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

Most people prefer traditional architecture

worksinprogress.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 382 posts

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#351

Post by hardbass »

ericmay wrote: post #349
hardbass wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Architecture. In both neoclassicism and brutalism, regardless of intended aim, the effect seems to be one of silublime monumental scale that humbles a person. Both paintings you cited are very much on the traditional and representative end of the spectrum. None of them seem to be on the more abstract 20th century styles.

> Architecture. In both neoclassicism and brutalism, regardless of intended aim, the effect seems to be one of silublime monumental scale that humbles a person. Well why would you discard the intention? I think there is more to compare as well than just the ability of the architecture to humble someone. What does the architecture say? Who does it glorify (in these cases)? How difficult is it to make? You can also say…

Intent is not very relevant to the effect it has on people. You can make a building for any reason you want. Modern neoclassicism doesn't glorify any particular person, it may glorify the State or some Institution. Brutalism also doesn't glorify anyone, it isn't usually made by the state for itself either, I do not understand what the point of 'glorifying someone' would be to a general building. If you want to know 'who' a building glorifies someone then answer who CN Tower glorifies, and the Space Needle, and the Empire State Building.

I am neither an academic nor a member of the art establishment. I find neoclassicism nakedly fake in an irritating manner. Brutalism is a more honest and organic execution of what people try to do with neoclassical buildings.

>I have a hard disagreement here but I'm not sure what there is to really talk about.

You were the one who put Bansky among "weird and ridiculous" art movements which is frankly absurd as Bansky does very traditional and representative art. Did you have any trouble recognizing what Girl with a balloon was? It is a very clear and representational style of painting that has absolutely nothing to do with the more abstract art movements of the 20th century. Do you know of Woman with a towel? Do you consider it normal or "weird"? Girl with a balloon is no more "abstract" roughly than girl with a balloon. If you think one is and the other isn't then you have a really absurd and incorrect view.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#352

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

rbanffy wrote: post #118
kelseyfrog wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would have to convince the design community that form can follow things other than function. Until form is no longer synonymous with function, design will eschew ornamentation.

When form doesn't follow function, usability suffers.

Aesthetics have a function though, so ignoring them and focusing on all other functions when creating the form can decrease the total functionality.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#353

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

rightnutwingjob wrote: post #323
Nursie wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hot-take - what if beauty (or to tone it down, mere 'pleasantness') is function?

Words? What are words? We just don’t know. If beauty is function we might as well do away with words and go back to using grunts, or whatever it was that preceded the very idea of this thing here is not that thing over there. I guess that’s why design school graduates had to invent the concept of User Experience in an effort to regress the pursuit of functionality and basic design-consistency to the undifferentiated…

Beauty has a function in improving the emotional state of people observing it. Ignoring this function in favor of all other functions can result in getting trapped in a suboptimal local maximum, where a more beautiful design could sacrifice only slightly in other domains and have a greater overall utility.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#354

Post by ericmay »

hardbass wrote: post #351
ericmay wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Architecture. In both neoclassicism and brutalism, regardless of intended aim, the effect seems to be one of silublime monumental scale that humbles a person. Well why would you discard the intention? I think there is more to compare as well than just the ability of the architecture to humble someone. What does the architecture say? Who does it glorify (in these cases)? How difficult is it to make? You can also say…

Intent is not very relevant to the effect it has on people. You can make a building for any reason you want. Modern neoclassicism doesn't glorify any particular person, it may glorify the State or some Institution. Brutalism also doesn't glorify anyone, it isn't usually made by the state for itself either, I do not understand what the point of 'glorifying someone' would be to a general building. If you want to know '…

But you pointed out the intent in your comparison between neoclassicism and brutalism, I didn't.

But to your point about the effect that some building has on people, we have things we can measure about that effect. You can look at number of visitors, or perhaps price on the market.

> You were the one who put Bansky among "weird and ridiculous" art movements which is frankly absurd as Bansky does very traditional and representative art.

Well it's ridiculous (worthy of ridicule) in part because of the poor quality and craftsmanship. It's poor art because it fails to express meaning in a way that, for example, you can clearly see if you are to compare it to Woman with a Towel. There is much more depth. Individual brushstrokes, intent.

Popular and modern art today lacks the ability to evoke meaning and depth in the same way. This is measurable. There's a reason that IKEA sells Andy Warhol prints and not Women with a Towel prints - yet many more visit and covet visiting the great masters. Modern art requires an industry to convince you that it is art and worthy of praise while the others draw people in without needing marketing. One is a faucet of the degradation of modern culture post-World War I/II (which we can rebound from of course) and is easily made and easily reproduced. The other, isn't.

> If you think one is and the other isn't then you have a really absurd and incorrect view.

No, your view is incorrect and absurd.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#355

Post by hardbass »

ericmay wrote: post #354
hardbass wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intent is not very relevant to the effect it has on people. You can make a building for any reason you want. Modern neoclassicism doesn't glorify any particular person, it may glorify the State or some Institution. Brutalism also doesn't glorify anyone, it isn't usually made by the state for itself either, I do not understand what the point of 'glorifying someone' would be to a general building. If you want to know '…

But you pointed out the intent in your comparison between neoclassicism and brutalism, I didn't. But to your point about the effect that some building has on people, we have things we can measure about that effect. You can look at number of visitors, or perhaps price on the market. > You were the one who put Bansky among "weird and ridiculous" art movements which is frankly absurd as Bansky does very traditional and…

Bansky is simply not modern art at all. This is not a personal opinion, it is simple objective fact. Banksy is not remotely modern or abstract art. You are absolutely absurd in thinking so. Pop art is representational and not remotely abstract. If he didn't brush it how on earth did you think he painted it? If it turns out it was not done with brushes but was painted with airbrushes it is still a painting. Unless you mean to say airbrushes are not art. There is no "intent" behind individual brushstrokes, its crap you made up, just like you accuse fans of newer art movements to make up meanings. If you disagree, list me each brushstroke, their coordinates and meanings.

Its also absurd to try to compare visitor count for Bansky against a museum piece. People go to a museum because that is the only place they can physically see the painting. Banksy's work is done in public spaces so footfall would be whatever millions traverse it over the years. Unless you can mind read and tell me exactly which of them are and aren't fans of the painting how can you compare numbers of people who like it? You tell me where is the 'poor craftsmanship' in Girl with a balloon. Its more detailed if anything, and you seem to judge art based on how detailed and representative it is. Its as good in execution as Woman with a towel, and roughly on the same level on the spectrum between representational and abstract. It has a clear subject that has been painted with a degree of realism, just like Woman with a towel. You can't explain me the exact reason, because you made up nonsense about certain paintings based just on their age in years.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#356

Post by ericmay »

hardbass wrote: post #355
ericmay wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you pointed out the intent in your comparison between neoclassicism and brutalism, I didn't. But to your point about the effect that some building has on people, we have things we can measure about that effect. You can look at number of visitors, or perhaps price on the market. > You were the one who put Bansky among "weird and ridiculous" art movements which is frankly absurd as Bansky does very traditional and…

Bansky is simply not modern art at all. This is not a personal opinion, it is simple objective fact. Banksy is not remotely modern or abstract art. You are absolutely absurd in thinking so. Pop art is representational and not remotely abstract. If he didn't brush it how on earth did you think he painted it? If it turns out it was not done with brushes but was painted with airbrushes it is still a painting. Unless you…

So now we're arguing that there are objective facts in art? Interesting. You can't simultaneously say that there are no objective facts and then argue with my interpretation of the art which is subjective opinion, just like yours. You're just proving my point here.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#357

Post by hardbass »

ericmay wrote: post #356
hardbass wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bansky is simply not modern art at all. This is not a personal opinion, it is simple objective fact. Banksy is not remotely modern or abstract art. You are absolutely absurd in thinking so. Pop art is representational and not remotely abstract. If he didn't brush it how on earth did you think he painted it? If it turns out it was not done with brushes but was painted with airbrushes it is still a painting. Unless you…

So now we're arguing that there are objective facts in art? Interesting. You can't simultaneously say that there are no objective facts and then argue with my interpretation of the art which is subjective opinion, just like yours. You're just proving my point here.

Its as objective as it gets in art as eg saying the Space Needle building is not a Roman style building. Banksy clearly does not belong to any 20th century abstract or modern movement at all. Its objectively absurd and wrong to claim so. The only way such a mind bendingly absurd statement can be made is if someone is only looking at the date stamp not the pictures.

Still waiting for the coordinate by coordinate breakdown of brushstrokes.

You still didn't tell me who those buildings glorify by the way. Why didn't you answer that question?

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#358

Post by ericmay »

hardbass wrote: post #357
ericmay wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now we're arguing that there are objective facts in art? Interesting. You can't simultaneously say that there are no objective facts and then argue with my interpretation of the art which is subjective opinion, just like yours. You're just proving my point here.

Its as objective as it gets in art as eg saying the Space Needle building is not a Roman style building. Banksy clearly does not belong to any 20th century abstract or modern movement at all. Its objectively absurd and wrong to claim so. The only way such a mind bendingly absurd statement can be made is if someone is only looking at the date stamp not the pictures. Still waiting for the coordinate by coordinate break…

> Why didn't you answer that question? ... Its as objective as it gets in art as eg saying the Space Needle building is not a Roman style building.

Idk I didn't find it important or interesting. Even in your case of the Space Needle one could simply argue it's a continuation of western civilization in which Rome and Athens were the founders and stewards of. Maybe the Space Needle is just a big Egyptian Obelisk that the Romans were so fond of. Who is to say it's not a Roman style building?

> Banksy clearly does not belong to any 20th century abstract or modern movement at all.

I think Banksy is very abstract, the specific nature of whether it's more close to some arbitrarily defined time period isn't all that relevant, plus there's some overlap as styles emerge.

But I would actually argue it's pretty close as an offshoot. Most of the 20th century art movement is the result of the post-war psychosis that many experienced. Girl with a Balloon is very similar, in my view, even if it's slightly different stylistically.

Regardless of what it is, it's very mediocre as far as artwork goes. It lacks attention to detail, and where one may want to ascribe importance and meaning it is done so through a lens of modernism (like brutalism) that is still reeling from bunkers and trenches in World War I/II.

You're focused on the style, but I'm focused on much bigger things. My point anyway was that pretty much everything after around 1950 or so is bad. Whether we call certain styles 20th century or modern or post-modern is important for catalog purposes but ultimately unimportant to me. Civilization in the west stopped trying, and you can see that reflected in this shit art.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#359

Post by hardbass »

ericmay wrote: post #358
hardbass wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its as objective as it gets in art as eg saying the Space Needle building is not a Roman style building. Banksy clearly does not belong to any 20th century abstract or modern movement at all. Its objectively absurd and wrong to claim so. The only way such a mind bendingly absurd statement can be made is if someone is only looking at the date stamp not the pictures. Still waiting for the coordinate by coordinate break…

> Why didn't you answer that question? ... Its as objective as it gets in art as eg saying the Space Needle building is not a Roman style building. Idk I didn't find it important or interesting. Even in your case of the Space Needle one could simply argue it's a continuation of western civilization in which Rome and Athens were the founders and stewards of. Maybe the Space Needle is just a big Egyptian Obelisk that t…

You seem to have some memory issues I think. You were the one who brought up the question of who a building glorifies, not me. It was you. You should be able to justify what you yourself said. Why is it suddenly unimportant? If it was unimportant why did you, not me, bring up that question. You clearly must be able to answer those questions.

>I think Banksy is very abstract

Did you have any difficulty knowing what the painting was depicting? Its more detailed than a lot of impressionism that you seem to enjoy. Its clearly not remotely abstract at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with brutalism, brutalism is an architecture movement not a painting movement. This is in not even wrong territory of absurd nonsense. What is the attention to detail you find missing? If you will put any argument, give exact specifics and examples otherwise don't say it. Its more detailed and well executed than Impressionism, and in neither impressionism nor that painting the intent was anyways photographic representation. It is very absurd of you to say because Banksy's style has nothing post 20th century about it at all. The date stamp changes nothing. Civilization is fine. Its not civilization's fault you make up crap in your head about some art periods and refuse to play the game of making up crap about other art movements.

Re: Most people prefer traditional architecture

#360

Post by bobthepanda »

rbanffy wrote: post #332
bobthepanda wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modernist architecture certainly has its fair share of misfires, particularly where the postwar architects were attempting social engineering to be “cleaner” or more “rational.” The schools were often teaching ideals based in no empirical evidence.

It's hard to build something new based on empirical evidence because the thing you are building might be such a radical departure from previous experience the data you have simply does not apply.

The problem is that a core group of modernists kept doggedly insisting on it after it was proven to not work.

For example, we know now that pedestrian skyways only work in limited contexts and have plenty of downsides; or that a large, concrete windswept plaza is pretty to look at but pretty antisocial and unusable space, and yet you still see this kind of thing in the latest from say Zaha Hadid et al.

It’s why a next wave of architects and planners have coined terms like “bird-shit architecture” that only looks good completely devoid of context and landed from the sky.

Post reply on HN