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

The Cybertruck is not brutalist

inverse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 187 posts

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#171

Post by solarkraft »

dividedbyzero wrote: post #151
app4soft wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is also why the cybertruck in it's current form will never be allowed in Europe. To be honest, Cybertruck may be not allowed in Europe for citizens, but I not see any limitations that could prevent allowing Cybertruck for farming in Europe.

Southern Germany is chock full of small to large-ish farms (all of which would be tiny to small for US standards I guess), but either people hide their pick-up trucks extremely well, or there aren't a lot of them around. Also, wouldn't not having a Straßenzulassung (permission for road use) mean you couldn't use it on public streets at all?

You can see a tractor on the road every now and then, so there must be some regulatory way. However that comes with servere limitations, for example on speed.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#172

Post by claudiawerner »

ethbro wrote: post #113
coldtea wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's true, but it's falling into the same problem I was trying to tease out of GP, which is whether an argument can be produced that study and self-development will lead to one appreciating Bach over Harry Potter. An historical/statistical argument can surely be made. You seldom see people who have studied aesthetics, music, literature, etc, preferring Harry Potter over Bach. You'll see many more who seldom read…

> The same way a 13-year old pop music fan doesn't have the same refinement as a 20-year old music fan, who has studied the genres, their history, interplay, who did what, techniques, cultural impact, etc, and even less than a 30 year old music critic. There are two pressures at play here, that get commingled in actuality. (1) No one (in Western culture) likes to admit to ignorance. Ergo, they will always project rej…

>(E.g. "I don't like Bach because..." rather than "I don't understand music theory enough to appreciate what Bach's doing.")

It's very possible for me to understand and appreciate what Bach is doing and still not think that this is sufficient qualification for ascribing more artistic value than Harry Potter. As an amateur programmer, I can appreciate all the work that goes into an operating system, but I don't assign more artistic value or appreciation to it than Bach, even if, by whatever measure, the techniques required to make an OS are more intricate. Similarly, I could never get into Iannis xenakis' works - but I do appreciate the work put into it, and I understand how and why he's done it.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#173

Post by claudiawerner »

coldtea wrote: post #87
claudiawerner wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's up to each person to make the effort to grow their understanding, which requires study and self-development. That's true, but it's falling into the same problem I was trying to tease out of GP, which is whether an argument can be produced that study and self-development will lead to one appreciating Bach over Harry Potter. We say that spherical earth theories are superior to flat earth ones not because individu…

> That's true, but it's falling into the same problem I was trying to tease out of GP, which is whether an argument can be produced that study and self-development will lead to one appreciating Bach over Harry Potter. An historical/statistical argument can surely be made. You seldom see people who have studied aesthetics, music, literature, etc, preferring Harry Potter over Bach. You'll see many more who seldom read…

>But there is no objective measurement or axiomatic argument.

This is what I was getting at; the statistical argument isn't convincing at all, because it's very common for people (including academics) to value fashions and trends. I'm not saying that Bach is valued because of the orthodoxy of music theorists, I am saying that it being a possibility discounts the inherent authority we give to a music theorist's opinion.

>The scale in aesthetics is one of development and cross-correlation of techniques, ideas and experiences, and one can only understand these is they have the knowledge and have made the connections.

There's still no "objective" reason to value a piece of art with particular technique, ideas expressed, or experiences relayed (or within the artist) over another. The 13 year old doesn't have the refinement, but it's unclear why refinement has anything to do with assigning artistic value - and even then, we can point to a great many techniques and ideas expressed in Harry Potter. That Bach's technique has more development and history behind it has no clear bearing on how I ought to judge the artwork.

The "scale in aesthetics" seems to be just as arbitrary as the claim that we ought to judge artwork by how many wizards are depicted in it. Why should techniques and ideas matter more than the number of wizards, if the wizards bring pleasure but knowledge of the techniques does not?

Harry Potter fans are more the 13-year old kind because 13 year olds don't have the idea that the enjoyment of artwork should depend on techniques, ideas and experiences, or rather, the partcular techniques, ideas and experiences one finds in Bach, despite different ones in Harry Potter. The fact that 13 year olds aren't part of that orthodoxy yet is good - they are expressing their freedom to value things apart from what high society tells them to.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#174

Post by [deleted] »

claudiawerner wrote: post #172
ethbro wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The same way a 13-year old pop music fan doesn't have the same refinement as a 20-year old music fan, who has studied the genres, their history, interplay, who did what, techniques, cultural impact, etc, and even less than a 30 year old music critic. There are two pressures at play here, that get commingled in actuality. (1) No one (in Western culture) likes to admit to ignorance. Ergo, they will always project rej…

>(E.g. "I don't like Bach because..." rather than "I don't understand music theory enough to appreciate what Bach's doing.") It's very possible for me to understand and appreciate what Bach is doing and still not think that this is sufficient qualification for ascribing more artistic value than Harry Potter. As an amateur programmer, I can appreciate all the work that goes into an operating system, but I don't assign…

[deleted]

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#175

Post by ethbro »

claudiawerner wrote: post #172
ethbro wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The same way a 13-year old pop music fan doesn't have the same refinement as a 20-year old music fan, who has studied the genres, their history, interplay, who did what, techniques, cultural impact, etc, and even less than a 30 year old music critic. There are two pressures at play here, that get commingled in actuality. (1) No one (in Western culture) likes to admit to ignorance. Ergo, they will always project rej…

>(E.g. "I don't like Bach because..." rather than "I don't understand music theory enough to appreciate what Bach's doing.") It's very possible for me to understand and appreciate what Bach is doing and still not think that this is sufficient qualification for ascribing more artistic value than Harry Potter. As an amateur programmer, I can appreciate all the work that goes into an operating system, but I don't assign…

I would argue that preference is more rarely the driver of high art evaluation than ignorance.

Which doesn't seem that bold of a claim.

It's somewhat like saying "Environmentalists don't like nuclear power because most are not trained nuclear engineers." It is a fact that there are few nuclear engineers (or even adjacent physicists). Yet how often do you hear "Nuclear power scares me because I don't understand it"?

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#176

Post by claudiawerner »

ethbro wrote: post #175
claudiawerner wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(E.g. "I don't like Bach because..." rather than "I don't understand music theory enough to appreciate what Bach's doing.") It's very possible for me to understand and appreciate what Bach is doing and still not think that this is sufficient qualification for ascribing more artistic value than Harry Potter. As an amateur programmer, I can appreciate all the work that goes into an operating system, but I don't assign…

I would argue that preference is more rarely the driver of high art evaluation than ignorance. Which doesn't seem that bold of a claim. It's somewhat like saying "Environmentalists don't like nuclear power because most are not trained nuclear engineers." It is a fact that there are few nuclear engineers (or even adjacent physicists). Yet how often do you hear "Nuclear power scares me because I don't understand it"?

This comes back to having shared goals; presumably the environmentalist and the nuclear engineer have the shared goal of human/environmental safety, so evaluation within that context is possible, but because the Harry Potter fan and the Bach scholar don't have shared ideas about what makes good art, each standard of what makes good art is just as good as another. The Bach scholar doesn't seem to have any reasoning behind the assertion that Bach's use of high techniques and synthesis of ideas means that his art is more valuable. On the other hand, because the nuclear engineer and the environmentalist agree on some desired state of the world, the environmentalist, lest he remain ignorant as to what is best for human/environmental safety, should listen.

In short: the Harry Potter fan and the Bach scholar don't have a shared idea about the best way to judge art. The environmentalist and the nuclear engineer do have a shared idea of maximizing human/environmental safety. The environmentalist has no reason to listen to the nuclear engineer if the engineer's reason for nuclear power is something like "I like to see the number of reactions go up on the computer screen", because looking at numbers on a screen isn't a shared goal between the two parties.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#178

Post by ctdonath »

spectramax wrote: post #7

I disagree. If one definition of Brutalism is to be honest about materials - then Cybertruck nails that. Unpainted stainless steel is as brutalist as it gets. We can argue about the design intent of the way it looks and whether that’s Brutalism. Aesthetics is only one aspect of Brutalism. Another aspect of Brutalism is to expose innards without guilt - If Cybertruck doesn’t have non-structural decorations, farings, e…

Best summary of the issue I could find in a hurry:

"Brutalism is not concerned with the material as such but rather the quality of material" ... "the seeing of materials for what they were: the woodness of the wood; the sandiness of sand." - Peter Smithson

If any vehicle does this, it's Cybertruck.

The electric motor - the centerpiece of the design - demands a smooth exterior, free of exposed joints (to retort vs other thread commenters calling for exposed joints).

Being a pickup truck, it demands capacity and strength. The bed is big, easily un/covered (without the awkward hard or soft covers).

The design celebrates the quality of the primary material: "30x" stainless steel. There it is, full flat unpainted glory, zero embellishments. No curves because it's too hard to curve; no relenting in material to achieve 'normal' looks.

The interior is simple robust (leather) seating for 6 full-size adult cyberpunks. The control is an oversimplified steering column, with a single large flat panel touchscreen. Nothing else.

As one frequently at odds with brutalism, this clearly is - and I want it.

Post reply on HN