Why is pic related considered pretty but commieblocks are not?

[Anonymous No.6543930]

Both are square and stocky.
Is it the slanted red tile roof?
The facade details?
I hope for some architect or artistic theory connoisseur could help me understand what actually makes a building pretty.

[Anonymous No.6543933]

symmetry
the distinct heavy base
ornamentation
materials
proportions of details
the wider context of the buildings surrounding (many nowadays lost it due to changed urban planning around it, for example the car parking in your pic rel)
well maintained

but most importantly of all
its just personal preference, some people will say that this building is shit, because its just a heavy block on a heavier base, that has no momentum, when they love dynamic buildings for some reason

[Anonymous No.6543938]

>>6543930
the pillars imply that people somewhat cared when designing and constructing the building. Commie blocks are made with 0 regard for human life, they're a reminder of what the elite think of you..

[Anonymous No.6543941]

>>6543933
>its just personal preference
How important is this? Is it all cultural?
I found that any horrible place can be improved with lots of vegetation, because people like trees and they hide the ugliness, but these central/north european city centers dont have a lot of trees.
Commieblocks can be symmetric too.
Your answer is very vague, boils down to "lots of factors"

[Anonymous No.6543943]

>>6543938
So more pillar makes a building prettier?

[Anonymous No.6543952]

>>6543943
if you're not being facetious this is an extremely autistic thing to say and you're ngmi if you're serious. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of human behavior. No, its not about the fucking number of pillars each building has. Jesus, you engineers think you can just mathematically create art

[Anonymous No.6543956]

>>6543952
Then why did you say pillars made that building pretty?

[Anonymous No.6543959]

>>6543952
you were perfectly clear. he's a retard trolling just ignore him

[Anonymous No.6543962]

>>6543959
He was not clear at all, he said a bunch of shit about the alleged intentions of the building designers and how the other designers had evil thoughts in their head, nothing that has anything to do with buildings.
Is that what artistic theory is based on? Good heart=Beautiful art?

[Anonymous No.6543963]

>>6543962
ornaments like pillars and stuff like that which isn't actually keeping the building standing, are used to make the building pretty. Designers and buildings attempting to make pretty things > designers and buildings not attempting to make pretty things and just trying to make as many grey boxes as possible. The intention and attempt is noticed by people and affects society in a good way.

[Anonymous No.6543966]

>>6543962
you're getting accused of trolling because you're being purposefully obtuse.
>So more pillar makes a building prettier?
ornament and tradition are a fundamental part of architecture. quit acting like a retard.

[Anonymous No.6543970]

>>6543966
>because you're being purposefully obtuse.
No you are, why are you even talking shit about the internal emotions of some architect? Idiot

[Anonymous No.6543974]

>>6543962
>he said a bunch of shit about the alleged intentions of the building designers
not alleged, but factual. just ask anyone who lived in 1900s soviet russia
>nothing that has anything to do with buildings
imagine separating the intentions of the designer from the final design lmao
>Good heart=Beautiful art
really weak, do better

[Anonymous No.6543975]

>>6543941
>Your answer is very vague, boils down to "lots of factors"
because it is
its like asking why people like rock music
there is no one answer and if you want one, you either dont understand what you are asking about, or are just stupid

[Anonymous No.6543978]

>>6543963
I believe that, yet why do some ornaments make a building pretty and at what point it becomes "gaudi"?

[Anonymous No.6543993]

>>6543978
nothing wrong with being gaudy you ESL, that's just a word people afraid of expressing themselves use.

[Anonymous No.6544000]

>>6543938
commieblocks were a vast upgrade for the average russian. they had plumbing, more space and were more robustly constructed than the shitstained mudhuts most russian workers lived in prior

[Anonymous No.6544001]

>>6543978
it becomes "piano" when you build your house in minecraft out of diamond, gold and emerald blocks

[Anonymous No.6544132]

>>6543930 I would say this is far preferable because it’s not all about function. They went out of their way to maintain decorative elements, that also resemble nature in many ways, for instance how pillars resemble trees. The different materials and layering also help make it less oppressive, with the base and roof occupying as much vertical space as the actual window wall. In short it seems well structured, nothing is out of proportion, and takes cues from nature

[Anonymous No.6544482]

>>6543930
It's aesthetic on top of being functional instead of being exclusively functional (to the point of becoming actually dysfunctional making it so easy for slum lords to rule over everyone else in the khrushchyovka).

It's also a workplace rather than living quarters for the disadvantaged. A better comparison would be the townhouse blocks of London and those still allow for some whimsy on top of function, despite being made for rat people in drab ass Victorian England.

[Anonymous No.6544492]

>>6543930
>Why is a museum pretty but a prison not?
Really?

[Anonymous No.6544651]

I like the anonymity of it. I would like to have a whole floor to myself at the top. I could have a library, fitness room, sauna. Top comfy.

[Anonymous No.6544805]

>>6543930

There are plenty of pretty communist buildings. There are also plenty of ugly "capitalist" buildings.

The beauty or ugliness of buildings has more to do with thoughtless mass production and uniformity than the particular economic system that created them.

[Anonymous No.6544809]

>>6543978
I like that this guy misspelled gaudy but put it in quotes to imply it’s a fancy word nobody would ever use unironically

[Anonymous No.6544810]

>>6544805
There’s those damn quotation marks again

[Anonymous No.6545263]

>>6544809
>>6543993
I think He was ironically referring to Antoni gaudi (yes, with an i) a Catalán Spanish architect famous for the style depicted in that pic

[Anonymous No.6545312]

>>6544492
This prison looks better than 90% of the buildings I encounter on a daily basis.

[Anonymous No.6546270]

>>6545312
And it surely has better accommodation and amenities than the average khrushchyovka.

[Anonymous No.6546284]

>>6544809
>american education

[Anonymous No.6548232]

>>6543933
What's the most efficient way for someone who knows nothing about architecure to learn this kind of thing?

[Anonymous No.6548290]

About an hour after I made this post >>6548232 I got on YouTube and got recommended a bunch of architecture videos, which include this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9pg2j2oGy0
t-thanks botnet

[Anonymous No.6548929]

>>6544651
how do you get heavy equipment to the middle of the circle? did they just have a huge walkway somewhere that could fit any given height/width of a machine?

[Anonymous No.6549028]

>>6544651
How do they make square rooms inside of these? How the hell do they keep everything properly aligned in a circle?

[Anonymous No.6549336]

idk i like my commieblocks

[Anonymous No.6549347]

>>6549336
it's the inside that matters, no?

[Anonymous No.6549480]

>>6543930

[Anonymous No.6549481]

>>6549480

[Anonymous No.6549483]

>>6549028
I assume it's only the two external walls that are curved (it's quite a wide radius anyway, and they might only be curved on the outside, with the inside made completely flat by varying the thickness, essentially creating a 26-side polygon), with the internal walls being obviously flat, but slightly angled to each other.
Or they maight just be perfectly rectangular apartments with triangle/trapezoid sections in between for stairs/elevators.

[Anonymous No.6549535]

>>6543930
Your image is of Czernin Palace, which was commissioned by a Czech diplomat and servant of the Habsburg monarchy in the seventeenth century—hundreds of years before architecture as a discipline was converted into a capitalist tool (amidst the decline yet stubborn persistence of said Ancien Régime), and architects of a more socialist or social democratic persuasion (especially in central Europe; see pic related) attempted to revolt by asking a very simple question: "How should we house people, really?" It then follows: "What constitutes a minimum dwelling?" "Are houses machines for living in?" etc. So your comparison is flawed to begin with, OP. A baroque palace designed to dazzle foreign visitors will have vastly different formal characteristics than any public housing estate, 'commie' or not. The mansard roof adds imperial flair, I guess.

[Anonymous No.6549540]

>>6548232
Rem Koolhaas' 'Elements of Architecture' is basically a college course in a book. If you want a primer on the transition to modernism e.g. the decline of neoclassicism (specifically of the ruling class's obsession with the ruins of antiquity; whether we should preserve or restore them) then you should look into debates between between John Ruskin and Violett-le-Duc.

[Anonymous No.6549542]

>>6548232
Rem Koolhaas' 'Elements of Architecture' is basically a college course in a book. If you want a primer on the transition to modernism e.g. the decline of neoclassicism (specifically of the ruling class's obsession with the ruins of antiquity; whether we should preserve or restore them) then you should look into debates between John Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc.

[Anonymous No.6549549]

>>6543938
They're engaged columns, which is to say they aren't load-bearing and have no real purpose other than decorative. Very typical of baroque design; it's quite boring really.

[Anonymous No.6549555]

>>6543933
>its just personal preference
While this is definitely subjective, I think beauty and appeal must have some objectivity to it. Russia's Residential blocks are very well known for how bleak and depressing and ugly they are - I think there must be an objective truth to it, though I couldn't say specifically why (and of course there's always exceptions perhaps like the anon below).

>>6549336
You probably like it more so because of it's surrounding area (snow and trees) and the grimy aesthetic rather than the actual building - imagine if it was located somewhere in an american city; suddenly it becomes a bland piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.6549589]

>>6549483
What about corridors going through the building? Do they bend? Or do they have random breaks where they change direction? Do they use curved tiles on the floor?

[Anonymous No.6549663]

>>6549589
No idea, but if they treat the building as a 26-sided polygon they don't really have to.
And even if they did, the curve is so wide it would only make a marginal difference.

[Anonymous No.6550116]

>>6549555
>imagine if it was located somewhere in an american city; suddenly it becomes a bland piece of shit.
If it was located in an American city it'd be surrounded by ugly parking lots instead of lush greenery. If you found a photo of that building during the summer I can assure you it'd look much more appealing. Le Corbusier's 'Towers in a Park' philosophy dealt in contrasts; and that's precisely its appeal. Every time architects have tried designing buildings that emphasized our 'oneness' with nature it's just been a complete disaster—from Mies van der Rohe's Farnsworth House to Frank Lloyd Wright's Levittowns.

[Anonymous No.6550315]

>>6548929
You're not allowed to have accidents, inconveniences or non-standard needs in Communism.

[Anonymous No.6550329]

>>6548929
They just craned in prefab concrete units/wall panels and had workers install them on-site. Most 5-over-1 apartment complexes in the US nowadays are constructed the same way but with wood.
>>6550315
Moron.

[Anonymous No.6550512]

>>6544000
getting piss instead of shit doesn't make it better i dont get this counterpoint

[Anonymous No.6550606]

>>6550512
You try solving a housing crisis after winning a war that killed/displaced tens of millions of your country's population.

[Anonymous No.6550616]

>>6550606
Not to mention before the war; a common agitprop phrase in the post-revolutionary period was "communism is soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country'—can you imagine living in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, not having electricity, and then suddenly getting it? The US had their own rural electrification programs at the same time. Although they weren't quite as ambitious by comparison, the feats of the Tennessee Valley Authority are much envied to this day. The difference between having electricity and not having electricity only seems marginal because you likely have never gone very long without it for more than a handful of times in your life. Same applies to housing in general.

[Anonymous No.6553247]

here's whats NOT present in the building in ops pic.
>multiple iterations of the same building, decreasing its value as a unique piece
here's what IS present in that isnt in commieblocks
>stylistic ornamentations that serve as a expression of an idea instead of bare minimal functionality

[Anonymous No.6553574]

>>6550616
Why are you acting as an apologist for the Soviet Union? I don't understand what motivates you people. The USSR, with its successes and many failures, is gone. It's not coming back. You're out of touch even with other leftists.

[Anonymous No.6555458]

>>6543930
>>6543933
>>6549480
>>6549481
Can all be simplified to rhythm, contrast and detail.
Straight lines, homogeneous textures and lack of transition are all unnerving and distressing. Humans evolved in a natural environment. The average naked rocky surface (which already contains far better features than a naked concrete wall) is generally a danger. Humans are designed to find gradual transitions, uneven textures and emergent rhythms comfortable. A field, a tree canopy, even distant mountains smoothed by scattering effects.
The only counterpoint to this is large structures giving a sense of "safety" if composed by distinct rigid shapes, but it's an additional element to the above, it doesn't work well independently(brutalism).

[Anonymous No.6555467]

>>6543930
communism is nice for retarded lazy obedient faggots with death wish and people who rule them.
everyone else hates that shit

[Anonymous No.6556856]

>>6553574
>Why are you acting as an apologist for the Soviet Union?
Because in spite of its successes and failures, I like to know my history. Not only that, I like know my art history; and the USSR was rich in both (again, for better and worse).

[Anonymous No.6556868]

>>6556856
You don't have to explain anything to that asswipe. The west became a smelly dumpster once the USSR fell. Soviets suffer like never before once freedom of corruption entered your nation like a virus. We westerners knows this system pretty well.
I'm glad you're free now. Don't ever sell your national values again to the west.

[Anonymous No.6556877]

>>6543930
soviet brutalism (official name) has very very cool examples
but most of the commiblocks are really shit

[Anonymous No.6556889]

>>6544651
This is actually awful, imagine having trees this close to your windows, or living at the lowest floor. Looks pretty unkept to me.

[Anonymous No.6557058]

>>6556868
Yeah everything is peachy now - no suffering only smiles

[Anonymous No.6557080]

>>6557058
They're doing good over there.Eurofags on the other hand... getting fucked left and right. DaBigMan blew up their gas pipes and yanking the leash on their necks making them squeal, now THAT's a sad view...

[Anonymous No.6560599]

>>6555458
what game is this

[Anonymous No.6561192]

>>6560599
bayonetta