/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15438193]

Architects have done more damage to the West than drug dealers have. Any books that explain why modern world has turned so aesthetically ugly?

[Anonymous No.15438200]

[Anonymous No.15438207]

>>15438193
the crisis of our age by pitirim sorokin

[Anonymous No.15438215]

>>15438193
>>15438200
>post photos showing distinct, yet equally vapid architecture
Just stop. You're turning a movement into a meme.

[Anonymous No.15438228]

Permanent structures were a grave mistake

[Anonymous No.15438334]

>>15438193
Anything by Christopher Alexander.

[Anonymous No.15438362]

>>15438193
It started with the destruction of the two imperialist wars, so the explanation starts here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1917/imperial/

[Anonymous No.15438370]

>>15438193
Beauty by Roger Scruton, and watch his documentary Why Beauty Matters on youtube, only the one with Portuguese subtitles is available since it's been silenced

[Anonymous No.15438377]

>>15438193
Das Kapital

[Anonymous No.15438395]

For an extremely liberal and cosmopolitan city Melbourne preserved its architecture quite a lot

[Anonymous No.15438398]

>>15438395
and polluted it with endless Chinese style spreadsheet apartments

[Anonymous No.15438818]

>>15438395
>Melbourne preserved its architecture quite a lot
can't you see what's right before you eyes?

[Anonymous No.15438919]

>>15438370
that documentary is pure garbage that disregards everything on philosophy about beauty

[Anonymous No.15438946]

>>15438395
good
UofA is pretty comfy desu, I like going here, far better than soulless Flinders

[Anonymous No.15439052]

>>15438193
This is a very complicated question I wish I knew the answer. Some of it is clearly ideological which is observable in the visual arts in general. Some of it is economic in the basic sense of rationalization and in the broader concerning democratization. But it seems to me that the fundamental reason has to be spiritual. The uglyness of architecture does not seem like an improper reflection of society in general. I have not heard of any thinker who has been able to conclusively explain what is going on, people who try tend to produce lamentations.

[Anonymous No.15439061]

>>15438395
>For an extremely liberal
pretty sure they vote labor you dipshit

[Anonymous No.15439070]

It's a building, who the fuck cares.

[Anonymous No.15439138]

>>15438193
Bottom is better.
Fuck motifs and aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.15439219]

>>15438818
Comparably you retard

[Anonymous No.15439243]

Even if an architect would design something beautiful, it would turn out ugly once the the building firm starts buying the cheapest materials for everything

[Anonymous No.15439261]

>>15438215
Impressive mental gymnastics you have going on there, l*ftoid.

[Anonymous No.15439271]

>>15439138
Now try living in it.

I live in a modernist city with a small historic center and people always gather around the old buildings because they offer the only spaces where we feel truly at home.

Modernism is just terrible. There's no excuse for it. Is there good modernism? Yeah, people like Frank Lloyd Wright were good, but they built houses for millionaires, while for us normal people modernism is basically commieblocks all the way.

[Anonymous No.15439400]

>>15439271
This, retards on the internet can be all contrarian and jerk off about how the old evil buildings are only liked by white incels or whatever the fuck but I live in a similar situation, almost everyone I've ever talked to or heard talk about it fucking hates the new modernist buildings and loves the old stuff.

[Anonymous No.15439415]

>>15439400
>>15439271
This is the norm everywhere I have ever lived.

[Anonymous No.15439426]

>>15438193
you're right anon
here are some architects on the way right now

[Anonymous No.15439623]

>>15438193
personal cars ruined cities more than modernist architecture

[Anonymous No.15439661]

I don't usually blame capitalism for everything. But it IS more economically efficient to cut costs on mere aesthetic design.

[Anonymous No.15439752]

>>15439070
Do you not wish
To love your home?

[Anonymous No.15439770]

>>15438193
materials used

[Anonymous No.15441103]

bump

[Anonymous No.15441131]

>>15439623
Holy based
Cage haters rise up

[Anonymous No.15441133]

>NOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST BUILD EFFICIENT AND USABLE STRUCTURES NOOO MY BALCONYRINOS

[Anonymous No.15441195]

>>15441133
>NOOOOOO DON'T MAKE ANYTHING ENJOYABLE DON'T MAKE ANYTHING THAT YOU'LL BE HAPPY TO WORK OR LIVE IN EVERYTHING HAS TO BE GREY CUBES

[Anonymous No.15441225]

>>15438193
I don't see anything special about the building on top

[Anonymous No.15441240]

Check out Debords writing

[Anonymous No.15441511]

hurrrrrr old building good. look at these cherry picked pictures! survival bias? never heard of him.

[Anonymous No.15441522]

>>15438215
depth aside, the 2015 picture is a lot more superficially ugly.

[Anonymous No.15441563]

>>15439661
In short term, yeah. But isn't it better in long term for the country to promote the mental well-being, creativeness, spirituality or perhaps cultural belonging of the generations that will live in there?
Can you imagine places like these fostering productive members of society that will want to remain and benefit their community and not immigrate elsewhere?

[Anonymous No.15441596]

>>15441511
my political philosophy is whatever will bring the people who make things like this to justice

[Anonymous No.15441616]

>>15441511

[Anonymous No.15441626]

>>15441511
This sort of thing was built in comparably total poverty and ignorance.

[Anonymous No.15441633]

>>15441596
so you can reward them? that is a beautiful building

[Anonymous No.15441637]

>>15441563
Just put some trees in the inside, problem solved

[Anonymous No.15441641]

>>15441511

[Anonymous No.15441651]

>>15441626
Now just imagine the same street with a bunch of trash and a bum pissing in the alley

[Anonymous No.15441669]

>>15441511
>>15441616
>>15441626

Now compare to this
sort of thing built by advanced industrial civilization with a broadly educated citizenry.

[Anonymous No.15441681]

>>15441651
or this.

[Anonymous No.15441696]

>>15441681
>>15441669
disgusting

[Anonymous No.15441697]

>>15441669
Love the bridge, not a fan of the apartment buildings but they aren't the worst

[Anonymous No.15441702]

>>15441633
nah

[Anonymous No.15441732]

>>15438193
>old good, new bad
Nah

[Anonymous No.15441741]

>>15441697
I didn't select for worst, I chose what you find everywhere. If anything those apartments are among the less insulting contructions.

[Anonymous No.15441757]

>>15438193
you mean automobile infrastructure

[Anonymous No.15441758]

>>15441732
Here's the street view.

[Anonymous No.15441786]

>>15441596
These buildings are like one in ten million

[Anonymous No.15441787]

>>15441758
Unironically better than any Victorian era garbage, I'll take vibrant colors and fun over sexually repressed elf huts

[Anonymous No.15441795]

>>15441758

[Anonymous No.15441798]

>>15441626
>>15441616
>Why can't everything look like these famous tourist areas!

[Anonymous No.15441801]

>>15441758
That looks awful

[Anonymous No.15441808]

>>15441758
My biggest complaint about Japan is all the electrical wiring and telephone poles out in the open

[Anonymous No.15441810]

>>15441795
Reminds me of elderly people

[Anonymous No.15441811]

>>15441616
>>15441626
>>15441641
>>15441669
>>15441681
>>15441741

sure the first ones are built in total poverty and ignorance but were restored to our romanticized view of before. these buildings never looked like that in the past.

>I didn't select for worst
you did. notice how the good old buildings are basking in sunshine or have a beautiful sunset behind them while the new stuff is portrayed with an ominous grey sky.

[Anonymous No.15441830]

>>15441808
i like the intimate chaos they got going on with the wiring

[Anonymous No.15441833]

>>15441133
Why are bugmen like you even on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.15441843]

>>15441732
>a whole city of ugly buildings
What did you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.15441852]

>>15441798
These might have become famous but reality is that there are thousands of them. There's no famous architect or whatever who built that, neither have these places been of national or even particular regional importance. It's an aestethically fortunate but not unusual construction. Just houses of normal people the equivalent of which would be pic related.

[Anonymous No.15441860]

>>15441810
It's actually a very young student town and the university is a 15 minute walk from that spot.

[Anonymous No.15441865]

>>15441811
These ominous pictures came up, I just googled for a city I know.

[Anonymous No.15442034]

>>15438193
>Any books that explain why modern world has turned so aesthetically ugly?
Essentially, aesthetics is literally the face of much deeper paradigm shifts of the 20th Century.

Crap architecture traces its roots to Brutalism in the 1960s. Brutalism itself descends from Socialism and Modernist art. All of these ideas are the natural consequence of our technological advances. Socialism was caused by Industrialisation. It hardly made sense to own ones means of production before there any means other than ones own hard labour. Modernist art is caused by the camera and the radio, the birth of the celebrity, popular (throwaway) culture.

Technology changes everything. In some ways, the rise of the Internet has changed things for the better, but our education systems in the West are still in total ruins

[Anonymous No.15442066]

ITT no one knows the difference between beauty and aesthetics

[Anonymous No.15442125]

>>15438193
because Brits destroyed the comfy architecture

[Anonymous No.15442159]

>>15438193
Come join our comfy Tom Wolfe thread where we talk about how Wolfe was right about everything (in this case, his "From Bauhaus to Our House" essay).
>>15440273

[Anonymous No.15442177]

>>15442066
And here he is now, off to make another ugly building, and once it's finished he'll say 'here lies the difference between aesthetics and beauty'. Because where there is no difference there is also nothing of any value.

[Anonymous No.15442191]

>>15442177
I'd rather have truth over beauty, wouldn't you?

[Anonymous No.15442211]

>>15442191
you could just have both. Architecture is so expensive, and its effects on everyday life so prominent, that I don't really appreciate these experiments, it's just arrogant to impose some half-baked conceptual piece on people like this. Just save it for sculpture or painting or something.

[Anonymous No.15442216]

>>15442191
>implying there's a difference

[Anonymous No.15442229]

>>15442191
Beauty is truth, truth beauty, —that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know”

[Anonymous No.15442247]

>>15438193
Very amusing that both pictures showcase the result of a similar trend, ie official attempts at removing the historical complexities of a city in favor of a more uniformized and easier-to-navigate style of building.

[Anonymous No.15442249]

>>15442211
Is truth a half-baked conceptual experiment?

[Anonymous No.15442268]

>>15438193
I'm currently seeing Seeing like a State by James C. Scot pop up a lot, and it might help you understand a general trends that contributes to this.
On a rather different angle, and much shorter, from the Bauhaus to your home by Tom Wolfe is more explicitly about architecture.

[Anonymous No.15442284]

>>15442247
I'm mostly impressed that the top picture looks good in comparison.

[Anonymous No.15442290]

>>15441563
This is so dizzying it borders on surreal, like you've got a surrealist movie playing in your window 24/24. Were the brutalist architects...unintentionally based?

[Anonymous No.15442305]

>>15441596
That's actually less boring and soul-deadening than appartments blocks.

[Anonymous No.15442320]

>>15439052
Neo classical and baroque architecture were founded on high minded ideals and on core Western values, which is why it still looks good centuries later — “high art”. Modern architecture like brutalism is based on economy and temporary fads, so it ends up looking like shit to people 10 years down the line — “low art.”

[Anonymous No.15442329]

>>15442284
Maybe the difference is efficiency. Lesser efficiency means less power to carry out a reductionist vision, means vitality still manages to creep in unexpected. So the older one looks better because the older architects had less means to squeeze the life out.

[Anonymous No.15442343]

>>15442320
You don't think neoclassical and baroque are similar do you?

[Anonymous No.15442352]

>>15442305
Yeah decades after throwing away the entire concept of beauty, they have slowly discovered some basic aspects of it

[Anonymous No.15442386]

>>15438193
Check out the Big Black Tower of Montparnasse.

[Anonymous No.15442393]

>>15438377
Marx is the root reason for western decadence

[Anonymous No.15442403]

>>15442386
To be fair, the view from the top of these towers is amazing.

[Anonymous No.15442409]

>>15442305
This is a half billion dollar building. The comparison would be a cathedral.

[Anonymous No.15442411]

>>15442305
at least commie blocks are honest about the despair they embody
dressing it up in wacky bendy whimsical schizophrenic architecture makes you both depressed and question your sanity

[Anonymous No.15442415]

>>15438193
People who don't have an architecture degree (unlike me, I have one) shouldn't be allowed to have any opinions on architecture. Regardless, coming into threads like these is a fun trip to the zoo: a bunch of retarded monkeys shitting themselves over muh old architecture and muh evil modernists with no nuance.

[Anonymous No.15442416]

>>15442403
>the best place to be is where you can see everything else except it

[Anonymous No.15442424]

>>15442386
This makes me so angry. Fuck that architect and fuck the government there.

[Anonymous No.15442443]

>>15442415
Nuance is what I have to wipe off my arse cheeks after a messy shit

[Anonymous No.15442454]

>>15441798
Yes, why not? Give me one good reason why we, with all our technological might and resources, cannot make everything look this beautiful. Hard mode, explain it without bugman reasoning about corporate profits and margins for the boss' Canary Islands bank account.

[Anonymous No.15442455]

>>15442415
Brutalist architecture is the best architecture

[Anonymous No.15442461]

>>15442415
People with degrees in architecture are obviously the last people to lecture in questions of beauty. Unlless the recipient is a rebel this sort of thing is more shameful than a degree in gender studies.

[Anonymous No.15442468]

>>15442415
based retard who contributed nothing

[Anonymous No.15442478]

>>15442416
Yeah, precisely. It's a huge flex on the proles, which is based unless you're one of the proles being flexed on (I am).

[Anonymous No.15442489]

>>15442411
I for one like a building that makes me question my sanity.
Honesty was actually a big factor in making those block complex popular in the architecture community, not sure it's a virtue to be emulated here.

[Anonymous No.15442552]

>>15442386
Jesus wept

[Anonymous No.15442567]

>>15442411
This is the great truth which everyone ITT needs to understand. Nevertheless, surely you acknowledge that “honest” soviet-style blocks are depressing?

[Anonymous No.15442642]

>>15441563
that's fucking comfy
cities should be divided between the old center and the new outskirts
the arabs figured this out a long time before

[Anonymous No.15442678]

that building is a testament for the big black cock of the world being firmly rooted in Parisian ass

[Anonymous No.15442712]

>>15442455
Correct and correctpilled

[Anonymous No.15442756]

>>15441563
Benthamist architecture is best architecture.

[Anonymous No.15442792]

>>15442712
I hate commies, but I love their buildings

[Anonymous No.15442800]

>>15442461
Architecture is one of the most respectable degrees out there.
It’s at the crossroads of art and engineering.
No, I didn’t get a degree in architecture. Mine was in MIS

[Anonymous No.15442805]

>>15442454
Efficiency and cost

[Anonymous No.15442828]

>>15442792
Stalinist architecture is great, don't lump it in with brutalist crap

[Anonymous No.15442830]

>>15442125

[Anonymous No.15442849]

>>15442828
Isn’t Stalinist Architecture just a subcategory of Brutalism?

[Anonymous No.15442876]

>>15442386
why. no literally. why?

[Anonymous No.15442877]

>>15442828
You're gay. Brutalism is good.

[Anonymous No.15442885]

>>15442877
I bet you listen to black metal as well, edgelord.

[Anonymous No.15442920]

>>15442849
Stalinist architecture came to prominence in the 1930's. It grew out of the socialist realism art movement, and mostly has its origins in the neoclassical movement of the 19th century. Meanwhile, brutalism first emerged in the 1950's in the west out of the earlier Bauhaus movement by architects like Le Corbusier who wanted a top-down, socially progressive architecture that was focused entirely on functionalism instead of aesthetic concerns.

Ironically, the main link between brutalism and Stalinist architecture is that if you ever criticize brutalism and post a picture of some shitty 1970's concrete slab that's falling apart from rain damage, its defenders will give you a line about 'That wasn't true brutalism, true brutalism has never been tried'.

[Anonymous No.15442921]

>>15442800
I'm not saying that it is inherently shameful but with the reality being what it is they are the defilers of public spaces. They uglify the world and put their boot on the human soul. When I look at that Montparnasse cancer I feel like everyone involved in this should be sentenced to death in a public trial. It's not funny to me.

[Anonymous No.15443017]

>>15442921
Not everything is always going to be to your taste, anon. Instead of wishing death upon others, learn to find beauty in new things.

[Anonymous No.15443041]

>>15442415
Do you accept that architecture is a public thing, not just another opportunity for the artist to jerk himself off? People can choose whether they go to an art gallery or concert hall. They can't choose whether or not to see the buildings around them. I don't mean to suggest that you should design buildings specifically to appeal to the plebs, but if your supposed masterpieces are actively distateful to many people, don't you think you have a duty to take that into account?

[Anonymous No.15443060]

ITT: faggots who spend their whole life in front of a computer screen and only experience the world through google images.

[Anonymous No.15443071]

>>15441865
and you chose them

[Anonymous No.15443076]

>>15442877
>All that dead, empty space
>That concrete that's falling apart and will need insanely expensive renovations in ten years or so
>That design which gives no indication of what the building's purpose is, or even basic information like where the entrance and exits are

Imagine not only failing by every classical definition of good architecture, but also failing by your own definition of good architecture

[Anonymous No.15443089]

>>15443041
>I don't mean to suggest that you should design buildings specifically to appeal to the plebs,
That's exaclty what you're asking for, though. All this supposedly ugly modern architecture is just an expression of the avant garde. You're just a pleb that can't grok it -- you were never meant to.

[Anonymous No.15443108]

>>15443089
The avant-garde are themselves plebs play-acting as the aristocracy they will never be, who created architecture that was appreciated by everyone. Imagine actually being taken in by this bullshit, embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.15443123]

>>15443089
>you were never meant to.
So what the fuck are you doing? You're just wanking yourself off with these oh-so-clever high-concept buildings that only you and your architect mates appreciate, while everyone else has to put up with them. It's clear you're not even interested in everyone else, which would be fine if your designs weren't plastered on every street for everyone to see every day. You have a public duty that you don't care to fulfil. That's why modern architecture makes people angry.

[Anonymous No.15443127]

>>15443017
I seek justice. And this isn't a matter of taste, it's aesthetic aggression against the populace. It's a shared space and what these people are doing is criminal and on that level it's also intentional. This is the architectual equivalent of going on stage and shouting obscenities through a megaphone during a classical concert. It has nothing to do with something being new or old.

[Anonymous No.15443131]

>>15443076
>classical definition of good architecture
I can tell you have have 0 architectural knowledge. Pic related is you.

[Anonymous No.15443134]

>>15443131
you sure showed him by posting a soijak and saying absolutely nothing

[Anonymous No.15443138]

>>15442567
they are intended to be depressing, soulless and to crush aspiration. communism could not function otherwise

[Anonymous No.15443143]

>>15443108
You can call them plebs, but they're the one's building things while you're whining on the internet.

[Anonymous No.15443147]

>>15443143
Great you support Mcmansions too, since they're being built, in larger number too

[Anonymous No.15443153]

>>15443123
>You're just wanking yourself off with these oh-so-clever high-concept buildings that only you and your architect mates appreciate, while everyone else has to put up with them.
Yes. Tough shit for you. Art was and always will be an aristocratic endeavour.

[Anonymous No.15443154]

>>15443076
>complains about modernism being too functional and not aesthetic
>complains about aesthetic building having all that dead, empty space

It's a library built in 1970 btw and its fucking amazing. Heres a picture that doesnt make it look like some evil building from a dreary dystopian world.

[Anonymous No.15443165]

>>15443134
Nothing begets nothing.

[Anonymous No.15443168]

>>15442415
i have to look at the shit you make you retard, it forms the physical material reality that i have to live in
i shouldn't need to go to college to have a bunch of book niggers explain to me why literal garbage actually is good and i should be grateful for the privilege of looking at it. art that requires any explanation (much less a specialized degree) to abate the feeling of physical disgust it gives to the uninitiated viewer is beyond worthless, it actually has negative value. i would literally pay money to not have to see this absolute fucking garbage polluting my vision every time i visit a city (any city, they're all like this)
nobody ever had to explain to me why the things i find at least bearable to look at are so. my reactions to buildings produced prior to about 1900 have ranged from feelings of wonder and amazement to not actually producing any reaction at all, but i've never felt anything close to violent hatred of them. modern architecture is a unique phenomenon in this respect and it takes years of "education" to twist that innate feeling of displeasure into "well ackshually if you knew the history of blah blah blah you'd know blah blah" that people say when you point out to them that it's shit, it's literally shit
i mean this in absolute seriousness that i think you people are in serious bodily danger if there was ever a breakdown of law and order and people start looking for scapegoats, given how visible and recognizable your work has to be

[Anonymous No.15443170]

>>15443153
There is nothing aristocratic about this architecture, the people who design this stuff despise the entire concept of aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.15443175]

[Anonymous No.15443177]

>>15443147
>since they're being built, in larger number too
Since when is stuff like >>15442877 "built in larger numbers"?

[Anonymous No.15443180]

>>15443165
He actually made a post with points

[Anonymous No.15443189]

>>15443177
The mcmansions are being built in larger number. your metric of quality was apparently being able to get someone to build your design.

[Anonymous No.15443194]

>>15438193
You're making a good point using terrible examples

[Anonymous No.15443208]

>>15443170
Yet they remain the arbiters of the good and beautiful, willing their creations into existence, while preventing the plebs from doing the same. They don't care about "the people", only their singular will to beauty.

[Anonymous No.15443213]

>>15443153
>Art was and always will be an aristocratic endeavour.
Well that's clearly nonsense. And anyway, the main thing I was trying to get across to you is that architecture is not just art. It serves a public function too. So the standards and expectations of the public cannot be irrelevant in the way they would be for other forms of art. If you don't get that, or refuse to countenance it, then you do a great job demonstrating why public spaces have gone to shit.
Back when there was a real aristocracy, aristocrats generally perceived themselves as having some kind of public duty. This nose-in-the-air disdain for everyone else isn't an aristocratic attitude, it's a spoiled liberal one.

[Anonymous No.15443216]

>>15443180
He said nothing.

[Anonymous No.15443222]

>>15442454
>why can't we just live in lego houses

[Anonymous No.15443224]

>>15443208
It's not will to beauty, they don't even believe beauty exists, and the plebs build plenty of their own architecture.

[Anonymous No.15443229]

>>15443216
If you're too stupid to read a post that literally bullet points what it's saying that's on you.

[Anonymous No.15443232]

>>15443208
That's not what they're doing. They want to get rid of beauty, that why this stuff looks like it does. It's anti-architecture. They also don't want to create, they want to undo creation.

[Anonymous No.15443235]

>>15443189
Where did I ever say it was metric for quality?

[Anonymous No.15443237]

[Anonymous No.15443239]

>>15443108
imagine thinking you'd ever see baroque architecture if you were some rando living in the 17th c

[Anonymous No.15443253]

>>15443127
>aesthetics is not a matter of taste

Please pick up a book on aesthetics sometime so you can do justice to the word

[Anonymous No.15443255]

>>15443213
You don't know anything about art or aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.15443264]

>>15443239
What do you think all those churches were?

[Anonymous No.15443266]

>>15443255
Care to enlighten me? Or are you too aristocratic for that?

[Anonymous No.15443267]

>>15443224
>>15443232
It's still an aesthetic expression. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, it wasn't meant for you (the plebs).

[Anonymous No.15443271]

>>15443208
Do you actually believe this horseshit? Aristocrats are all sexual deviants and wasters

[Anonymous No.15443274]

>>15443229
It was on him to say something worth responding to.

[Anonymous No.15443276]

>>15443255
He's entirely right, the insecure managerial sneer of the progressive is written all over the disgusting shit they build.

[Anonymous No.15443279]

>>15443232
Dumb metaphysical argument that has no basis in reality

[Anonymous No.15443285]

>>15443267
It's a shit aesthetic expression that will be torn down and nobody will remember it

[Anonymous No.15443288]

>>15443264
too far away?

[Anonymous No.15443289]

>>15443279

>beauty make brain feel good
>ugly make brain feel bad

[Anonymous No.15443295]

>>15443266
An aristocratic taste is be defintion singular. It doesn't have to be for the sake of "the people", or for the sake of anything.

[Anonymous No.15443312]

>>15443285
Yeah just like most buildings. The good stuff will stick around.

[Anonymous No.15443316]

>>15443295
>source: my diary desu

[Anonymous No.15443318]

>>15443295
And yet the art of the actual aristocracy, when there was one, not random larping bureaucrats, is widely appreciated.

[Anonymous No.15443322]

Since we're not really getting anywhere, post beautiful architecture.

[Anonymous No.15443324]

>>15443154
>its fucking amazing
ok chaim

[Anonymous No.15443330]

>>15443318
The aristocracy rarely produced art.

[Anonymous No.15443335]

>>15443253
Well, thankfully you wrote that sentence and not I. I disregard the notion that putting that thing there could've been done without understanding that it breaks the harmony of its surroundings. And even if it were a matter of personal taste it would still be unfathomably rude to disregard the sentiments of millions of neurotypical observers and inhabitants.

[Anonymous No.15443340]

>>15443318
Nope. New architectural styles were always met with resistance.

[Anonymous No.15443341]

>>15443322

[Anonymous No.15443346]

>>15442393
>people change history
im laffin

[Anonymous No.15443348]

>>15443330
they commissioned it and set the standards. The church also played this role

[Anonymous No.15443351]

>>15443341

[Anonymous No.15443358]

this is Frank Gehry, say something nice about him

[Anonymous No.15443367]

>>15438193
Old architecture was a free energy power system that was dismantled for big oil. The materials and aesthetics were both altered so no one would stumble on the physical qualities.

[Anonymous No.15443390]

>>15443322
Richard Neutra is the definition of user-friendly modernism

[Anonymous No.15443393]

>>15442756
>You're going to put my body on display in a hermetically sealed case where everyone can look at me forever
Why did anyone take this dingbat seriously?

[Anonymous No.15443398]

>>15443348
No the academies set the standards, based on that of previous artists

[Anonymous No.15443406]

>>15443335
The same people who confuse beauty with the experience of beauty?

[Anonymous No.15443409]

>>15441633
You will share in that reward.

[Anonymous No.15443418]

>>15442642
>thinking that's comfy
anon are you an ant

[Anonymous No.15443433]

>>15442805
I like how he gave you only one limiting criteria and you still failed.

[Anonymous No.15443455]

>>15442830
Churchill would have firebombed Germany if the Reich had never built a single rocket or fielded a single solider.

[Anonymous No.15443476]

>>15443455
That's based.

[Anonymous No.15443488]

[Anonymous No.15443490]

>>15443433
He failed with cost but efficiency is something else

[Anonymous No.15443516]

>>15443406
It wouldn't even matter in this context as I am pleading for the sanctity of the public space but I do think yours is a silly notion. It is patterns that create meaning in whatever form and the intention of theirs is to disrupt them. It is hostile and invasive. It's also so repetitive, all of the arts are churning out this nonsense it's just that in architecture it becomes desecration and they love that. It makes them feel as if they were actual artists.

[Anonymous No.15443532]

>>15443455
And he would have been right to do so. That's just what industrial warfare looks like, it was his responsibility.

[Anonymous No.15443542]

>>15443532
>>15443455
I didn't see the soldier part, that's nonsense nvm.

[Anonymous No.15443616]

FUCK i just lost in counter strike

[Anonymous No.15443625]

>>15442415
>Guys I have a degree in drawing rectangles, you're animals compared to me

[Anonymous No.15443658]

>>15442800
>It’s at the crossroads of art and engineering.
No it's not, you're drawing rectangles, saying you're an artist because you're an architect these days is like saying you're a virtuoso because you touched your friends guitar once.

[Anonymous No.15443798]

>NOOooooo modern buildings are actually beautiful you just can't appreciate the heckin builderinos
Amazing how nobody ever has to write a 10 000 word op-ed on how baroque, Victorian, etc. architecture is actually beautiful and is just misunderstood

[Anonymous No.15443843]

>>15443798
Where do you think Gothic (for example) got its name from? These styles weren't always thought to be beautiful.

[Anonymous No.15444301]

[Anonymous No.15444330]

>>15443433
>give me one reason
>oh yeah and you aren't allowed to use the main reason
Explain why those things aren't the biggest factor to why buildings are built the way they are

[Anonymous No.15444339]

>>15443516
What difference is the experience of beauty to the experience of disruption?

[Anonymous No.15444359]

>>15442876
The French find it hard to resist anything long and black.

[Anonymous No.15444364]

Companies just don't want to pay millions of more dollars to build their buildings. You can't really complain about it when their business goal is to make profit at the expensive of having a nice looking building. Besides 2010s architecture has been a lot nicer than what its been in the past 50 years

[Anonymous No.15444373]

>>15444359
Sounds like you are the one having a hard time not thinking about it.

[Anonymous No.15444382]

cheap designs
cheap construction
cheap labor

[Anonymous No.15444389]

>>15439061
when discussing left/right on a site with majority american user base it is easiest to use liberal/conservative

[Anonymous No.15444400]

>>15441563
Living in a building like that would promote creativity.

[Anonymous No.15444421]

>>15442125
>they killed the bridges

[Anonymous No.15444423]

>>15444373
More concerned that someone finds the Ponte City Tower to be "comfy" than the French love for long black things.

[Anonymous No.15444429]

>>15444339
I understand the thought process and reject it since I do believe in hierarchies but what I lament is that they force people to participate in this niche neurosis. The environment around it has evolved in aesthetic symbiosis. the patterns compliment each other and sing. They want that gone, that's the purpose. They want to destroy it for everyone. It's an obscene act even if you are a relativist. It's terrorism.

[Anonymous No.15444500]

This is the sirius building in sydney. Public housing. Dirty looking building and feels out of place when viewed from the harbor bridge, but cant ever stop staring at it.
Will be knocked down soon and some chink building will go up.

[Anonymous No.15444544]

>>15444429
>>15444339
Another thing to mention is that it is dilettantism. By seperating yourself from the evolved structures you can only produce mathematical drivel because you have seperated yourself from the cultural pool of knowledge.. It's like a child vandalizing the painting of an old master. 'See, I created disruption, great art of equal value to what I have destroyed'.

[Anonymous No.15444571]

Books on New-Urbanism?

[Anonymous No.15444803]

>>15444429
Is it the forcing that is the issue or the neurosis? If people have a tendency to 'destroy' then can't they also claim there is a problem that they are forced to participate in an overbearing structure of 'beauty', as arbitrary as the term has been since the 18th century? The structure doesn't work for them the way it is intended, is representative of excess or decadence of aristocratic regimes, etc. In this case it is not obscene but liberating and necessary.

[Anonymous No.15444850]

>>15438193

[Anonymous No.15444857]

As a current architecture student, I can definitely say that the admiration for clever design and artistic innovation goes as far as architects not only developing "trained eye" and so their own sense of aesthetics, divorced from what the public may look for in a building, but also to neglect to a degree the actual comfort and day-to-day practicality of their buildings, which gets overlooked by the brilliant ideas of the designs.
So the architect as an artist gets into conflict with the architect as a builder. The most famous modernists architects frequently got into bitter arguments with their clients. If you study say the Ville Savoye, it's an insane work of genius and to me, deeply beautiful, but the owners left it after a couple of years because it was unpractical. The roofing was bad, and layout akward, etc. Another example is the Vancouver House by BIG. I'm sure Bjarke Ingels has a wonderful very convincing tale about how much of an asset the building is to the city and whatnot, but when you look into the floorplan of the units, they're godawful, because that got overlooked in the vision.
These problems I think are inherent in the figure of the architect. Before, architects weren't known and so styles were just copies and gradual evolutions of preexisting models of design, so they were sort of an expression of the public environment by themselves. While when you have a single "Mastermind" directing it, it's bound to look for self-expression and to search for an artistic outlet in its craft, and architects get influenced by other architects and they form this sort of bubble all artists get into where they're divorced to an extent from the rest of the world.
That's also why I think the obvious "just return to tradition" is not the answer, it's simply impossible. The architect is a necessary figure in modern urbanism, when thousands of buildings need to get built every day, and cities need to be carefully planned out and codes followed. And as long as architects exists, they will try to make something unique to themselves, and expressive of their own times (modernity), and form cliques with eachother, and definitely not give up their own individuality.
Also I think to an extent the general dislike for modern architecture is due to it being an expression of a era that is not, well, liked. Anything created in the 20th and 21st century is gonna reflect to a degree the stress of urban living, the growing social control and paranoia, alienation, the expansion of the realm of technology, etc. If a new, more agreeable architecture comes, I think it will be as part of a broader social change in the whole structure of our society

[Anonymous No.15444914]

>>15438193
>>15438200
>NOOOOO you can't just take out the heckin cute little roofs and windows and spirals it reminds me of HARRY FUCKIN POTER and Hogwarts. I like the hustle and bustle of big buildings but they need to have the nuances MY WAY.

[Anonymous No.15445023]

>>15444803
If you want to take that route (and I would advise against it) you would propably need a democratic license to liberate all these poor folks from beauty but you know as well as I do that people hate this destruction. So really we are looking at, to use your word, aristocrats destroying the patterns of life of the masses without their consent, usually even encountering, besides their disgust, also their opposition. We're also usually talking about coporate entities like banks here, so let's not get too teary eyed in describing what kind of revolution you're actually involved in.

But really it is nonsense that evolved architecture can be reduced to buzzwords. You're observing a highly complex structure reflecting human beings through time. That's what's so weird about these authoritarian styles (which includes what we're talking about), they represent simple motives and ideas that some idiot thought profound. Even if they don't try to destoy everything their created spaces always end up empty and soulless. It's unavoidable. Architecture proper cannot be performed in this solipsistic manner.

I gotta go to bed now, have a good one.

[Anonymous No.15445031]

>>15445023
I'm not really picking a side just looking at the language used to describe why one side is better than the other, more metaphysically true, etc.

[Anonymous No.15445033]

>>15444850
The foreword on that is brutal because he tells us how he overreacted and that things were not destroyed to the extent he feared. Of course a few years after that he wouldn't have written that.

[Anonymous No.15445074]

>>15439426
Kek

[Anonymous No.15445111]

>>15444500
I hate it, but I'll also miss it in a way.

[Anonymous No.15445158]

Modern skyscapers look alright. Things are a lot more glassy now a days than 70s concrete blocks

[Anonymous No.15445212]

>>15441563
What the fuck are you talking about that building fucking rocks. Fuck the ethereal buildings of the past, I want these depressive buildings, concrete everywhere. A reminder of the world we live in

[Anonymous No.15445214]

>>15445158
that is disgusting

[Anonymous No.15445224]

>>15441563
I can't ever wrap my head around how much cement it takes to make a building like that one. I did an 8x8 slab with my dad a while ago and it took about 40 bags of 80-lb cement mix. We did it all with a wheelbarrow and I felt dead at the end. Even with modern machinery and an army, these buildings seem absurd.

[Anonymous No.15445225]

>>15445212
Based retard.

[Anonymous No.15445239]

you reactionaryfags act like there isn't still countless old buildings around

[Anonymous No.15445268]

>>15443089
I hope someone burns your shitty architecture as part of an "avant garde" performance.

[Anonymous No.15445321]

>>15445268
I'd be okay with that, but trad architects are too pussy to do anything cool like that.

[Anonymous No.15445327]

>>15445158
Those are pretty nice.

[Anonymous No.15445335]

>>15441563
What building is that? Looks cool.

[Anonymous No.15445814]

>>15438193
Read the Punchline section of Mitchell Heisman's suicide note. He goes into the root cause of the aesthetic, political, and ethical discrepancy between the modern "West" and the European traditions prior to the 20th century. He especially nails the sociobiological aspect of the shift.
Also, for those with the inclination, a Jew's refreshingly honest meditation on the JQ (as posed by Aquinas/Wittgenstein/others throughout the European canon, not Hitler's version)

[Anonymous No.15445856]

>just make skyscrapers out of bricks lol

[Anonymous No.15445862]

>>15438193
Communism

[Anonymous No.15445883]

they'll never accept the truth that beauty is objective and their shit is ugly
never speak with most architecture majors

[Anonymous No.15446044]

This is the Edvard Munch museum, it's so fucking ugly. What a shame

[Anonymous No.15446059]

>>15446044

[Anonymous No.15446083]

>>15446059
It was going to be entirely glass until building regulations fucked it over, so they put that cladding on it.

[Anonymous No.15446096]

>>15445335
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponte_City_Apartments

[Anonymous No.15446097]

>>15446059
>McDonald's commercial vs reality

[Anonymous No.15446169]

>>15444301
this is actually nice

[Anonymous No.15446207]

>>15441596
This building looks good when you are only looking at parts of it. Its looks ugly from a birds eye view.

Looks like a cooperate headquarters. Looks like an underwhelming capital building.

[Anonymous No.15446214]

>>15439061
>labor
same thing lmao

[Anonymous No.15446223]

>>15441732
>>15441758
SHINY COLOUR BING BING WAHOO GOOD

[Anonymous No.15446224]

>>15443322
This buildings exterior is underwhelming but its got a insanely beautiful interior.

[Anonymous No.15446251]

>>15443390
The Neutra near my house just got demolished.
The person purchased it and tore it down.
>>15443358
That building in Hanover is cool.

[Anonymous No.15446255]

>>15445158
Yea but they look to much like each other.

[Anonymous No.15446297]

>>15445268
I've long had the idea of starting a new post-modernist art movement called "involuntarism". It would consist in kidnapping modern artists and internsectional social scientists, tying them to a metal chair in some basement and breaking their hands and legs with a sledge hammer, while telling them that they will be freed if they transfer me all their money. However, once they agree, I would continue crushing their bones with the sledge hammer. It would be a postironic comment on the existential state of a modern man, metamarxist critique of capitalist neoslavery, as well as a novel artistic reflection on the injustice of the cisgender partiarchal society.

[Anonymous No.15446440]

>>15443455
Churchill wouldn't have been in power if Germany had never built a single rocket or fielded a single soldier

[Anonymous No.15446442]

>>15438193
I recently read an article about some guy from an architect agency, and he said "beauty" is not a goal in modern architecture. He was seriously asking why should buildings look aesthetically pleasing, and said houses should above all be functional. And that's the only thing they care about when they plan new buildings, apparently.

[Anonymous No.15446460]

>>15446297
>comment on the existential state of a modern man, metamarxist critique of capitalist neoslavery, as well as a novel artistic reflection on the injustice of the cisgender partiarchal society

This comment is why art sucks these days

[Anonymous No.15446466]

>>15446442
Yeah man I want to fucking stand there "contemplating" in aesthetic indifference every time I try making it to work in the morning

[Anonymous No.15446470]

>>15438200
That road is too wobbly to drive on and where are safe zones for pedestrians to cross? Are Europeans retarded?

[Anonymous No.15446634]

>>15444301
>tfw playing hide and seek

[Anon No.15446683]

>>15438193
Unironically this

[Anon No.15446708]

>>15443455

[Anonymous No.15446766]

>>15445158
dont forget to mention that they laser cars on the street and blind people in neighboring skyscrapers

[Anonymous No.15446831]

>>15445239
This type of argument is insufferable. People aren't denying their existence, they are lamenting what is replacing them. There is this thing called concern over the future based on current trends.

[Anonymous No.15446842]

>>15441758
>>15441732
polished turd

[Anonymous No.15446862]

>>15441732
>>15441758
Tokyo is an over-industrialized shithole. One of the most soulless cities on Earth.

[Anonymous No.15446913]

>>15446442
The new age is soulless. It concerns not one bit about the spiritual realm encapsulated in architecture.
Brutalist architecture is literally bad for your mental health. It presents force with no spirit.
>>15446096
Apparently modern architects do not ask themselves "how will this make the person feel" but rather "how much of a circlejerk can I generate around being le original and different".
These people only are concerned about themselves and their ego, their attack and shoehorning of their nonsense upon society, an act of differentiation and individualism, distancing, unwelcome feeling. And the people attack, subconsciously, with their litter, in response to the feeling of antagonism, as out of disrespect. This architecture does not respect anyone and none does it receive.

[Anonymous No.15447061]

>>15438193
Atheism (of the rich) mainly.
As >>15446913 said without owing your work selflessly to god and maybe the good your people, it will ultimately be expressed as a stroke of ego with no care to principles of architecture.

Architects aren't held accountable to produce beautiful works anymore because we have no faith and our self-perpetuating industrial system favors pure efficiency with minimal regards to human well-being.

Just look at this shit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptera
Even the last surviving author admitted in the 80s that they were too rash with their ideas and ruined beautiful environments for thousands of families with their commieblocks and cubes.

We abandoned the spiritual tenents of integritas consonantia and claritas. And the practical ones of e.g. the Vitruvian triad in which every building should be beautiful, useful and durable.
Read Vitruvius, Vignola and Palladio.

Keep in mind that beauty adds to a buildings durability as its beauty will motivate people to maintain it and protect it, whereas a modern block or skyscraper could be demolished without many missing it.

[Anonymous No.15447128]

>>15438193
The world is a lot bigger and more complex now and architecture as a discipline has expanded in scope. Beautiful buildings are still out there, they're just not the sole jurisdiction of architecture. It's as simple as that.

[Anonymous No.15447140]

>>15439623
>>15441131
With a car, you can go anywhere you want.

[Anonymous No.15447150]

>>15445212
But if the architecture was good like it used to be, that would also remind you of the world we live in, that being a much better world due to the higher quality of architecture.

[Anonymous No.15447154]

>>15441798
Unironically yes, why are you phrasing it as an unreasonable question?

[Anonymous No.15447160]

>>15447154
Go live in a retirenment village if that's what you want.

[Anonymous No.15447170]

>>15443017
>Not everything is always going to be to your taste, anon
You're right, and the data shows that new "modern" architecture is to absolutely nobody's taste. It deals a measurable harm to our psyche and depresses us, that's why people gather around old city centers with good architecture, as stated earlier, and why tourist spots are those beautiful little rustic european towns, and the grand sweeping cathedrals, rather than the Big Black Tower of Montparnasse.

[Anonymous No.15447189]

>>15447160
So your only answer to the complaint that the highest population centers are coveried in ugly, soul-deadening architecture, is to tell people to run away from it, and by extension, civilization?

[Anonymous No.15447193]

Making pretty buildings cost money, and behind each construction are a bunch of people and companies looking to maximize profits.

[Anonymous No.15447199]

Architecture is the greatest art. It is the most practical one as it is in intercourse with engineering, it implicitly affects us mentally by the imposition of its appearance and the style and form reflects the soul of the culture in which it was made. It can tell a story as the Caryatids who carry the shame of their traitor husbands. Etc.
Unlike other arts it can be of use by both the blind and those both blind and deaf as they can appreciate its space.

The problem arises when building solely for the deaf-blind.

[Anonymous No.15447206]

>>15447170
Leaving aside the fact that "the data" runs into the survivorship bias problem, the fact of the matter is that these "depressive" buildings are the condition of present modern existence. Give people the option of doing away with modern buildings, on the condition that it means doing away with modern life, most are going to say no. The topic of avant garde architecture is a different matter altogether -- it has always, by definition, pushed buttons, even "trad" darlings like Gothic.

[Anonymous No.15447222]

>>15447189
Modern life necessities accordingly modern structures, including phsyical ones -- why does this surprise you people? The answer to your question is "yes".

[Anonymous No.15447223]

>>15442877
Those buildings always look filthy and abandoned, even when in daily use

[Anonymous No.15447224]

>>15447193
Ultimately this is the root of it, but then the few times architects are allowed to be artistic, it turns out everyone in the field is a fucking postmodernist and you end up with garbled messes that are, at best, dizzying to look at.

[Anonymous No.15447231]

>>15447222
You can construct a building that houses a lot of people AND looks good on the outside, can't you?
Even if you can't, what's better, cramming 1,000,000 people into commie blocks, or fitting 900,000 people into an enriching and productivity-inducing environment?

[Anonymous No.15447236]

>>15447223
No they don't. Go outside.

[Anonymous No.15447238]

>>15442386
To be fair to the French, after this tower was completed they banned any further developments in the area and kept these eyesores to the business district

[Anonymous No.15447239]

>>15447193
>company approaches the architects
>"how cheaply can you design something with 4 walls and a roof?"
>get varying spins on "concrete box"

yeah

[Anonymous No.15447241]

>>15447199
Based.

[Anonymous No.15447248]

>>15447236
Do you have an example that doesn't look filthy and abandoned? The only thing remotely warm-looking about this site is the sparse plant life struggling to grow around it. Unironically looks like a post-apoc zombie shelter.

[Anonymous No.15447250]

>>15447231
No, you can't. Modern life correlates with modern architecture, just as archaic life correlates with archaic architecture. Or do you draw no distinction between modern and archaic life?

[Anonymous No.15447264]

>>15447248
>faggot needs all his buildings to be warm and fuzzy

[Anonymous No.15447304]

>>15447248
>doesn't look filthy and abandoned
So you don't like Gothic? Woah bro, that isn't very trad

[Anonymous No.15447321]

>>15446207
i have physically seen it, it is just as bad in person

[Anonymous No.15447330]

>>15442125
They rebuilt the bridge near the cathedral exactly like that. Still a nice city, some historical buildings have survived, like the Rathaus (city council building). And just yesterday I passed the tower on the right side while strolling around the Rhein.

[Anonymous No.15447373]

>>15441563
>isn't it better in long term for the country to promote the mental well-being, creativeness, spirituality or perhaps cultural belonging of the generations that will live in there?
Property developers don't have the foresight or empathy to consider anything beyond immediate profit and cost cutting. Fucking scum

[Anonymous No.15447386]

>>15444301
new reaction image

[Anonymous No.15447387]

>>15447304
mixes sublime and beauty in a harmony. For example as an acoustic instrument has a timbre with many overtones, where the note is the basic shape, the overtones are the ornaments and details that give richness.

>>15447236
only sublime, there's no overtones only what looks like a foundation by digital square waves

[Anonymous No.15447396]

so uhh anyone read any good books lately?

[Anonymous No.15447447]

>>15447387
Interesting. I'm the opposite. I see only the sublime in the Gothic, but perfect harmony in the brutalist piece.

[Anonymous No.15447486]

>>15447206
>modern life is depressing so let's design depressing buildings to make it even worse

[Anonymous No.15447506]

>>15447486
The depressing buildings came before the depressing life.

[Anonymous No.15447528]

>>15447486
if life is going to be depressing then the aesthetic should at least be honest about it
i don't like feeling like i'm in a mental hospital with pastel walls and sappy inspirational artwork everywhere, it's humiliating and dehumanizing

[Anonymous No.15447541]

>>15447447
The brutalist one looks like a template (fig 31 pic related), it's monotonic, though its many edges give it a superfluous appearance. The gothic one has many tones but may seem a bit superfluous in detail (fig 34). Figure 33 is the most harmonic and the ideal with its harmonic relations outlined in 32b.

[Anonymous No.15447550]

>>15441596
that looks sick though

[Anonymous No.15447583]

>>15447541
I see 33 in the brutalist one.

[Anonymous No.15447598]

>>15447550
if it was the only building that looked like that, maybe it wouldn't be so bad, because it would just be a novelty
but i have to live in a world full of these schizophrenic monuments, so the novelty goes away and i'm just left with a deep sense of spiritual vertigo and alienation when i look at a landscape covered in things specifically made to be novel, different, weird
if i was just visiting, i wouldn't mind. but i have to live in it, see things like it every day, and the end result is that i feel like i live in a jackson pollock painting

[Anonymous No.15447607]

>>15438193
>>15439052
These are three things that I can think of:

Elite-favoured ideologies of 'art' that are explicitly anti-beauty and pro-ugly as a means to gatekeep/elitify. Elitism tends to come from making up distinctions to exclude others and reinforce some nepotistic cabal they've already established (and I believe this is what's happened with art). The validity of liking ugliness and hating beauty is irrelevant because by default we like beauty so the most elitist thing that can be fabricated is going against our nature. Btw this doesn't make elitism invalid, if you are better then you are better, but popular/fabricated elitism certainly is as it's often stupid and ignorant.

Economic concerns: architect's or artist's careerism (slavishly following trends, in-group version of commercialism) and practical things like needing to quickly and cheaply mass produce housing. From this comes cities with buildings completely incongruent with eachother (probably more important than specific designs) and anti-human urban spaces.

Last is simply a decaying of aesthetic sensibility and effort in the culture in general. People like beauty but don't place much priority on it or have much skill in bringing it to life. This applies even to the basic habits of a person, the way they talk and walk. No doubt the above two heavily reinforce this one. The first stops aesthetics being taught in school and actually makes aesthetics invalid as a topic or consideration. The second immerses a person in soul-crushing ugliness.

[Anonymous No.15447608]

>>15446913
I think architects often get carried away, but I don't think it's an issue of egotism. We live in the most amazing times for new construction technology, and because huge buildings are relatively rare compared to other kinds of technological innovation there's constantly room to do things that have never been done. To see what we're capable of and build structures man has never seen before. It's really exciting, but it is certainly easy to forget that if it's not the success you dream of, it's going to be really ugly for a long time.

[Anonymous No.15447663]

>>15447583
you are the have architectural equivalent of tone deafness then

[Anonymous No.15447668]

>>15447663
fuck
you have the*

[Anonymous No.15447743]

OH MY GOD IS THAT A DORIC ORDER OOOOOHHHHHHH HNNNNNGHHHH OOOOOO I LOVE COLUMNS OOOOHHHHH I'M GONNA HHHHHHHRH I'M GONNA COOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

[Anonymous No.15447810]

[Anonymous No.15448229]

>>15441758
>it's not ugly! look, it has all these shiney commercials plastered on!!

[Anonymous No.15448298]

>>15444389
Yes and it shouldn't be. Liberal has a specific ideological meaning that applies to both modern conservatives and progressives (which are relative terms). Somebody advocating for democracy and corporate capitalism then insulting someone by calling them "liberal" is completely lacking in self-awareness

[Anonymous No.15448380]

>>15441563
Looks cool
Also kinda scary but cool
Imagine living at the first floor and shouting at the window lol

[Anonymous No.15448390]

>>15441563
ANONS THIS IS OUR BUILDING
IMAGINE WE ALL LIVING THERE

WITH /b/tards, /pol/tards, /a/, /g/ and /k/
SOMEONE PLEASE WRITE A STORY ON THIS LOL

[Anonymous No.15448457]

>>15445212
>What the fuck are you talking about that building fucking rocks. Fuck the ethereal buildings of the past, I want these depressive buildings, concrete everywhere. A reminder of the world we live in

[Anonymous No.15448593]

>Ctrl+F "Christopher Alexander"
>only one match
>everyone posting brainlet takes instead of books

[Anonymous No.15448800]

>>15441732
This.
People on this board love LARPing like they’re aristocrats a few hundred years ago. In reality they’re products of dead-end tier genetics who pretend to like classical architecture to garner (you)s and upcummies from fellow online dead-ends