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
TaterBot said:
Interesting thread. I love beautiful buildings with a function and find many modern structures/art ridiculously ugly. If lack of money were an issue, it'd be easier to understand but that's often not the case. Money can't buy you class or a sense of good taste.

Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder but when 90% of the people who see a thing, pronounce it hideous -- it's hideous.
Click to expand...
and more often than not, the taxpayor funds it. disgusting. these affronts to aesthetics are culturall equivalent to the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas. it's intentional dystopia-making
Dreamer said:
No, if 90% of people are wrong, then it doesn't make them right. As it happens the 90% doesn't know what they're taking about.

Modern architecture looks predominately like this nowadays (form+function, emphasis on materials and textures, usually built with consideration of its immediate environment and the popular ones have a few clever ideas mixed in). Keep focusing on those funny meme buildings though, don't let me stop you.
Click to expand...
Typical marxist affrontery and arrogance. "we have the right to spend taxpayor money on our pet projects whether the bulk of taxpayors likeit or not"
Your time is coming to face the wall, Comrade.
May you be buried in therubble of your pet monstrosities
 
Last edited:
Dreamer said:
No, if 90% of people are wrong, then it doesn't make them right. As it happens the 90% doesn't know what they're taking about.

...Keep focusing on those funny meme buildings though, don't let me stop you.
Click to expand...
lol
Some modern buildings are functional as well as beautifully unusual. They don't have to be eye-offensive. I'm beginning to agree with OP's pov that it's deliberate. Ever wonder where the architects of monstrosities live? Do they have to look at their creations from their own windows everyday? What do their own houses/neighborhoods look like?

So you consider the St Petersburg Hermitage, Belorusskaya, Frank Lloyd Wright buildings etc etc "funny memes"? What a strange oddball interpretation that is.
 
TaterBot said:
lol
Some modern buildings are functional as well as beautifully unusual. They don't have to be eye-offensive. I'm beginning to agree with OP's pov that it's deliberate. Ever wonder where the architects of monstrosities live? Do they have to look at their creations from their own windows everyday? What do their own houses/neighborhoods look like?

So you consider the St Petersburg Hermitage, Belorusskaya, Frank Lloyd Wright buildings etc etc "funny memes"? What a strange oddball interpretation that is.
Click to expand...
The live in Late Victorian/ Georgian townhouses. Guaranteed.
 
Dreamer said:
No, if 90% of people are wrong, then it doesn't make them right. As it happens the 90% doesn't know what they're taking about.

Modern architecture looks predominately like this nowadays (form+function, emphasis on materials and textures, usually built with consideration of its immediate environment and the popular ones have a few clever ideas mixed in). Keep focusing on those funny meme buildings though, don't let me stop you.
Click to expand...
The first one's not bad until you get to the grey Lego upper section. That library in Copenhagen is ugly as shit; worse still in person. It was built using similar colours to surrounding buildings as a sop to the strong local resistance to its proposed construction; it was the start of a project to "improve a challenged neighbourhood". Look at it from a different angle...

1604274149054.png
1604274317558.png


Fucking horrible. Copenhagen has some astoundingly beautiful architecture, this is not one of the examples.
 
Dreamer said:
No, if 90% of people are wrong, then it doesn't make them right. As it happens the 90% doesn't know what they're taking about.

Modern architecture looks predominately like this nowadays (form+function, emphasis on materials and textures, usually built with consideration of its immediate environment and the popular ones have a few clever ideas mixed in). Keep focusing on those funny meme buildings though, don't let me stop you.
Click to expand...
Beauty is only in the beholder if it agrees with the 10%. You’re more autistic than OP. You only posted those buildings from one angle and they’re barely passing grade. Unironic communists/Marxists made better architects but my contemporary architects dindu nuffin.
 
Stilgar of Troon said:
I have yet to see any popularly vaunted examples of modern architecture that didn't detract from the look of their immediate surroundings. I'm not saying all modern architecture is awful, but most of the prominent examples are (to my eye at least) unsubtle and crass, considered in context of their environment. Different for the sake of being different is worthless and performative.
All opinions on matters of aesthetics are subjective; correct opinions don't exist in that context. To each their own.
Click to expand...

Peter Zumthor's buildings are designed to merge with the land around them. Aesthetically, to me they're quite beautiful.
 

Attachments

  • peter-zumthor-morphosis-architects-thom-mayne-fabrice-fouillet-thermes-vals-at-7132-hotel.jpg
    peter-zumthor-morphosis-architects-thom-mayne-fabrice-fouillet-thermes-vals-at-7132-hotel.jpg
    543.7 KB · Views: 93
  • 01_Atelier-Peter-Zumthor_Mole-Arch_Secular-Retreat_ph-Jack-Hobhouse_full.jpg
    01_Atelier-Peter-Zumthor_Mole-Arch_Secular-Retreat_ph-Jack-Hobhouse_full.jpg
    733 KB · Views: 94
  • zumthor-9.jpg.foto.rmedium (1).jpg
    zumthor-9.jpg.foto.rmedium (1).jpg
    186.3 KB · Views: 75
Last edited:
Some unseen person or force seems committed to replacing literally every attractive and appealing thing with an ugly and unpleasant thing.
Click to expand...
Gee, I wonder who could be behind this?

Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum!
 
*Scoff* you don't UNDERSTAND why hideous buildings are actually beautiful! Sure, my current attitude has never before been necessary, because even the most golden-geometry-fetishizing architect in the world understood that everyone is able to judge beauty, but *I* spent hundreds of thousands of subsidized loan dollars to listen to quacks for four years!

The rise of hideous architecture certainly has nothing to do with modern construction techniques making it so much easier to throw up shitpost buildings, no sir.
 
Sped Xing said:
*Scoff* you don't UNDERSTAND why hideous buildings are actually beautiful! Sure, my current attitude has never before been necessary, because even the most golden-geometry-fetishizing architect in the world understood that everyone is able to judge beauty, but *I* spent hundreds of thousands of subsidized loan dollars to listen to quacks for four years!

The rise of hideous architecture certainly has nothing to do with modern construction techniques making it so much easier to throw up shitpost buildings, no sir.
Click to expand...
No, its not that people are unable to understand, but that they are unwilling to even allow themselves to think that maybe it wasn't just thoughtless trash. Its ignorance born out of insecurity about their knowledge.
... which is unbelievably gay and retarded.

Modern construction techniques aren't easy to do btw. They allow for people to experiment provided they know how to construct and that's not a small feat i assure you.
Ill try to be more pretentious if you like it so much xoxo luv u no homo
 
Pointus missus, sprechen Sie Latin?

It's not that there wasn't thought, but that that thought led to something hideous and offensive. Really, you remind me of those people who try to defend shitty paintings by saying they were a lot of work to make. Certainly one may get more out of the Parthenon of Athens by learning about all the silly math involved, but an unwashed booby from remotest Alaska can look at that, then at some hateful bare concrete monstrosity, and say with conviction which one is offensive to the eye.

As for it being harder work to build something with modern machines and materials than with chisels and rocks, well, sure thing m80. It's definitely not easier to make buildings than it used to be; that's why buildings sprout with so much fewer man-hours now. Indeed, modern construction technology was adopted because it was MORE laborious, expensive, and time-consuming. That makes sense.
 
Sped Xing said:
Pointus missus, sprechen Sie Latin?

It's not that there wasn't thought, but that that thought led to something hideous and offensive. Really, you remind me of those people who try to defend shitty paintings by saying they were a lot of work to make. Certainly one may get more out of the Parthenon of Athens by learning about all the silly math involved, but an unwashed booby from remotest Alaska can look at that, then at some hateful bare concrete monstrosity, and say with conviction which one is offensive to the eye.

As for it being harder work to build something with modern machines and materials than with chisels and rocks, well, sure thing m80. It's definitely not easier to make buildings than it used to be; that's why buildings sprout with so much fewer man-hours now. Indeed, modern construction technology was adopted because it was MORE laborious, expensive, and time-consuming. That makes sense.
Click to expand...
Stop being mad, and stop generalizing.
Rebuking you is just embarrassing at this point. Still luv u btw, dont worry
 
I don't know why it is, but I swear every house built after the mid-80s or so is fucking terrible. They all are white or off white, have cheap siding on 1-3 sides, and are crammed into a lot with 50+ other identical houses with no trees and tiny yards that look fake (as in the landscaping is so perfect the plants don't even look real, which I find creepy AF). It's all just so sterile and unnerving and I hate it.

Seriously, I'm sick of seeing nice houses with big yards or patches of woods plowed over and turned into whatever that shit is.
 
Rich People Projects. It's almost the opposite problem from hideous modern art wankery, but it does suck, too.

Bonus points if the houses were laid down to make building the streets convenient, with no regard to the way the sun would shine on them. Trees are of course a huge no-no. Houses should be as close together as possible in order to maximize return, but should not actually touch because townhouses don't sell as well as a literal yard does. Monoculture lawns, probably of a grass that is not well adapted to the local environment. In Texas, it will be Saint Augustine, not because it's a nice lawn grass that works well somewhere with much higher rainfall than most of the state, but because it can be planted as pallets of sod, rather than waiting for seed to come up. Houses should all be so bland and similar that people will mistakenly approach the wrong ones. Garnish with a meaningless name like "Evergreen Oaks."
 
Android raptor said:
I don't know why it is, but I swear every house built after the mid-80s or so is fucking terrible. They all are white or off white, have cheap siding on 1-3 sides, and are crammed into a lot with 50+ other identical houses with no trees and tiny yards that look fake (as in the landscaping is so perfect the plants don't even look real, which I find creepy AF). It's all just so sterile and unnerving and I hate it.

Seriously, I'm sick of seeing nice houses with big yards or patches of woods plowed over and turned into whatever that shit is.
Click to expand...
Those suburbs is what happens when you have high quantities of land with uncomplicated ownership, poor building code and a broken egomaniac society.
In Europe land is too divided and for the most part already utilized in some way for this, so those projects end up much smaller and sparse. Terrain and greenery is sometimes also an issue further complicating the design.
Building code usually prevents pathological design decisions and encourages use of public spaces and greenery.
No such thing in the US, for the most part but the biggest fault is with the buildings themselves; in the US houses are built to be big, with little regard for longevity or even durability, constructed out of cheap materials quickly. Because that's what the customer wants: he wants big, cheap house as quick as possible, the customer doesn't care about how uniform the house looks, how the space is often impractically big, how there is no greenery and no places to socialize outside, how his building might topple over on a windy night. Broken homes for a broken society.
Housing in Europe has its own problems of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom