different states claiming the land on which they stand.

Well, I live in England, so unless we count devolution (of some powers in other UK constituents) or changes of royal household, just the one in my case ;)

[deleted]

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#373

Post by majormajor »

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 (…

What does "cultural unity" that you drop in at the end have to do with it? Much of the blandness of recent stuff is bad in very consistent ways already.

Clearly you and I disagree, for instance, on if victorian houses can be aesthetically pleasing on their own, but would you rather have a street full of plywood boxes or would you rather have my victorian-styled house sitting next to your [whatever] and someone else's [whatever]? I'd find that great, and much more interesting than a street full of near-identical ones.

(But in practice - even without "cultural unity" - that isn't what most new development in the US produces today - rather, you have a block-or-larger development of a bunch of near-identical [something]-esque generic builds. Unity achieved! Aesthetic appeal? Maybe not so much...)

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#375

Post by mc32 »

goto11 wrote: post #260
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…

I think architects are certainly aware of the importance of architecture, and most would love to make beautiful quality architecture. But in the end architects are hired by someone who decide the budget, and cookie-cutter is just cheaper.

It seems the options are mostly at the extremes. Cookie cutter and Statement architecture, but maybe not much in the middle.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#376

Post by janmarsal »

pizzalife wrote: post #304
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..

Calling it ugly is just an honest way of saying "I personally don't like his art".

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#377

Post by UncleOxidant »

trilbyglens wrote: post #92
ericmay wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

> 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,

Yeah, I think this is more the real reason. Nothing is intended to last. Shopping centers come and go - restaurants get built and then torn down and replaced 10 years later with some other restaurant building (actual example in my neighborhood - why didn't they just reuse the original restaurant building?), the old Montgomery Wards was torn down to build a Home Depot and a Chuck E Cheese. None of this has any permanency.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#378

Post by wizofaus »

mostlylurks wrote: post #26
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…

> when all your cars and buildings are super-colorful, they clash. They become garish and ugly and screaming for attention. This is not necessarily the case. Many places in places like Iceland, Norway, Greenland, and to a lesser extent the rest of the nordic countries and some others, like the netherlands, have very colorful buildings, where each building is a different vibrant color, but nevertheless everything fits…

Much of Alsace too, e.g. Colmar: https://upload.travelawaits.com/ta/uploads/2021/04/fcaa4d555...

I'd agree they do sort of "clash", but I'd take that over this any day:

https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/118444...

Mind you, even somewhere like Venice is relatively mono-chrome (just not grey), but still striking in a way modern housing developments never are.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#379

Post by kansface »

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…

We did build beautiful things post war! A driving tenant of Modernism was to bring good design to the masses through mass manufacturing - better living through ~science~ good design (see eg MoMA's Good Design Exhibition [1]). If you are thinking chiefly about architecture, consider the Sydney Opera House or the Gateway Arch. If you are thinking about houses, consider the Kaufmann house [2] or the Stahl House[3].

The fact is that we literally do not design homes in the US; over 90% of homes were just built by someone. That someone does not stop to consider design, aesthetics, ergonomics or joy. House developers are more or less doing enterprise sales. They just go by a checklist and the developer with the most checks wins. "Upgrades" merely change the quality of the thing on the checklist (formica -> granite), but thats the extent of it.

1. https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/1714 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann_Desert_House 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stahl_House

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#380

Post by cjohnson318 »

david927 wrote: post #146
cjohnson318 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't believe how cheap and ugly so many of the "rich people" houses are. If don't have the money to build, then you bid over whatever is on the market; whatever some developer and architect duo thought would differentiate themselves ten or twenty years ago. People prioritize commute, distance to family, distacne to the grocery, school zones, number of bedrooms and space, kitchen/bath vintage, and price way, way…

That's a fine, valid rationalization. But I would disagree with one aspect: part of it is that they like it . We don't have fine taste anymore and we don't have a desire to impress in a classical way. It used to be you would recite a Latin phrase at dinner and everyone would be impressed. Those days are gone. When money is king, everything else is demoted.

De gustibus non est disputandum. The thing about taste is that it's relative.
Post reply on HN