JayDee

How times have changed.

So the things i'd argue are thus:

• it does not need to be concrete to be brutalist.
• it does not need to be bare or pristine.
• though brutalism can be extended into the interior, it does not need to to be to remain a brutalist structure.

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.

Ah my bad. I thought this was satirical London lingo.

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.

TAPS would often diagnose plumbing and electrical issues if they were present, no? Part of their whole shindig was that they were at least trying to project a more emperical process on ghost-hunting. At least, that's what I remember when watching them in middle school.

I got Ritalin at around 11 or so. I'd get home from class on pass out for hours. Anecdotally, Being hyperfocused as a little kid can be extremely exhausting.

Algorism outpaced the abacus for a reason, and the slide rule outpaced algorism for a reason as well, but they're all good skills to have some practice with. Have you ever had to do long division on an abacus? It ain't pretty.

Buy used, compensate for the loss in power with algorithmic ingenuity, yadda yadda.

Also, if you can do the thing the app does on paper, you should just do it on paper and can save the computer for more difficult tasks like the old-timers that paved the way for our modern-day laziness.

Use the public library, also.

I dunno, man. Seems like all the convenient options at this point require you to capitulate to some asshole trying to jack up prices and deny payouts, and the only option now is to take high roads that are unpaved.

The yaris is the base car for their rally cars isn't it? So you could arguably beef tf out of it.

Strong disagree, killing is not the absolute worst crime one can commit. In my opinion: Torture is worse, destruction of life is worse, enslavement is worse, I'm sure there are others not coming to mind.

That being said, I agree that vigilante justice often leads to people jumping to gun and killing innocent people without meaningful evidence of their guilt. I just do not agree with the premise that killing is the be-all-end-all of evil crimes.

It funny, this concept communicates how personal conciousness is an illusion... but the personification and active voice when describing the universe in this fashion is also an illusion.

Don't listen to them. Come play vintage story! You will die over and over but you will learn many things!