Cursed Images

1618346270352.png
 
This kinda shit pisses me off: You have a nice town/city area with a somewhat matching building style and then some retarded architect nigger inserts his pile of shit, ruining the entire scenery. Absolute eyesore.
"Trust me bro, this style is so hot right now!"
Some years later and it's as if the blue print was 90's clip art. I hate that shit.
 

I honestly enjoy a lot of modernist Western art music - Schoenberg, Webern, Stockhausen, et al. - that other people disdain as "horrible noise," so I try really hard to appreciate other forms of modern art that rub me the wrong way at first. I figure that maybe there's something there that I don't immediately get, but which a bit of study might reveal. And sometimes it does! It took a bit of thinking, and a bit of reading, but my initial ambivalence towards Picasso has turned to a genuine affection. Hell, even Malevich's Black Square has a combination of weightiness, texture, and authentic Russian shitposting that impresses.

But this kind of postmodern architectural drivel really pisses me off. They took a perfectly handsome building and replaced it with a building that is not merely ugly, but is actively, offensively bland. Pink and beige stripes and big glass walls are the architectural equivalents of "corporate casual." The only artistic statement to be made is a cheap visual pun: "haha, it's a tube station, and it looks like a train!" Was that perversion of urban heritage worth it? A shitty pun dressed up in a wrinkled polo shirt?

Decadence is just so much more tacky than Huysmans made it out to be.

Edit: Image tax
a wider world.jpg
 
Last edited:

Elsewhere in London, Charing Cross station used to look like this:


Charing-Cross-Station.jpg
charing_cross.jpg

That version got bombed to shit during the blitz, so in the 1950s they replaced it with this:

Charing_Cross_station,_before_it_was_built_over_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1717686.jpg

Not exactly pretty, but it's not offensive I guess. It looks like a train station at least. But in 1986, they decided to rebuild it again and spend a vast amount of money on a new architectural marvel. Hooray! What they built though was this:

charingcross4.jpgCharing_Cross_station_MMB_05_375808.jpgcharing-cross-railway-station-also-known-as-london-charing-cross-is-E5E09E (1).jpgCharingCrossStation-db10850-me.jpg

What the fuck even is this thing? According to the architects, it's supposed to look like "a train coming out of a tunnel". Nigga what? I can't even work out which bit's supposed to be the tunnel, because it has two huge arches. Is the front arch meant to be the train and the back arch the tunnel? Is that ugly round green glass thing supposed to be a train? Is any of that random concrete under it supposed to be part of the train? What kind of fucking trains have you been looking at, and what were you on when you looked at them? What the fuck are those buttress-type-things at the side? Are those meant to be train and/or tunnel bits too? The whole thing is just so incoherent. Especially visible from the aerial shots is just how relentlessly out of place it is amongst the surrounding architecture. It's literally next door to the Palace of Westminster (home to the UK parliament) and its amazing Victorian gothic architecture. If you want to fit in with the Houses of Parliament, you could have gone nuts building a neo-gothic train cathedral, but no, we got a "train coming out of a tunnel" as envisaged by a 7-year-old boy with Downs trying to build it out of Duplo while high on shrooms.

Fuck.
 
Back