this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
811 points (95.3% liked)
Microblog Memes
11667 readers
1498 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How about in neither willing not capable to pay a few k for a fucking door knob just for it to be custom made and beautiful.
This dip shit is comparing what would nowadays be Trumps or Musks door.
How about we create a world in which you didn't need a degree for beautiful things to be created?
I don't know why I find this so infuriating to me, it feels soo wrong on so many levels.
One reason Trump is hated by the New York elite is that when he put up Trump Tower he completely demolished the building that was already there. He repeatedly promised to preserve the iconic façade, but then claimed it was 'too expensive.'
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellisicky/2020/10/03/how-donald-trump-took-down-bonwit-teller-a-fifth-avenue-landmark/
Because it is.
That being said new art (on french, can't spell) was a time where regular people had that wealth. But brutalism etc. took it away.
Also the was little craft in mass produced ornaments.
Incentives are what killed it
"Show me your incentives and I'll tell you the outcomes"
Modernism and brutalism are both solving an economic problem. It's to make a building as "occupiable" as possible. It has no soul or defining features for someone to hate, so it appeals maximally to as many people as possible. It also saves a lot on labour, maintenance, and material costs when designing and constructing a new build.
Also, who the hell cares about the next tenant? They aren't paying the construction bill, and they're going to buy it at the price I want anyways because this building is modernist/brutalist and is as fungible as possible.
"Tell me you don't know anything about modernism without telling me you don't know anything about modernism."
First of all, modernism was definitely not trying to blandly appeal to as many people possible. It's a reaction against traditional architecture and is therefore inherently contrarian. And especially so for brutalism (which is a subcategory of modernism rather than its own separate thing, BTW): you cannot tell me people don't hate brutalism, LOL!
Second, modernism is often more expensive than traditional styles. Many of the elements of traditional architecture became "traditional" for practical reasons: sloped roofs shed water even when they aren't perfectly constructed. Decorative moldings exist to cover up gaps and obscure corners that aren't quite square. When you get rid of that stuff, you make the building a lot harder and more expensive to construct because everything has to be perfect: your flat roof needs to be absolutely water-tight, your carpenters have to work to much tighter tolerances, you need a damn skilled plasterer to finish your drywall perfectly fair and smooth without using ceiling texture to hide the unevenness, etc.
I feel Brutalism gets a bad rep, being judged by its worst aspects. The core philosophy of it is to create buildings which expose their construction materials transparently to the user. Within that, there is plenty of chances for artistic expression and beauty. The problem is that many architects who produced brutalist buildings chose to take bland approaches to brutalist buildings, specifically to match the modernism it was derived from.
There is still space within brutalism to make beautiful buildings which are still transparent about their construction and materials. To do so, one need only seperate it from its modernist roots.
I would claim that brutalism relies on geometries and pristine concrete and hence just doesn't age well. Some ungodly ugly buildings used to be impressive geometries.
So the things i'd argue are thus:
Yes, the term Brutalism is associated with the term béton brut meaning 'raw concrete', but the term 'brutalism' was first coined by its critics rather than its creators, and 'brutalism' (specifically the term 'new brutalism') was first used to describe a brick building with some of the various aspects of blandness and spartan-ness. Brutalism has also been used to describe buildings which utilize timber, clay, and various other materials.
The big aspect spurning these buildings was an honesty about their construction, with an aim for them to be simple and functional for their purposes first and foremost.
Despite this emphasis on simplicity, various brutalist buildings apply unnecessary shapes into their designs in order to add striking appearances. Usually structural, though other times simply for added texture.
Now, with that info laid out:
It's because of these various aspects, that you could arguably add engraved art to the exterior of brutalist buildings while still having them count as brutalist. Additionally, mixing materials in order add varying colors would also be acceptable. So long as the bare construction of the building remains on display, these minor flourishes do not compromise it as brutalist I believe.
Additionally. There are many structures used in ancient constructions which serve a function, use bare materials, and are beautiful, such as arches and pillars. Brutalist architects have regularly added over-engineered structures to their buildings in order to show their skill in design, I see no reason why more traditional support structures would be an issue on brutalist buildings.
All of a sudden, brutalist buildings could go from being oppressive structures without personality to buildings not so different from ancient monuments. By stepping away from the pitfalls of modernism, instead focusing on the ethic which came from new brutalism, and reaching back into old tradition for functional geometries to use, we can be building brutalist architectures which are beautiful, colorful via mixed building materials, and which call upon heritage and tradition for gaining a level of familiarity.
Some aspects of these have been used in brutalist architecture, such as various brutalist structures in japan which add texturing to their building exteriors, as well as use mixed materials for color variation and unique symmetries for visual appeal.
I would also point out, that while it is apart of brutalist moral to leave the interiors of brutalist buildings exposed, there are plenty of cases contrary to that moral. It also does not impact the core aspect of brutalist buildings - the exterior.
That's a base layout of my argument, take it or leave it, basically the people who've done brutalist buildings have been totally bungling it and there is reinvention which can take place, but that we can see the beginnings of in small portions.
Even if it wasn't called a degree as such, artisans had to study under masters for years to learn the craft.