Live data from Hacker News

The mid in fake midcentury modern

nplusonemag.com

401–410 of 512 posts

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#401
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…

Europe has been building modernist and post-modernist monstrosities gleefully for 80 years.

Everything is either an aggressively ugly concrete bunker[1], a generic cubish cement or brick and glass mishmash[2] or a glass and steel monolith, maybe with extra facets[3].

You just have to look at what the old Imperial Institute[4] was replaced with[5] and the charmless glass box they plugged onto it later[6].

Nearly every building that has been modified this century has gotten unashamedly uglier. Even cathedrals grow tumors.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hove_Town_Hall

[2]: basically any mid rise residential which can be like this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Low-rise_flats,_Turv... to more recent variations on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New_Low_Rise_Apartme...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shard

[4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1903-11-04_front_Imp...

[5] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sherfield_Building,_...

[6] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imperial_College_Lon...

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#402

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…

Modern (popular) music sucks because it's not human. It's produced by software, quantized, gridded, autotuned, copy/pasted, and though the result is technically perfect, it isn't human. Modern architecture is the same. It's copy/paste design, assembled by software, the human element is gone. When buildings were designed by artists on paper there was no avoiding the designer's humanity and creativity being infused int…

I guess you managed to miss their key point about classic design:

> And it is. But it's arguably NOT functional.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaws Lots of people seem to enjoy those "ugly mouse statue things".

Lots of people enjoy those ugly monkey NFTs too, I don't know what to tell you

Yes, this thread is morphing into "what is art"? I don't know.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#404
If I could I would time-travel back and beat the shit out of Le Corbusier for the damage he did to the public space with his own buildings and all the other shit the inspired. When they one day are dynamited (being shoddily built) nobody will miss them.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#405
post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..

You're saying it as somehow "subjective" is bad. Of course it's subjective, and the whole point it a lot of modern art is subjectively perceived by most people as ugly, while being praised and promoted by "experts".

The article opens with:

"WE LIVE IN UNDENIABLY UGLY TIMES."

Doesn't sound like they're going for subjective.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#406
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?

I've lived in a couple of houses built in the mid 1700s with parts even older than that. They were cob cottages, one with a thatched roof, so very thick walls instead of insulation. Plumbing and electrics were just added over the years. Windows were single glazed, so not very efficient. But pretty comfortable nevertheless, provided you remember to duck when going under beams. Houses this old are not unusual where I live in Devon, but most are more recent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cob_(material)

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. No, we're in a capitalist mental model. It's the same in the UK. It's build cheap, maximise profit, and a race to the bottom. Want that bas-relief from a master stonemason? No chan…

One of the small towns I grew up in had a post office, probably built in the early 20th century or very late 19th (I don't recall for sure, but I'm certain it had the date displayed on one or more floor or wall plaques, somewhere) Heavy metal doors with perfectly smooth-operating hinges. Marble everywhere —floors, counters, stairs, [edit: hell, even the walls!], everywhere, and this was not in an area that mined marb…

> Cheap low-pile carpet on plywood

Part of it is that carpet and plywood are fabricated materials. Prefabricated plywood and wall-to-wall carpeting weren't really things until ~1930s. The older materials seems more luxurious now, but that's because the newer materials have become cheap. It's like how aluminum was once more expensive than gold, but is now ubiquitous because the material itself has become much cheaper.

https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/a-history-of-plywood-in-ten-o...

https://www.thisoldhouse.com/flooring/21017998/all-about-wal...

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#408
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the word ugly is its completely an opinion. There is no right or wrong ugly. The author would have done much better to forego the word ugly and replace it with hyper conformity.

It's also rose colored glasses. Many of the surviving examples of historic architecture we consider classic today, were ugly or dilapidated mass architecture in their time. Ask someone in 1900 what they thought of a New York tenement or a Sears mail-order home, and they would look at you like you were insane for suggesting those characteristics now command seven-figure premiums. (What would've been the true beauties…

Surely the opposite effect must also exist - that the historical buildings we see today are the ones that survived because they were considered worth keeping - you wouldn't expect the ugly/shoddily-built ones to survive. However given there are entire streets with attractive historical buildings in many towns and cities I'm not sure either theory explains much - there are virtually no streets I've seen anywhere in the world with almost entirely attractive modern buildings.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Modern architects are just as aware of proportion as they've ever been. But thankfully they're freed from archaic notions such as e.g. exact golden ratios. It's strange then that these freed minds produce the ugliest buildings imaginable, en masse. And then pat each other on the backs and give each other awards for being beautiful. See, for example, this beautiful multiple-award winning waterfront in Copenhagen htt…

i was in Copenhagen last summer and walked by both. :shrug: I liked them just fine.

The main problem with them isn't just that they are ugly. Or that they form no coherent whole.

The main problem is that they completely ignore the place they are: the city, the country, the nation. It's the same haphazard collection of steel, concrete and glass with no rhyme or reason that you can find anywhere: from the third world countries [1] to right smack in the center of a medieval city.

They are all devoid of any character (unless the character is "yet another soulless something").

Sorry for the TikTok link, but I can't get this from my mind: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFb14MTT/

[1] This is from my home town. https://maps.app.goo.gl/JnU2AphqF1nPyfnH7?g_st=ic The only reason it didn't win any awards is because no one wins awards for building ugly stuff in Moldova. Otherwise it's no different from Copenhagen Opera.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#410

I'm now visiting a brand new office building in London and it is stunning. Not minimalist, brutalist, ornate. And unique. And everybody who works in it seems to love it. I want to work there. What bugs me is how most new buildings are similar all across the world. 100 years ago, each city has a character unique to it. Barcelona was uniquely Barcelona. Copenhagen was uniquely Copenhagen. Now most new buildings look li…

Could you post a link?
Post reply on HN