Horrific architecture - How marxism kills beauty on every front

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
R

Rafal Gan Ganowicz

Please do not rate this user's posts autistic.
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 25, 2019

Great article!! My Gods, that thing on the link likes like a mutilated octopus. The ugliest building I've ever seen by far.
I think the whole trend has paralells to the marxist SJW trend of making people as ugly as they possibly can be.Seaweed green hair, facial piercings, hobo-clothes, horrific haircuts,etc. Same reason troons makeno attempt to "pass"anymore,instead growing beards with their tits. It's decunstructionism, plain and simple, and iconoclastic bullshit. Tear down all conventions of what is good and beautiful, to replace it with the worst things imaginable.
Marxism needs to kill beauty because it is so ugly.
 
This is actually a pretty good article.

I've repeatedly wondered why it is that centuries ago we could build beautiful buildings like the Houses of Parliament. How even big train stations like St. Pancras had such a grand feel to them. Yet now with so many advances materials science, construction and computer modelling, what we build is so much less.

I'm not absolute on this. There are modern designs (not just modern copies) that I do really like. But we could do so much more.
 
The Fool said:
Are you okay?
Click to expand...
More well than you are, it seems.
Overly Serious said:
This is actually a pretty good article.

I've repeatedly wondered why it is that centuries ago we could build beautiful buildings like the Houses of Parliament. How even big train stations like St. Pancras had such a grand feel to them. Yet now with so many advances materials science, construction and computer modelling, what we build is so much less.

I'm not absolute on this. There are modern designs (not just modern copies) that I do really like. But we could do so much more.
Click to expand...
It'd make sense if the lack of ornamentation saved money. It doesn't, though.
 
Here's a question for everyone: are there any examples of Neoclassical architecture that you think are horrific? It can even be argued that the Seven Sisters in Moscow are pretty impressive looking, and though I've heard criticisms of the so-called "Wedding Cake" in the Piazza Venezia in Rome, seeing it in person I think it has some architectural charm to it.
 
Pissmaster said:
All the mcdonalds now look like big grey boxes and its gay
Click to expand...
That one, at least, could be written down to economics. One design is cheaper than many, it's a branding thing immediately recognisable, etc), and they can hire the same contractors to do all o them, with little ucking about re plans, etc.I'm a contractor, and have built "kit"homes in subdivision for decades. I know precisely how wide and tall the windows are on a givenmodel, and don't need to waste time thinking about it. This allows the company to bid a lower pricein exchange o the promise of endless work.
 
I remember reading that article when it was first published, and I feel that it echoes a lot of Sir Roger Scruton's criticisms of modern architecture. I agree with most of it's assessments of what went wrong with architecture during the 20th century, although I feel that there is something decidedly reactionary about a lot of the authors' pronouncements. Not all modern architecture is bad, and not all of the old ways of doing things would be suitable for our modern needs.

As an aside, some years ago I visited an experimental new town called Poundbury, in Dorset, which was built with a similar philosophy to the one advocated in this article. The town was commissioned by Prince Charles, and it is designed to mimic the older styles of architecture and town planning favored by those who reject modernism (Prince Charles himself has been a fervent critic of modern architecture). In my opinion, the place had a weird, Truman Show sort of quality to it which I found to be somewhere between cloying and eerie. I wouldn't say I disliked it, by any means, but I'm not sure if it's an architectural approach which I would favor being rolled out nationwide.
 
Last edited:
“Airports are ugly. Some are very ugly. Some attain a degree of ugliness that can only be the result of special effort.”
Click to expand...
Exactly. Just as with ugly, depressing modern public "art": it's not an accident, it's a calculated attack on our aesthetic sensibilities. It's designed to demoralize us.

Roger Scruton's documentary "Why Beauty Matters" touches on these issues:

Poundbury is mentioned at 49:30, FYI
 
moms.PNG

That was a novella of bitching.
 
You type like a man possessed
And you know fuckall about architecture

The article is downright insulting in how authoritatively it speaks about shit that it barely understands, is for some goddamn reason pointedly political, and is generally written for pseudointelectial dummies who can't word anything simply and effectively. Ill address the "overcoming fears" section specifically since it has actual structure and makes mu goddamn blood boil.

The 100000IQ giga-brain asserts that:
1 modern architecture fears beauty
It doesn't, but it seeks it in unconventional ways. Instead of sticking strictly to a uniform style it experiments with proportion and detail density in many different ones, each focused on a different perception of beauty. Minimalism is beauty through simplicity, Modernism is beauty through form and function, so on im a bit rusty on the details.
2 modern architecture fears ornaments
No, it finds new ways to ornament. Detail in modern architecture is primarily created through use of different materials, fractures and forms and how they contrast and interact with each other.
3 modern architecture fears tradition
No, it USES tradition in inventive ways without following it to a T like a goddamn animal. It reinvents and incorporates tradition to improve the design, using historical elements, structures, forms and most importantly proportions to achieve great effects.
4. modern architecture fears symmetry
No, its just no longer a slave to symmetry. It has its uses but is not only not practical but also really fucking boring in most cases. Symmetry is commonly impractical in smaller structures, yada yada.
5. modern architecture fears looking foolish
... he says as he berates it for looking foolish, seriously fuck this trash brainlet.

Imagine being a conservative so bad you literally replace your brain with a history book.
 
Last edited:
The fact that OP is kinda tolerated and given a platform speaks very highly of the culture of "Diversity" and "Tolerance" that makes the farms great. I hope you are proud OP.
 
Dreamer said:
You type like a man possessed
And you know fuckall about architecture

The article is downright insulting in how authoritatively it speaks about shit that it barely understands, is for some goddamn reason pointedly political, and is generally written for pseudointelectial dummies who can't word anything simply and effectively. Ill address the "overcoming fears" section specifically since it has actual structure and makes mu goddamn blood boil.

The 100000IQ giga-brain asserts that:
1 modern architecture fears beauty
It doesn't, but it seeks it in unconventional ways. Instead of sticking strictly to a uniform style it experiments with proportion and detail density in many different ones, each focused on a different perception of beauty. Minimalism is beauty through simplicity, Modernism is beauty through form and function, so on im a bit rusty on the details.
2 modern architecture fears ornaments
No, it finds new ways to ornament. Detail in modern architecture is primarily created through use of different materials, fractures and forms and how they contrast and interact with each other.
3 modern architecture fears tradition
No, it USES tradition in inventive ways without following it to a T like a goddamn animal. It reinvents and incorporates tradition to improve the design, using historical elements, structures, forms and most importantly proportions to achieve great effects.
4. modern architecture fears symmetry
No, its just no longer a slave to symmetry. It has its uses but is not only not practical but also really fucking boring in most cases. Symmetry is commonly impractical in smaller structures, yada yada.
5. modern architecture fears looking foolish
... he says as he berates it for looking foolish, seriously fuck this trash brainlet.

Imagine being a conservative so bad you literally replace your brain with a history book.
Click to expand...
LOL seethe moar, Comrade

Dreamer said:
You type like a man possessed
And you know fuckall about architecture

The article is downright insulting in how authoritatively it speaks about shit that it barely understands, is for some goddamn reason pointedly political, and is generally written for pseudointelectial dummies who can't word anything simply and effectively. Ill address the "overcoming fears" section specifically since it has actual structure and makes mu goddamn blood boil.

The 100000IQ giga-brain asserts that:
1 modern architecture fears beauty
It doesn't, but it seeks it in unconventional ways. Instead of sticking strictly to a uniform style it experiments with proportion and detail density in many different ones, each focused on a different perception of beauty. Minimalism is beauty through simplicity, Modernism is beauty through form and function, so on im a bit rusty on the details.
2 modern architecture fears ornaments
No, it finds new ways to ornament. Detail in modern architecture is primarily created through use of different materials, fractures and forms and how they contrast and interact with each other.
3 modern architecture fears tradition
No, it USES tradition in inventive ways without following it to a T like a goddamn animal. It reinvents and incorporates tradition to improve the design, using historical elements, structures, forms and most importantly proportions to achieve great effects.
4. modern architecture fears symmetry
No, its just no longer a slave to symmetry. It has its uses but is not only not practical but also really fucking boring in most cases. Symmetry is commonly impractical in smaller structures, yada yada.
5. modern architecture fears looking foolish
... he says as he berates it for looking foolish, seriously fuck this trash brainlet.

Imagine being a conservative so bad you literally replace your brain with a history book.
Click to expand...
Imagine hating beauty so much you spend 20 minutes defending iconoclasm and wordsouping excuses. 10/1 you have nontraditional hair colour, support AOC, and are a fur-kin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom