/lit/ - Literature

>waa waa old shit was replaced with new

Grow up. Just because something is old doesn't mean it's good.

>>14253429
>Has civilization regressed so much that we don't recognize beauty anymore?
Pretty much, yes. We're 40 years into radical degeneration, the american-pragmatist kind, and good 250 years into general, milder one.

>>14253445
>New Yorker on bottom left
Like poetry.

>>14253429
Understanding Media by McLuhan
Beauty by Byung Chul Han

Capitalism, the praise of logic and reason over everything else, the idea of "form over function". It's for these reasons that the world is becoming cold and robotic, it's all about making the most money, there is no room for human emotion, it's useless in this society that thinks money is worth more than a person's own happiness and enjoyment of life.

Everything is becoming pure numbers and logic because that's what makes the most money, and in a logic obsessed world there is no point in having things which please the emotions.

>>14253484
>form over function

Oops sorry, I mean "function over form"

>>14253429
>new thing bad
NPC retard

>>14253467
>>14253489
It's not just cause it's new though, there's a clear lack of humanity to the new stuff, it's bland and lifeless. There's nothing to these designs, they are pure function. It's soul vs soulless not old vs new.

>>14253467
>>14253489
In this case the newer buildings are clearly uglier, though. You'd have to be an absolute idiot to think otherwise. It has nothing to do with age.

>>14253489
Yes, some new things are, in fact, bad. The aesthetics of neoliberal capitalism are among them

>>14253506
>>14253509
New architecture is awesome, you're just tastelets.

>>14253517
New architecture is literally just boxes, there's no taste there at all.

>>14253506
>there's a clear lack of humanity to the new stuff, it's bland and lifeless

Not true of:
>>14253460
>>14253445
>>14253429

>>14253509
>clearly uglier
Your opinion, which means nothing.

This crusade of yours, it is a dumb one.

>>14253517
I earned my Master's in Taste.

Because building companies want to save money and time.

>>14253484
Capital, for the vast majority of people, produces happiness and enjoyment, so emotions can exist in capitalism, provided they derive from capital. But what about art? Most people think there's far too much art in the world already.

>>14253429
capitalism
atheism
reductionism
mass consumerism

>>14253526
>Not true of:
>>14253429 (OP)

How is the OP not literally just a lifeless box?

>>14253539
The art being produced has no cultural value, it's art for the sake of it, it's not woven into the cultural identity. It has no meaning to the culture other than "this looks nice", in old civilizations their art was important to the actual culture and represented ideas, it was basically celebrations of these ideas. It's not so today, art is just a cheap commodity today.

>>14253429
There were threads about this a while ago, "if beauty is subjective then why not build structures as cheeply and efficiently as possible and eventually people will get used to them and think they're beautiful". Can't remember the guy who pioneered modern architecture. He hated the ornate designs of buildings from the previous eras and wanted something plain and simple. This later gave way to futuro in architecture, as a reaction to people not liking modern buildings as planned, but it's still modernism so it detests anything mature and trad.

>>14253584
Clearly his idea failed cause now there's so many people like OP wondering what the fuck happened

There's a difference between beauty being subjective and beauty being disregarded entirely.

>>14253429
it's a central tenet of left-wing philosophy that beauty is fascism and must be destroyed in order to progress

Edinburgh is a fantastic city for preserving historical architecture. The entire place is covered by laws which prevent this kind of building. A few still get through, but on the whole it’s an excellently preserved city.

>>14253429
They both look shit

>>14253484
Indeed. It all boils down to cost effectiveness.

>>14253564
>it's art for the sake of it
That's what art is. If it had a purpose beyond its creation and enjoyment, it wouldn't be art, but something else (a tool, a chair, etc.); however, that art has no cultural value today doesn't mark a change in art so much as a change in culture. We don't value art. I agree that art is today a commodity, but this has been true for all of the modern era, and it's only now that we're seeing the turn away from it. Commodification may have played a part, but I think you've hinted at something more likely, albeit in reverse. We don't care about ideas anymore, unless they can be expressed quickly. The austerity of the Apple store might express numerous ideas, but for the average person, the right idea is, "This is where I get my new phone." So it's not art that has ceased creating ideas, but people who've stopped caring about them.

>>14253429
Leftists will say it's the fault of the capitalists, Conservatives will say it's the fault of the progressives.

But in reality, it's the fault of the Jews.

>>14253670
Progressives are capitalists.

>>14253429
It is because architects have huge fucking egos and want to impress their faggot friends with weird structures rather than making a building that actually looks good

Many of these european buildings were bombed during WW2 and when they rebuilt it they had more things to worry about than the aesthetic.

>>14253670
>Leftists will say it's the fault of the (((capitalists))), Conservatives will say it's the fault of the (((progressives))).

>>14253674
There is no one properly outside capitalism.

>>14253543
>How is the OP not literally just a lifeless box?

Where is my cube?

>>14253484
Truth

everything post flw has been poor, boxy, lifeless mimics that look like shit.

>>14253484
Doesn't it make more sense that capitalism is the product of a society that places money over everything else, rather than the cause of a society that places money over everything else? Never understood this POV of capitalism.

>>14253688
This. Most of these examples seem to be European. Those cities got bombed to rubble in the second world war, and after the war people were dirt-poor: all they worried about was erecting the city anew as fast as possible. It most likely didn't even cross their mind to completely rebuild the city the way it was before. That was not an option, because it just would've been to damn expensive and would've taken too long. Yet everyone in this thread is talking about jews and shit.

>>14253445
God is in the details, and so is the Devil: From the bottom pic's building, take down that awful red sign, along with that blue banner near the corner of it, then it's halfway from Hell. This is not to say there's no such thing as Satanic magnificence, but a feathered boa doesn't go with a crow either.

>>14253429
It’s cheaper to make ugly, boxy shit then it is to make cool cathedrals. Don’t need a book to tell you that.

>>14253688
this should be the first reply to these _muh postmodernist aesthetics_ threads. had to scroll way too far for this.

>>14253484
Based post

>>14253429
The Jews and Moral Subversion by E. Michael Jones has a good chapter on what happened to architecture.

>>14253895
that is true in a lot of cases but many buildings have been demolished and rebuilt looking like absolute trash. happened to my hometown in the 60s

>>14253429
I feel you OP. If you like the idea of "traditional" architecture, you should try reading Leon Krier "The Architecture of Community" - not all hope is lost for beautiful architecture in the modern world.

Efficiency>posture
Preformativity>aesthetic value

Also everything is made in self-absorbed, self oriented way.
Every single bigger building is an attempt of unique concept and design.
Every person is an attempt at individual expression, completely confined in monetary capacity of said individual. There are no objective aesthetic ideals for clothing, but there are plenty for people.

How come nobody has mentioned Roger Scruton yet?

>>14253429
Go to /pol/ and ask for an architecture thread. You'll learn (((why))) very quickly.
>can't let dem white people think they have a culture
>got to rip down everything beautiful and k it up a bit

Structural Engineer here, and a (hopefully sometimes in the future) architect here.
It boils down to one thing and one thing alone, costs. The costs for everything has gone up, particularly in the installation department. We are talking isolation for moisture and heat, good enough electricity, ventilation, waste etc. all these systems are a lot more sophisticated today and have tighter regulations around them. Since sustainability is so important today, a lot of money goes into this in particular.

Building back in the days (100 years ago when ornamentation was still a thing) were often built with a brick foundation, and the brick were placed by men. Labour was plentiful and fairly cheap, so you could, if you wanted to flaunt money, add a lot more ornamentation. I don't buy the narrative that our tastes have changed and that we prefer flat surfaces over decorations now. I still think people prefer the way older buildings look, but the margins have gotten a lot more tight.

I will be taking questions if anyone has any

>>14253429
ArchitecturalRevival and Wrath of Gnon are two twitter pages which sometimes recommend books on this topic, the latter has an unofficial goodreads list if I recall correctly. Roger Scruton is a nice starting point, I'm sure he can lead you to other works as well.

>>14253484
>>14253637
Capitalist ostentation has a role here, and while a concrete box is certainly cheaper in the short term than the stone decorations of the older style, there is more here than just cost effectiveness. Consider that a lot of the oddly angled glass abominations posted in this thread end up costing far more than what a classically built gothic or neoclassical building would. Tens of millions are spent on works which seem to be trying to actively counter traditional architectural forms. The degradation of architecture is more of a spiritual issue than an economic one.

>>14254127
>I don't buy the narrative that our tastes have changed and that we prefer flat surfaces over decorations now.
20th century architecture is objectively more attractive and well proportioned, though.
>>14254776
>Wrath of Gnon
Cringe, go back to Twitter/Facebook.

>>14253489
Lol you think disparaging the old is the NPC take when in fact it is the complete opposite - the NPCs of this world are the ones buying condos in concrete and steel blocks and buying into the Google-Apple flat design paradigm

>>14253429
Left looks great and clean, probably absolutely aesthetic at night. Hating modern architecture is a pseud take. There's ugly buildings in every era.

>>14253688
>they had more things to worry about than the aesthetic
Yes, which is why the buildings here, built closely after WW2 are usually pretty awful.
But that trend never reversed, the city I live in was bombed to pieces, but even long after WW2 and an economic upswing things didn't change, Bauhaus and brutalism happened and "beauty" as a standard for buildings never reasserted itself.

The house I used to live in, which was built after WW2 will be demolished soon, but instead of the blank uninspired old build we will get a blank and uninspired new building.

>>14253847
>>14253895
It totally fails as an explanation. WW2 has been over for 70 years, old buildings have been renovated again and again or been replaced with new ones, long after economic constraints demanded ignoring aesthetics.

>>14254827
>clean
You need a VERY urgent trip to the doctor.
The building is very clearly covered in dirt and looks absolutely filthy.

I have some sympathies for Bauhaus and Brutalism, but the building on the left is a monstrosity, defying everything in any way aesthetically pleasing.

>>14254845
Bauhaus IS beautiful, you just fell for the trad meme.

>>14253847
They rebuild Warsaw pretty good, but Poland is filled with Poles so that might be the reason.

>>14254795
>20th century architecture
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Something between pre WW1 neoclassical architecture and Brutalism?

>>14254856
>Bauhaus IS beautiful,
Don't get me wrong, I do have sympathies for it, but it really isn't an architectural style which should focus itself on beauty.

A good Bauhaus design should like a machine, not beautiful because it was created to please the eye, but beautiful because it fulfills its purpose as perfect as possible.

>>14254776
You're a complete idiot if you think Scruton is a good source in this matter.

Some food for thought. Six hundred years ago people built Venice with its canals, palazzos, piazzas, the colourful houses of Murano and Burano, nooks, alleyways and passageways. The only comparable project we have in our days is the creation of Dubai, as shown in pic related. How can anyone defend this crap?

>>14253670
This, whenever you see something bad that is claimed to be good, you will find it's the jews behind it. Perversion of goodness is what they excel at.

>>14253460
Is that fucking Liebeskind?

>>14255093
If there wasn't an ancient brick building attached to it, it would be a based building.

Does it even have to be said? When buildings are financed by companies and investors, the primary concern is cost efficiency. Ornamentation is definitionally superfluous to the "function" of the building, so it is the first to be cut when profit seeking begins. Really, like all things in society, it is merely a manifestation of the core Weltanschauung of contemporary society--formal rationality in the Weberian sense. When people say it demonstrates a lack of culture I think that's inaccurate: it's just that contemporary culture values are capitalist self-interest.

>>14255151
What the fuck are you talking about. You know that historically only rich people built these big town houses with ornamentation, while the poor people lived in sheds, often made out of wood. I’d say the poor people have it a lot better today than before capitalism

>>14255028
>You're a complete idiot if you think Scruton is a good source in this matter.
Who is? I haven't seen anyone else.

>>14253429
reign of quantity and the signs of the times

>>14253460
>>14255093
Yep, it is that retard. Krier sees right through his bullshit, though. You should read The Architecture of Community.

>>14255228
Yes, materially speaking, people have it better. But that comfort only exists inside their house.

things to blame:
atheism, bauhaus school, marxism, steel

fuck off Screwton, Bauhaus dicks hoes right and left

>>14255293
>DUH BOWHOUSE SCHOOL IS LIKE FRANKSFURT SCHOOL BUT WITH HOUSES

>>14253607
>beauty
which is...?

>inb4 ''everything i like'', but said with big boy words

>>14255278
Spelled dilemma wrong.

>>14255293
Yes, marxism is responsible for what profit-seeking corporations build. Marxist created the concept of squishing people into increasingly smaller ratcages and calling them "condos".

>>14253670
plenty of synagogues with beautiful architecture, jerusalem and other places in israel also have nice architecture

The Fountainhead made me interested in architecture.
How do I learn more about it?

>>14254872
Art Deco

>>14255572
Read about it.

You can start by reading this thread.

>>14253688
This, plus rather plain Bauhaus stuff like >>14253439 being seen as progressive and modern compared to the often fairly rundown old stuff that often even lacked basic amenities like central heating, toilets and bathrooms inside your apartment and not in the hallway, and were generally pretty crowded.

Maybe if Germany didn't wage war against the world twice a century they could keep some of their pretty things.

>>14256220
With waged war you mean got declared war on by imperialist Western powers right

>>14253484
>I'm 15, WASP, and private schooled: the post

The values of a society will reflect on its asthetics, like arcitecture and fashion. Beauty and harmony as dominant factors got replaced by innovation, efficency and narcism.
For cheap social housing the answers are in this thread. But for unnecessarily expensive and inefficient skyscrapers these answers don't work out.
I guess it's to a large amount a result of the mental corruption of the elites.
However there is still hope:
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1022349&page=509#/topics/1022349?page=509

>>14253484
>No one has called this poster out for the soul sucking architecture of the Soviet Union and North Korea

>>14254776
>angled glass abominations posted in this thread end up costing far more than what a classically built gothic or neoclassical building would
Proofs? The glass abominations have standardized, repeated components, glass windows, right angles, smooth, continuous surfaces, with perhaps some stylistic variations. While I agree it's not all about saving money or getting the most bang for your buck, the standardization of glass high rises reflects a similar standardization in say, business attire. Suits are the same glossy and predictable, reliable and expected.

Capitalism is also adverse to ideological statements, and perhaps one can make the claim that architectural styles from the past carry too much inferential value. Modern architecture and to a great extent art and fashion etc wants to avoid making statements, avoid embodying a worldview. Because in formlessness is permanence and operational efficiency. Simple, reduced geometrical shapes and polygonal surfaces will never go out of style or be associated with a given time, because they are the basic components out of which all other styles are constructed. There is a lot of boring safety in contemporary aesthetics.

>>14253429
a pattern language

Mass production induces common repetitions and mediocre designs. However you can find unique, artisan crafts wherever there is money and a privately directed vision. There is more of everything now today and to get things to scale properly you need to standardize and sacrifice form over function.

>>14256703
>Capitalism is also adverse to ideological statements

I think a lot of the concrete boxes like the ones in the first few images really are just cost-cutting and fear of artistic expression, but when it comes to the glass boxes, I disagree. When you work in one you find out that they're a ridiculous heating systems nightmare, heating up like crazy on the sunlit side while the aircon struggles, and ridiculously inefficient in winter. Weirdly, the windows are often nonfunctional for safety reasons while causing obvious problems in terms of security/leaving computers on the ground floor.

There are some good-looking steel and glass things, but companies investing in them are making an symbolic statement of modernity because they're built in a way that didn't used to be possible and is still sort of technically stupid.

>>14255028
Bit stupid to show the aerial view, which would also not flatter Venice. More to the point is this image - uniformity, a sort of multinational consensus of 'classy' design. Minor modular varitions as personality. Better at being American than America is.

>>14253460
fuuck me, that is gorgeous

>>14256989
this pic is giving me heavy anxiety, who would want to live there, what the hell

>>14255562
Oh God it's one of you.

>>14255562
Why do females think anything with 4 syllables is a "big boy word"?

>>14256688
This.
I'm from a post-soviet nation and the soviet era architecture here is infamously low quality and ugly.

It began with commieblocks.

>>14253429
Dutch politician Thierry Baudet has a book titled "Oikofobie" which has a chapter dealing with architecture. Not sure if it's been translated to English, "Oikophobia". It's exactly what you're looking for.

>>14253688
Sure, that's why Calatrava ruined New York, Seville, and the Liege train station. To name a few.

>>14253980
Because this board is fucking dead. >>14257386 also wrote his doctoral dissertation under Scruton and is heavily influenced by him. Thing is I'm just not sure how much of his work has been translated. You can read his doctoral dissertation "The Significance of Borders" for free online

Years later, anon is still crossposting these same images. Why?

The geography of nowhere is a good book on the subject

>>14254859
Eh, what do you mean?

>>14257447
Poles are white niggers and aren't good for anything besides being oven fuel.

>>14253584
>if beauty is subjective then why not build structures as cheeply and efficiently as possible and eventually people will get used to them and think they're beautiful
but that's not what happened. Le Corbusier, Mies and other early modernists got praise long before modernist architecture was the norm.
It is true that modernism in architecture is the artistic expression of capitalist rationalism, you just got the timeline wrong.

>>14253484
But logic would have to take into account the emotional, since it's a fundamental aspect of people.
The dim view that logic is somehow antithetical to emotions, when the only beings that are capable of logic are driven by emotions (even the desire to be logical, is still a desire) is harmful and gives birth to atrocities like commie blocks and brutalism.

>>14253688
>why rebuilding them even more beautiful as a testament of beauty over atrocity when we can just build cement boxes and cans to stick people in

>>14257496
Most people are still not ready to accept that humans are primarily driven by emotions and not logic/rationality.

>>14253429
Eastern hemisphere cities aren't ugly. They're quite aesthetic, which is why they're often used as locations in movies.

>>14257538
If you're talking about Eastern European countries, one of which I live in, you're dead wrong. Only the city centers are aestetic, and that's because they were built by either the Austrians back before the world wars. The rest of the cities are a dystopian hellscape, made so by communism.

>>14257554
>Eastern European countries
Nah, I'm talking about cities in China and Japan mostly. They're aesthetically different from our cities; they have more unconventionally designed streets and alleys and use of lights and crosswalks and signs, they regularly blend homely small town vibe with urban vibe in their architectural designs, and their fashion sense is different making the people there part of the background for tourists.

OP, you may be interested into this documentary from a conservative philosopher:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

look up why beauty matters on youtube.

>>14253841
You’re absolutely correct. All a society can be is an extended group of human beings. Whatever those human being value will be what a society values and will change to reflect that. When a society doesn’t reflect the desires of the human beings with it is when violence bubbles up.

>>14253429
Aesthetics are objective. There are buildings that objectively uplift people in them and around them, and buildings that objectively depress and oppress them.
Whenever some architect with a well-designed private house in the suburbs lauds himself on another faceless soulless box he "designed" to keep you depressed, just spit into his lying face. Point in case - Le Corbusier's private house as opposed to the shit he planned for the plebs he despised.

>>14253484
>Capitalism
You don't say.
Here is Russia we call not_Capitalism buildings 'karatel'naya arkhitektura'. Punitive Architecture. Specifically designed to keep you anxious and afraid. Bonus - they are dirt cheap too.

>>14253429
Tom Wolfe's From Bauhaus to our House.
I dont agree with all his points but it's a very funny book.

>ME NO LIKE NEW THING AAAHHHH

>>14253688
Here's the birmingham library through the ages. The Victorian neo-classical building was 'not fit for purpose' and the modernists couldn't think of any other possible use for it, so it was knocked down. The Brutalist building, which won many awards and was built like a nuclear bunker, lasted 40 years. It isn't actually on the site of the old library, so they knocked down some other fine victorian buildings to build it. The new PoMo library is on a different site again and looks like mall. Will they refurbish it when it looks tired and ratty in 30 years time? Or will everyone get tired of it's shitty plastic gucci hand bag styling and just demand it be knocked down?

>>14257721
Here's the square before and after. All those buildings were demolished in the 70s, not during the war. The old library is on the left.
They're now building generic office buildings on the site.

>>14257752
truly the end of times. from now on everything will be sterile steel and glasses

>>14257604
If he actually think he's got anything insightful to say you need to get your brain checked lmao. Dude is a fucking brainlet. I remember watching a full hour tv propaganda program of his on youtube. The title initially intrigued me, was something along the lines of 'where has beauty gone' (meaning in the 20th century). Scruton proceeded the following hour to deploy baseless rants against modernism, really anything in art, architecture, music et al. that had been invented after 1900. At one point he spent several minutes pacing around some mediocre 70s municipal building located in London, if I recall correctly, and decrying its alleged ugliness. The thing was not beautiful by any means, but judging from how its mere existence triggered the guy, I kept thinking they must have demolished his childhood home to erect the thing. Not very convincing, too emotional, too agitated.
I just cant' take guys like this seriously anymore. Not when artists like pic related have existed and created during this period.

>>14257773
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when people like >>14257697 can't recognise the degradation in design quality and the impact it has on the soul of a people.
For completeness, the new Paradise Square. The one constant has been the neo-gothic memorial, which seems to be a tiny touch of humanity taunting 20th century architects with its intrinsic superiority. They've had to stick some shitty fountains around it for some reason, the assholes.

>>14253429
It came from Socialist Realism. I live in Poland and Kraków is a wonderful example of what I'm talking about. Essentially, you have a very beautiful and historic Old Town district that survived the war relatively unharmed. Nearby is Nowa Huta which was built by the Socialists in their concept for a model Proletarian City. It is souless but has now become a trendy hipster area so its not as bad as it was originally. It is haunting when you consider the details.

Regardless, contemporary art and architecture is Marxist thus souless.

>>14257554
The first thing that came to mind when I saw that picture is someone hanging himself inside.

Fundamentally, it is a metaphysical issue. The common argument how the sole purpose of contemporary architecture is efficiency does not hold water. Having people penned up like cattle in hideous residential objects is a recipe for collective depression, i.e. inefficiency.

A civilization is like an organism and is bound to, sooner or later, die. We are living in the endgame.

>>14255564

>>14256688
It's still materialism. Basically the same thing.

rectangular buildings made from glass that shine brightly in the night > everything else

>>14257636
But money is in itself a means to an end, the problem is not just a pursuit of money but rather where we direct that money to, give your average man a million bucks and he’ll immediately buy himself a car. Consequently cars have become exceedingly powerful machines. Were aesthetics for their own sake valued then capital would naturally flow to their production. The issue then is who or what forces have directed our cultural values. The problem is paradoxically art itself, art is a self destroying beast because art exploits mans natural laziness and the appeal of simulation. Eventually the artist becomes a work of art in itself, or rather an image, and we value not the art itself but the qualities we associate with artsiness. This is why so many modern artists are preoccupied with self image. Ultimately all our interactions are mediated by images of images of images of images etc. All art is a deviation from true beauty because true beauty cannot be replicated, it repeats recursively until it becomes incomprehensible nonsense like pic related.

I'm honestly surprised anyone cares at all. Just goes to show how right wingers are pretty much babies that'll complain about meaningless things constantly trying to pretend they actually matter.
Who the fuck cares about how some building looks when people are fucking starving?

>>14258287
who's starving?

>thus of ould
Materials expensive, labour cheap.
>thus now
Materials cheap, labour expensive

Decorative twiddly bits are labour intensive but not material intensive, and so we don't do them anymore. In the old days building a building was enormously expensive and so they were a much bigger deal. It was easy to stick twiddly bits on because the hard part is actually getting all that fancy rock halfway around the world with all the fucking pirates around. Sure you can just mass produce the decorative bits but then you end up with McMansion-style garbage.

In addition, architecture has become more "artistic". Art is not about decoration (anyone who thinks the sole purpose of art is to be decorative is a fucking brainlet) but about exploration. Muh beautiful buildings have already been fully explored. Now we're exploring what kinds of cuhrazee shit we can do with new science.

Building developers want the prestige of making art, not the meh of building dated shit from last century.

Anyway it doesn't look as good as you think it does. Go to New York - all the old buildings just look sad.

>>14257902
>a recipe for collective depression, i.e. inefficiency.
That assumes our culture and civilization is optimized to maximize human happiness. It almost assuredly is not. It's built to optimize corporate profits.

>>14255568
'The Jews' does not mean all Jews. Harold Bloom and Bobby Fischer are examples of Jews who were not part of 'the Jews'.

>>14258333
>Sure you can just mass produce the decorative bits but then you end up with McMansion-style garbage.
They mass produced the decorative twee bits in the 19th century and they looked fine. McMansions are bad because boomers lack taste and thing bigger is better, and the whole thing is made out of glued wood chips.
>Art is not about decoration (anyone who thinks the sole purpose of art is to be decorative is a fucking brainlet) but about exploration.
Lol, what a confident definition of what art is.
>Muh beautiful buildings have already been fully explored. Now we're exploring what kinds of cuhrazee shit
That's it, we've finished building nice buildings, lets get on with building ugly buildings
>we can do with new science.
You should read what architects write about science. They wouldn't know what a double blind experiment was if it spit roasted them.

>he doesn't understand modernism and postmodernism
>he thinks postmodernism is when you are contrarian to everything or when you are lgbt tranny
>he thinks cheap buildings are art
>he thinks context doesn't matter
yep, sounds like a very severe case of midwit

>>14258333
>old NY is sad
I disagree, I think there’s something charming about the old school tenement style housing you can still find around the city, or the completely unaffordable brownstones that are at least pretty to look at. it’s the new yuppie stuff that’s depressing for me

>>14258359
revisionist. either the Jews are a blight on society, or they are a positive influence — or they are a varied social group no different from anyone else. pick an option

>>14258508
religious Jews/poor Jews != elite secular globalist Jews
It's not because they're Jewish, it's just that they're nepotists. Go to Buzzfeed and you can find plenty of black people and Asians who are Jewed.

>>14258287
ah yes, the mystical starving children of africa I've been hearing about since the '90s

>>14257088
>>14257089
Still waiting for that objective definition of beauty btw

>>14256607
No he means waged war you autist.
No one with a triple digit IQ sees Germany as a victim instead of a perpetrator.

>>14258920
Is the lack of an objective defintion of a subjective opinion the reason why everyone should live in concrete commie blocks?

>>14254127
>I don't buy the narrative that our tastes have changed and that we prefer flat surfaces over decorations now.
That's not quite right. The average person doesn't think about buildings at all. They have no preference for anything.

>>14253429
I agree but Brutalism is patricia.

>>14253878
Doesn't have to be a cathedral. Just not a soul destroying zog box.

>>14259209
>*patrician for niggers
ftfy

>>14253526
>hurr durr all opinions are equally valid
>hurr durr I got no aesthethic criterion because I'm a retard

>>14259231
The ones on the right are more interesting. The ones on the left are boxes with tiny windows.

>>14259310
they're aberrations. It's like saying a deformed baby is more interesting than a normal one

>>14258287
Excellent meme. Belarusians have a folk ornament used in knitting, "zhytnaja baba", roughly "wheat woman" (among other symbols like "the tree of life", "the sky fire", "the mounted sun god" etc.), supposedly it means most other Slavs have the same ornament somewhere from like 3000 years ago or so. Maybe the Balts too. Others seems to have lost the ancient art.
Isn't that miraculous? Millenia pass, but the men still want the same. A wheat woman.
> when people are fucking starving?
Modernites can't recognize the manifold nature of societal ills, like ugly architecture and starving population are interrelated and have a common cause.

Brainlets with pre-packaged opinions. Good God, I shudder to think just how much power the Brahmans wielded by weaving intricate fairy tales for brainlets to live by and die for. The Internet hasn't changed a thing, if anythign the Brahmans are ever more powerful by reaching even more retards with their fairy tales.

easy to point out just the awful modernist buildings

>>14259721
and not the good ones :)

Harassment Architecture by Mike Ma, specifically his anti-beauty segment

>>14259344
>a deformed baby is more interesting than a normal one

Well, it is.

>>14256688
Ah the soviet union of 1760

>>14258270
I have the sense that you're stating something very profound, that I cannot yet gauge fully. Care to elaborate?

>>14253460
This is Toronto by the way.

>>14260615
You seem like the type of person that hangs out around dumpsters and gets pegged
>inb4 takes one to know one
I had a childhood friend who turned out like you. Really disgusts me that I ever spoke to him desu.

>>14253429
economics. function over form.

>>14259231
There's something so disingenuous about buildings of the type hsown left being constructed in this day and age. It's not better than the dictator mansions you hear about, or the Trump tower interior design. Eclecticism at its worst, anyone with even a modicum of taste will agree those ahistorical historicist zombie buildings have no necessity to exist.

>>14261162
>being this triggered by stones
Wow I think we're on to something bros.

>>14253670
>it's the fault of the Jews.

Modern day jews are all hardcore capitalists and they also happen to control most of the capital.

>>14254827
>clean

Are you fucking blind?

>>14256989
Dubai should be nuked.

>>14261296
They have a really shit aesthetic as a people was his point I believe. Have you ever seen the abortions they build in Tel Aviv and consider an attractive building or even a normal one?

>>14257752
Made my eyes water a bit. This is desponding.

>>14257752
My chest hurts now

From Bauhaus to Our House

>>14256989
How does this not make you feel dead inside? Are you being ironic here?

>>14261326
Extremely based

>>14253429
Because a small minority owns more public and private space together than the large majority. Why would rich fucks give a shit about what all their buildings really look like? They're just farms for their money. They don't spend their time in one place, they're citizens of the world of course!

>>14253460
The exhibit itself is decent, at least. I don't like how they make you enter through it, though. The previous main entrance is gorgeous (which you can still easily access)

>>14253506
>soul

kys

>>14261605
>The exhibit itself is decent
In what way

I feel like a part of why most modernist and brutalist buildings are seen as ugly by many people, is that they were inherently tied to the optimist believe in progress and the future dominant in that era, causing them, together with natural weathering, to turn into nasty eyesores when these beliefs faded away over the 80s and 90s.

>>14256989
The aerial view is to show how stupid and kitschy it is. Look at that fucking world map. Look at this inorganic shit. Now look at an aerial view of Venice. You can see how organic it is. The grand canal has grace.

>>14253895
Problem is it's wrong. Everyone buils ugly shit now regardless of being bombed 70 years ago

>>14257721

Is it me, or does the newest building give of muslim oriental vibes?

>Birmingham

Welp that answers it.

>>14253637
It generally does but not in all cases, buildings often have to be approved by public councils and needless to say they don't look kindly upon anything that could be a reminder of tradition, these are the same people that approves and subsidizes giant buttplugs and abstract assfucking expositions
It's not something new either, for instance I've read the following quote in tony judt's postwar history of europe:
>When in march 1959, the council of buildings of France approved the design of the future Tour Montparnasse, their report concluded:" Paris cannot afford to lose herself in her past. In the years to come, Paris must undergo imposing metamorphoses"
So really it comes down to capitalism and ideologues fucking everything up as always

>>14253484
Based and screencapped. Tell me again /lit/ isn't the best board when people like this anon post stuff like that. I agree 100%, fuck greed.

>>14262612
>Screencapping that
You should start actually reading books so you aren't so easily impressed.

>>14253429

Decline of the West isn't about this specifically but basically explains how a culture exhausts itself and gradually and replaces its aesthetic, lyrical spirit with a mechanized and easy-to-replicate soulless style

Economies of scale. You can't fit the world's stinking millions in architectural masterpieces. It's easy to forget that classical Athens, for all its beauty and luster, was tiny by modern comparisons. The most architecturally sophisticated and artistically inspired city in the world at the time had roughly 150k inhabitants at its height, about half of whom were slaves. Each public building could then afford to be treated as a single, considered artistic jewel. Scale up to millions of grubby masses, and you must redesign your built environment to accomodate such throngs.

Aesthetics is always secondary to function. It's when we have surplus time and resources for it that we include aesthetics. Nowadays real estate agencies want to get buildings constructed as quickly as constraints will allow, and so they want to rely on a minimalist, "clean" aesthetic such as the all glass high rise. The Chrysler building with all its eye catching art deco motifs, also by no coincidence is a relatively short building.

>>14261733
But this thread is full of anons born after the turn complaining about them?

>>14253429
>regressed
Read Ornament and Crime by Adolf Loos.

>>14261001
Man first became aware of beauty at some point by experiencing it directly through nature, whether holding his first child, or surviving a battle, or seeing some remarkable place etc I do not even want to try and present examples because any example defeats my point. Anyways man creates society that allows specialisation, any such society will naturally limit individual experiences to greater and greater extents, but some people start to create images of beauty, simulations that allow a person to experience something they once did. A simple example would be most men today have never hunted, but biologically we are designed to hunt, so today when men watch movies that simulate aspects of hunting and these stimulate our sense and we perceive this as good. However we also have a critical flaw, because of innate wiring we suffer from association bias. The reason rich people used to accumulate beautiful things is it makes us think subconsciously that the rich people are special. So initially people worked really hard to cultivate the skill set necessary to produce beautiful things that referenced, initially, natural beauty. Then they developed the skills to reference the works of beauty others produced in the past (a simulation of a simulation) THEN it slowly started to be the case that humans lost touch with their original point of reference for beauty and essentially we started convincing ourselves of what was beautiful. This is the birth of the age of marketing. This is what leads women to believe Kim Kardashian is a goddess, because they have no real concept of beauty, only a concept of signals like “big lips = good” maybe originally “big lips = fertile and fertile = good” but we’ve lost that source point. Likewise the bias of association meant eventually we focused on the qualities of “being” an artist than what the artist produces. Which is why modern artists are all pretentious and must have these depressive characters while not really focusing on the craft at all. It’ll keep going on like this and well enter a more and more absurd reality because were just imitating imitations.

>>14262728
>any such society will naturally limit individual experiences to greater and greater extents

No.

How do you people lived in earlier societies. They had a territory, a food-getting method, they repeated it until they died. What do you think was more various exactly? It's a social animal living in a tribe. Maybe it was more common to, I don't know, make your own leather shoes, but I don't see this range of experiences that got closed off.

Christopher Alexander's The Nature of Order blames the phenomenon of ugly architecture on the bastardization of Descartes.

Alexander is a self-professed analytic, but his premise is his frustration that the modern world took too seriously Descartes' attempt to define physical phenomena by their mechanic function. For Descartes, object-as-machine was a heuristic, but scientists and architects treat atoms and buildings as "machines" now as a matter of definition. Under bastardized Descartes, anything that the building does not
mechanically "do" is irrelevant, because it's undefinable. What a building makes a person feel is not quantifiable, can't be part of the definition of the building, and therefore can't ever reach the mind of the architect.

The mechanical function of a building is that it can contain fifty beds, or that its grounds provide fifty sq. feet of off-street drainage, or its rental value is $1500 an apartment. And these values themselves are in competition with each other in the democratic machine of city building construction. Should the building prioritize density? Ecological sensitivity? Profitability? In the mind of the architect, city planner, city council, these values at war produce a bastard machine that can't do anything because it tries to do everything.

Even modern buildings that try to emulate classical styles have this hollowness about them, because they're performing the mechanical function of the building that reminds us of the way the city used to be, or the building that reminds us of the way the Romans might have built their buildings. There is nothing else in them, because their architects essentially misunderstand what order is.

Alexander tends to think that if architects understood that order contains both 'function' and 'ornament', it would be enough to set architecture on the right path again. I don't think so. He's still treating this remarriage as a means to obtain a machine that creates beautiful buildings, instead of cheap ones or green ones. How to escape that?

You could split powerful buildings of the past between hubris-ego buildings and "pleasing to the gods" buildings. In the former group, the windblown hutch on the steppe and the Egyptian pyramids. In the latter, the town-home and the Greek acropolis. Then both types of building contains a little of the other. And the society is weak without both types. And neither type materializes without architect feeling the sacrifice of the builder. They must either be the same person, or the builder's struggle must still be the architect's struggle (i.e. the pharaoh's loss of grain productivity when all of Egypt's slaves stop what they're doing and build pyramids for a hundred years).

Just dissolve the culture back into the tension between hubris and justice and Descartes' machines will let you go, and you will be able to make pretty buildings again. It's really just that easy.

Yes, there is a book on this exact topic which details exactly how it took hold - released a couple of years ago. But I can’t remember what it was called ‘Architectural Vandalism’ or something like that.

>>14256644
what about his post implies that? Are you just mad at your 15 yr old cousin who said something similar?

>>14253506
You mean a clear lack of familiarity which you mistake for humanity.

>>14253584
>There were threads about this a while ago, "if beauty is subjective then why not build structures as cheeply and efficiently as possible and eventually people will get used to them and think they're beautiful".
Whoever said this failed to account for the fact that people other than him will exist and continue to build vain and beautifully ornate structures.

>>14253484
Based anon. 100% agree.

>>14257881
If only. The actual first mental image of somebody who lived in one is of a gyppo family having an argument audible two apartments below.

>>14253484
Wrong. They go out of their way to do it. It’s intentional Jewish demoralisation facilitated by you stupid fucking commie faggots.

>>14262936

>ctrl+f
>no mention of Henri Lefebvre
Read pic related, especially chapter 7 and 11. It’s a tough read but it’s better than going through his original books. He is indispensable but a very bad writer, hence why reading a selection of essays is much more interesting.

>>14263030
the sad thing that these pictures don't show is how all cities look the same now. it's the same gimmicky corporate glass bullshit everywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Station_(1910%E2%80%931963)#/media/File:Penn_Station_concourse.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Station_(1910%E2%80%931963)#/media/File:Penn_Station_concourse.jpg

"One entered the city like a god; one scuttles in now like a rat."

>>14258508
They are different from everyone because they are rarely mediocre. They are either saints or complete monsters.

>>14259721
>>14259735
Why are most of the nice modernist buildings small scale? How come a brutalist house often looks fine while a brutalist city block looks like garbage?

I think the issue is that architecture is no longer organic. Old architecture is influenced by the spirit of its time, often built by whole communities, and therefore all buildings share common features. New architecture is completely cut off from the civilization it comes from. Buildings are born out of the vision of the architect only. At best there are some commonalities because architects influence each others but they are no longer influenced by their surrounding community.

>>14263075
This asshole wanted to raze Paris and tear down Berlin's old buildings.

OP in a hundred years
>waah why is architecture so shit today, back in the year 2000 everything was so beautiful. bahh have we forgotten what beauty is?

This thread is retarded. Old stuff looks good because it's old and also nostalgia. Modern stuff looks "bad" because we're used to it.

>>14253460

This looks fucking cool.

>>14253484
capital doesnt actually value logic or reason, all it values is speed and convenience in terms of the arts. in almost any developed american city all you'll see are these glass skyscrapers, sometimes in weird forms sometimes not. Glass skyscrapers were an early modernist invention meant for a specific purpose and were context dependent. they werent glass skyscrapers because it was cool but because a glas skyscraper overlooks the surroundings and the glass reflects light as well as give the building a sense of openness. capitalism doesnt care about this, it just saw the new form of the glass skyscraper and duplicated it again and again, ignoring the purpose of a glass skyscraper in the first place.

alot of these buildings are very much NOT form over function and functionalism is sort of a meme. the early modernists who came up with the ethos didnt really live up to it themselves.

t designer

>>14253484
>Yes I know that science and capitalism have given us the computers, the internet, medicine, telephones, aeroplanes, spaceships, music and film technology, and everything else that makes my life comfortable and interesting, b-but... FUCK logic and reason! what about nice building with emotions huh?! See us communists favour form over function that's why nothing works but at least it's pretty!

The fact that people found this post insightful or truthful only proves that this board is infested with literal 14 year olds.

>>14259735
modernist buildings were almost all shit to live in.

>>14263245
Exactly. >>14253484 isn't even correct on a technical level. It's just your typical "capitalism bad" dogma that is coming back into fashion on /lit/.

>>14262936

Jajajajaja, you New Yorkers got Calatrava'd.

>>14263254
i mean capitalism is still bad but yeah

>>14263228
You have to go back.

>>14263253
nonsene

>>14263267
nonsense

>>14263266
>I'm too thick to respond so I spout memes
Seems like reddit is the place for you dumb fuck

>>14263292
You have to go back.

>>14263250
not 14 year olds. this board is full of redditors.

>>14253439
I´m from Essen. And this shit makes my blood boil with pure anger.

>demoralization
>soul
>soulless
>spirit
>humanity
>faith
>beauty
>lifeless
>good/bad
can you explain/define what these terms mean to you and their context in art so we can understand your point better? it seems that you are arguing from a pure subjective and personal perspective

>>14253429
It is cheap to produce, therefore it is pushed relentlessly as being expressions of high-art. Also, the people who build these don't expect that the buildings will have a particularly long life. Mostly it's just disposable architecture.

>>14262936
Both in pic related look great, its low effort shit like the OP that the government needs to unironically step in to demolish and/or ban.

>>14256607
actual retarded faggot

>OLD GOOD NEW BAD

>>14257810
>degradation in design quality
New buildings are objectively much better in terms of energy efficiency, durability, repairability etc. etc.

>>14253484
Straight facts. The profit motive ruins everything, once again.

>>14263075
Fuck you, and the lazy "old good, new bad" spammer above. Zero braincells and zero fucking nuance.
Ruining a promising thread... Fuck you.

you really like art nouveau

>>14255564
how can you post this without realising how retarded you are
capitalism is the only reason why good architecture has ever existed, because rich boomers through the ages have had the disposable income to make buildings that aren't purely functional

>>14253429
Modern architecture can be beautiful too, but it's a very subtle kind of beauty and you need to know where to look at.
And no, sticking corinthian columns on facades is not the solution, it would be like going around wearing a toga or a ruff. Your dresses are simple and neat, your car and your computer are too, why do you need ornaments on your buildings?
We just need to find a new language like every other culture did before us, it's difficult but necessary, and imitation is not the way. Think like our ancestors, speak in our own language.

I will now post some "modern" architecture that imo follows this line of thought, if you're interested

Modernism, function over form. population explosion, and the general leftward swing ofthe world

>>14263890
Modern architecture can be beautiful but the choice to construct horrid pieces of shit instead

>>14263890
Dimitris Pikionis, Paths on the Acropolis and Philopappos hill, Athens, Greece, 1954–1957

A professor and his students built these paths that look like ancient ruins by hand using stone fragments, to reconnect with the past of their nation.

>>14259142
I don't think people actively think about buildings and architecture but it for sure touches the subliminal. Your surroundings will change your mood drastically, especially your upbringing. It doesn't help that ghetto areas around cities are all made in brutalistic concrete architecture. I'm not saying let's go all pastich american style suburban McMansions but you need to invest into beauty to have a healthy people

>>14263912
Hans van der Laan, S. Benedictusberg abbey, Vaals, Netherlands, 1956–1987

A benedictine abbot designed his own abbey in Netherlands.

>>14263910
>all architecture is the same

>>14263918
Sverre Fehn, Nordic pavilion, Venice, Italy, 1958–1962

The roof is built in order to reproduce a lighting similar to the one you’d find in a nordic forest.

>>14263923
Rafael Moneo, Roman art museum, Merida, Spain, 1979–1986

The museum is contructed similarly to ancient roman buildings.

>>14263918
>>all architecture is the same
modern architecture is.
Just like the pictures you're posting. horrid

>>14263912
>architecture
>>14263918
Looks like any random modern office/coffee shop
>>14263923
Pretentious garbage. Why are you trying this pseudo symbolism? I see many contemporary architects doing this type of crap and its just off putting
>>14263927
The only decent one of what you've posted

>>14263927
Giorgio Grassi, University library, Valencia, Spain, 1990
The library is built like a castle to “defend” the culture it contains.

>>14263933
legos

>>14263933
Álvaro Siza, Portuguese pavilion, Lisbon, Portugal, 1995–1998

Two pillars and a curtain define and protect the public space, while at the same time framing the ocean.

>>14263928
>>14263932
The only garbage here is your uninformed opinion
Please read some books on architecture

>>14263944
Paolo Zermani, Crematorium, Parma, Italy, 2006–2009

>>14263941
Yes, legos are actually tiny plastic bricks
The more you know

>>14263944
I've read plenty of books on architecture and aesthetics. I came to a different conclusion. What now?

>>14263944
>The only garbage here is your uninformed opinion
>Please read some books on architecture

"If you don't like what I like you have a garbage misinformed opinion"
lmao

>>14263949
Renato Rizzi, Shakespearian theatre, Dansk, Poland, 2014

>>14263952
Which books have you read?
What is you conclusion?
What are your examples of good contemporary architecture?

>>14263933
bland

>>14253429
I think you might like this book, anon.

>>14263960
>What is you conclusion?
modern architecture is shit

>What are your examples of good contemporary architecture?
there are none

>>14263933
quite ugly

>>14263960
Total eye sore.
Reminds me of black mold.
Everything else looks quite comfy though.

>>14263960
>Which books have you read?
De architectura
Ornament and Crime
And many others on aesthetics, mostly greeks

>What is you conclusion?
That contemporary architects don't understand their job as shapers of our public space, and are often malicious in their intents.

>What are your examples of good contemporary architecture?
While I generally dislike our contemporary styles in Sweden, I think there are good examples. One good example is pic related in Norway, Oslo. A new area they are building for office spaces. I think this is quite hard to pull off though and most architects fail dreadfully. One quote I like that is often used is "modern architecture fits very well amongst other buildings, but looks ugly amongst other modern buildings". I believe that is true

>>14263964
Why are you comparing a 19th century chapel to a 20th century library?
Why do you judge "blandness" on the basis of the amount of ornament?
The left one for example is actually way more bland than the right one, because the architect just took a generic latin cross plan and slammed random decorations on it, while the architect on the right actually made an effort to say something: nobody cares about culture anymore and we need a castle to defend it.

>>14263971
Nice nihilism babby

>>14263983
If you can't see the resemblance between the theatre and the church in the background I don't know what to say
Also maybe the next time bother to check out plans, sections and other pics of buildings, instead of judging instinctively based on a random pic

>>14263998
>That contemporary architects don't understand their job as shapers of our public space, and are often malicious in their intents.
Most of them are, but there are exception luckily.
Aldo Rossi's "The Architecture of the City" deals with this problem: he was one of the first modern architects to realize buildings are not self-referential objects but parts of the city.

>>14264036
>Why are you comparing a 19th century chapel to a 20th century library?
because why not.

>Why do you judge "blandness" on the basis of the amount of ornament?
because what you posted was very bland

>The left one for example is actually way more bland than the right one
wrong

>the architect just took a generic latin cross plan and slammed random decorations on it, while the architect on the right actually made an effort to say something: nobody cares about culture anymore and we need a castle to defend it.
yet it is more decorative and beautiful than your legos

>If you can't see the resemblance between the theatre and the church in the background I don't know what to say
yeah the church and the houses actually look nice

>>14264036
>Also maybe the next time bother to check out plans, sections and other pics of buildings, instead of judging instinctively based on a random pic
I'm judging the garage buildings your posting.

>>14264091
>>14264096
Do you really believe the meaning of architecture resides in ornaments? That's sad and demeaning for architecture.
Forms in architecture are just a way to convey meaning, just like words in a text.
And the purpose of architecture is not to please your eye (because taste is subjective and can change in time, see pic related which was hated at the time of its construction), but to represent the ideals of a society in a way that is understandable by everyone, even after centuries. And this is achieved by taking from history, technology and nature what the architect believes to be necessary to represent the reason for which the building is constructed.
Architecture is way deeper than its image, never judge it superficially. You wouldn't judge a book for its typeface – sure, maybe a shitty typeface can be annoying and slow your reading speed, but the meaning of the book is something else.

>>14264188
Take a look at pic related, these are houses designed in the 1930s by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, which is considered one of pioneers of the modern movement. These plan are basically identical to roman domus.

>>14264193
The same can be said for le Corbusier's "unité d'habitation", which is just a stack of gothic houses.

>>14264247
In modern architecture are more connections with the past than you can expect, they are just less superficial and more subtle. We cannot imitate the past, just learn from it and do our own thing.

>>14262759
You don’t grasp how many people literally drive through along highways all day long, sit in an office staring at a screen all day long, then drive home with just enough energy to crack open some beers and watch tv with a microwave meal. You are probably in your early 20s and are in college trying out all kinds of fun societies. Once you’re in your late twenties you’ll realise the vast vast majority of consumers have extremely limited experiences. For example imagine a near death experience, in the past virtually every human would have had many regular near death experiences. This is necessary for developing a life affirming worldview. Remember happiness is defined biologically and we are biologically not evolved to exist in modern societies. Any objective attempt to try and reason otherwise is intellectually dishonest and caused by the precise mediation of imagery that is endemic to modern man.

>>14264188
>Do you really believe the meaning of architecture resides in ornaments? That's sad and demeaning for architecture.

the meaning of architecture resides inits beauty

>Forms in architecture are just a way to convey meaning, just like words in a text.
Correct. and that is exactly was these PoMo buildings do, convay to ugliness of the time we live and the people who built them.

>And the purpose of architecture is not to please your eye (because taste is subjective and can change in time, see pic related which was hated at the time of its construction), but to represent the ideals of a society in a way that is understandable by everyone, even after centuries. And this is achieved by taking from history, technology and nature what the architect believes to be necessary to represent the reason for which the building is constructed
Correct. society has highly degenerated from what it once was and as a result so has the beauty of our art.

>>14264188
>but to represent the ideals of a society in a way that is understandable by everyone, even after centuries. And this is achieved by taking from history, technology and nature what the architect believes to be necessary to represent the reason for which the building is constructed.

disgusting utopianism. no. get out. no boomers allowed.

>>14263189
Modernism was able to come up with creative and expressive solutions for the family unit or the individual, but failed spectacularly on the collective level.

>>14264036
anon, I appreciate the pics you posted. It seems most of the architects are Italian or mediterranean (Carlo Scarpa is another I can appreciate). And mostly employing stone instead of glass, steel, etc. Maybe that says something

>>14254845
>Bauhaus
so that's where the inspiration for these shitty boxy concrete buildings in my third world shithole came from

>>14265668
That's not because of the Bauhaus, sweetie, it's because boxes are the most efficient way of housing people and furnishing rooms.

>>14263061
>>14263058
>>14263055
I wonder how many of these buildings (and others ITT) were annihilated in WW2. It's a bit understandable that rebuilding them would not result in a 1:1 recapitulation.

>>14265681
boxes don't have to look boxy

>>14263102
Very relevant essay The Horror Of Sameness. About how globalism has given rise to a universal political fear about homogenization

https://aeon.co/essays/left-and-right-are-both-gripped-by-an-identical-fear-homogeneity

>>14253484
good. capitalists have a clear cut idealist goal while moralfags will consistently trip over themselves trying to right wrongs and ironically hindering society in the process

Still looks beautiful to this day

has "junkspace" been mentioned yet?

The only powers in the world that have global reach are multinational corporations. They virally replicate their brand and symbols everywhere in the world, the satanic M of mcdonalds, the licentious Coca-Cola cursive sign, Disney's nefarious mouse ears. These mutlinationals are able to determine the aesthetic character of the public spaces over the span of the entire world. Like yeast consuming all the glucose in a petri dish until it reaches the maximum extent of the space available, the multinationals replicate their signs until the entire world is filled to capacity with them. It's a lot harder to fill the world with beautiful things when you are competing against incredibly rich and logistically efficient multinationals for defining the look and character of the cityscape.

I've spoken to a couple of architectures and they all seem to be experiencing a multi-decade long mental breakdown, everybody apart from a very small percentage of population hates everything you've ever designed, your clientele's taste rapidly that you'll be forcibly retired by 40, more people probably know the name of the person who donated the bench in the park next to your building than you.

>>14263476
Yes.

>>14263498
Blatantly false.
>energy efficiency
This is where you’re most wrong. Pre-WWII buildings were built for the climate they were in because they didn’t have aircon and shit. Hot places had large rooms with high ceilings and the opposite for cold places. Stone and wood are natural insulators whereas glass and steel buildings would be death traps without hundreds of aircons pumping 24/7.
>durability
Wooden houses from the Middle Ages have held up better than the brutalist eyesores of the sixties.
>repairability
No. Old buildings are the easiest to repair. You just need some wood and stone. For modern ones you need all sorts of expensive materials from all over the world to do anything. You are unironically brainwashed by the cult of technology and “progress”.

>>14266041
>hates everything you've ever designed
Whose fault is that?

>>14266540
the jews'?

>>14266482
Awful response.

>>14266545
>zero arguments
fuck off

>>14266041
When you design shit like this you deserve all the hate and ridicule you get.

>>14266720
this is a cool looking building

>>14266545
lol brainlet

IT'S NOT FAIR BROS

>>14266720
better than the vernacular nonarchitecture in front

If you think cities are boring, imagine what the children thinks of them. A few decades ago kids could roam the streets and actually play in them. They didn't need to worry about cars killing them or anything. There were whole neighborhoods in which walking around the streets, not the pavement, was ok. Now try to put one single obstacle in the middle of the street and see what happens to you in a matter of minutes.

>>14266726
you're a fag

>>14263039
This one hurts.

>>14266864
>There were whole neighborhoods in which walking around the streets, not the pavement, was ok.
this is the suburban reality

>A few decades ago kids could roam the streets and actually play in them. They didn't need to worry about cars killing them or anything.
is it legal to be this retarded?

>>14266806
actually its very, very fair
modern architecture is a direct reflection of society and culture-at-large

>OLD GOOD

>NEW BAD

how many times have we had this thread?
how many times is it - I assume - the same person posting the same pictures comparing modern to older buildings in the same location?

imagine being a man of letters, a classically-trained aesthete who knows well & true that the pinnacle of beauty lies in the European craftsmanship of classical and baroque styles
you go to China, the rising power of the world, to see what their architecture is, and you get six-figure DABBED ON, like straight SHITTED ON, by a PAIR OF LEGS, opening to a glass & steel vagina prime for sweet & sour sex

>>14268571
you try to find the closest library, the last refuge of taste and wisdom, to be among the stacks...and you're confronted with this monstrosity! do you stop? gasp? go into shock? vomit, as the hordes of chinautomatons pass by, and police units swarm to arrest you?

>>14268575
you are released from custody upon admission of your overwhelment at the mere sight of modern architecture.
you return to your hotel to grieve for beauty; to write sonnets for subtlety; to lament the loss of *true* aesthetics...

>>14268584
its okay...its just an opera house...it cant hurt you

>>14268588
but no, really, the issue here is that Chinese is the most esoteric language thats not some obscure indigenous hill-tongue that never developed a writing system. how are we supposed to adapt? that's right, we don't.

>>14268596
back in the day...we had horse & carriage...that's all we needed...none of these fancy-schmancy magnetic, driverless, hyperloopy commiecars. and you know what? we were better for it!

>>14268598
it grinds my gears a wee bit, yes it does; that this thread hit the bump limit before I even got in! but best be assured, OP's foppity ass will post this whinefest AGAIN and I will be here AGAIN posting modern architecture...maybe even some brutalism

>>14268610
it's gonna be JUST like one of those GTA:SA memes - "aww shit, hee we go ageen"; and much like the great cycle of trends, we will dance the same tango - I, with my based modern architecture; and yee, with your whinging and pouting about old stone buildings

>>14268616
what's...beautiful, about all of this, is that there will only be more modern architecture built, and no more neoclassical palaces getting built

>>14268622
we'll be doing this forever, I swear - the eternal dance of yin & yang, of young & old, of black & white...as if beauty wasn't subjective at all!

>>14268628
perhaps you hold out hope, that such is all a civilizational fever dream, that tomorrow we wake afresh; and break our glass facades for stone flocks to return to