The mid in fake midcentury modern • Hacker News Board

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#311

Post by yunwal » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 6:56 PM UTC

Renevith wrote: post #165

yunwal wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that it takes is to travel to Mexico to understand this is wrong. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3Y5ULj_0l3o/UrYr0ys5RTI/AAAAAAAACo... This kind of architecture works it just requires a kind of unity and dedication to a common ideal that we no longer have.

I think it's hideous and I wouldn't want to live there. There's nothing "wrong" (nor "right") about the idea that lots of bold colors will tend to clash and be unpleasant. It's just subjective and different people hold different opinions about it.

Bold colors don’t clash. Clashing colors clash. You can dislike bright colors all you want but you can’t change color theory.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#312

Post by throw33away » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 6:57 PM UTC

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 (…

I think new playgrounds are much better now than when I grew up in the 80s. The new ones in 80s did have some good things going for them but there is much more variety now and they look great.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#313

Post by cryptonector » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 6:58 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #192

cryptonector wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Leave opinion on aesthetics to the experts"?

That's what functionally happens, yes. If most people revert to an opinion of "well that's just your opinion, it's all entirely subjective," then the people driving what actually gets valued are the ones that bother to educate themselves and be deemed as experts. To use an example: if a person in New York City said that "all the restaurants taste the same and it's all just subjective," would you buy a dining tour gui…

What a straw man. No one who "is not an expert on taste" says all the restaurants taste the same and it's all just subjective". Well, ok, maybe people who literally can't taste (I know one such person), but the people who can taste don't ever say anything like that.

Most of us don't actually use restaurant guides, and we don't say "wow that was awesome" unironically when we didn't like it but the "experts" told us otherwise.

Aesthetics is fairly subjective, yes.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#314

Post by nemo44x » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 7:01 PM UTC

epolanski wrote: post #248

nemo44x wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's iconic and arguably the symbol of Paris, but it's not really something you would think of when thinking of architectural or functional beauty. It's an amazing structure and nothing like that was possible before. Only after the construction of it could people get a view of Paris never before possible. You should read Robert Hughes' book "The Shock of the New" or watch the series. I think it's online on Youtube.…

> It's an amazing structure and nothing like that was possible before. That doesn't make it beautiful but an engineering feat.

I mean, sure - beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think it's a beautiful structure. It has so much intellectually beauty as well as physical IMO. It's a perfect contrast to the rest of Paris.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#315

Post by jaclaz » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 7:07 PM UTC

jay00 wrote: post #286

nine_k wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USA is nearly 250 years old. Most European states are younger, even though European peoples and cultures are indeed old. Italy is young, Rome is old.

Italy is old. It was founded in 7 bc by Augustus: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regioni_dell%27Italia_augustea... Sure it unified again only in the 19th century, but it has had a great degree of cultural union throughout its entire history. It is actually one of the most homogeneous countries in terms of language, religion and culture. Italians like to think otherwise for some reason. Sorry for the digression!

As an Italian, I would like to learn how you measured the level of homogeneity of language and culture (on religion I agree with you).

The differences in language and in culture were definitely reduced only in very recent years AFAIK, and still remain noticeable.

About language, you have to consider how many Italians are (still today) effectively bi-lingual, Italian and local dialect, with the latter ranging from very similar to very different from Italian.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#316

Post by gooseyman » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 7:08 PM UTC

I have often felt that we just don't take the time/money to build nice things anymore, but after gutting my house built in the 1890s, its clear that shotty construction and "cheap" existed back then as it does now. The stuff that doesn't last gets torn down, while the quality/ornate "lasts."

My house was built fast, by people that were most likely employed in some relation to the port (working class). The house is standard balloon framing, I don't think whoever built it owned a plumb bob and nails are bent over on themselves every other board. It has a facade that is hard not to ignore, it's simple, and they built it one "section" at a time over several years when they had the money or were forced to out of necessity to make room for more family.

And yet, not 10 minutes away are beautiful homes with ornate masonry and corner stones that read 1890, 1895, etc.

To that end, you could say that my house is still standing because of the building materials they used (actual 2x4s from old growth forests, nails that are really more "spike" than nail, a lack of insulation allowing walls to breathe), but I think it was spared and maintained for its utility: it brought shelter to all those that lived there before and so it was maintained just enough.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#317

Post by protoster » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 7:09 PM UTC

badpun wrote: post #15

I think the reason might be mechanisation and mass-production. Before that, everything was done by hand, so it wasn't that much more expensive to produce interesting architecture or say hand-crafted ornaments details on buildings. Right now, costs of that would be gigantic (which is shown in giant costs of renovation of historic buildings, which needs to be done using the older methods), compared to a standard boxy b…

Absolutely. There are beautiful things today as well, but people choose the ugly thing because of the cheaper cost.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#318

Post by pugworthy » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 7:09 PM UTC

account-5 wrote: post #61

I don't know, it might just be me but if you're going to write an article (a really long one) bemoaning how everything is ugly you need to provide more than one picture. I want picture proof, not long descriptions that leave me to imagine. Pictures paint a thousand words and all that!

Ironically (to me), the one picture provided basically matches the color palette of the website.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#319

Post by acabal » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 7:10 PM UTC

I think about this a lot. I live in a large city that has a rich architectural heritage, so there are old beautiful buildings all around me from various eras. Neoclassical, beaux arts, art deco, etc.

But of course the city suffers from the problem of new ugliness - nearly all modern construction is in-your-face ugly, with hideous blocks of primary colored plastic paneling, discordant jutting shapes, and headache-inducing asymmetry. At best, new construction is faceless, shapeless wall-to-wall glass. But that's a really sad best.

I often wonder if NIMBYS would be less opposed to new construction if new construction actually looked beautiful. I make a point to campaign to my representative in favor of density, but even I have to admit that a dense apartment complex built in the modern-ugly style is truly unpleasant to live around. The ugliness becomes quietly oppressive.

It's strange that Americans campaign so hard to preserve beautiful buildings, but when it comes to new buildings, nobody wants to build beauty any more. Truly sad.

Re: The mid in fake midcentury modern

#320

Post by lambdasquirrel » Wed, Dec 07, 2022, 7:12 PM UTC

kennend3 wrote: post #71

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…

Adding to this and using some every day examples. Why are expensive "sports cars" almost always ugly (Bright yellow or neon green??). One would think if you had that sort of money you would realize that a bright green car is tacky as F, but that is the point. To turn heads - this is why they bought the car in the first place. Why are most cars not coloured like this - because it is ugly and most people don't drive a…

It's kind of weird, this juxtaposition between sports cars that are ugly as an intention of being eye-catching, and then HOAs that enforce oppressive-ugliness-by-way-of-cookie-cutter-blandness. No matter which way we go it still turns out ugly.

On the latter, it's this weird and horrific attempt to mimic the way that buildings in Europe just fit well with each other, even when they use bright colors. In suburban America it seems that's not possible without painting a dystopian look all over the town.

Some folks will make an argument that modernism is the cause. Or that post-modernism is the cause. Or whatever is the current style is the cause. I don't buy it because there are works by Frank Lloyd Wright and Mies van der Rohe that are widely considered to be beautiful and which strike the eye. Going the other way, I've met folks who just don't like Impression. So there's aesthetics, and then there's taste. That quote by H.L. Mencken seems appropriate.