site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31724 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 24, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Phase 2, Palais de Tokyo, photo courtesy of Philippe Ruault" has rough exposed concrete pillars, which are brutalist

No, merely having rough exposed concrete pillars is not brutalism. And the Palais de Tokyo is certainly not brutalist. Nor are the other buildings mentioned in the award announcement you link to. Not the École Nationale Supérieure d'Architecture de Nantes. Not the Cap Ferret House. Not the social houses for Cité Manifeste. Not the Ourcq-Jaurès student and social housing.

Edit: And, by the way, the accouncement also says:

On a grander scale, Lacaton and Vassal, alongside Frédéric Druot, transformed La Tour Bois le Prêtre (Paris, France 2011), a 17-story, 96-unit city housing project originally built in the early 1960s. The architects increased the interior square footage of every unit through the removal of the original concrete façade

If you don't like rough exposed concrete, fine. But why insist on using a term inaccurately? Don't you care about accuracy? And it is not as if giving it a particular name makes it more or less attractive.

merely having rough exposed concrete pillars is not brutalism.

Unfinished concrete is one of the main features of brutalism. The others are minimalism, which this has, and exposed structural elements, which this also has. I am not sure why you think this is not brutalist.

I suppose I should check the definition.

Brutalist architecture is an architectural style that emerged during the 1950s in the United Kingdom, among the reconstruction projects of the post-war era.[1][2][3] Brutalist buildings are characterised by minimalist constructions that showcase the bare building materials and structural elements over decorative design.[4][5] The style commonly makes use of exposed, unpainted concrete or brick, angular geometric shapes and a predominantly monochrome colour palette;[6][5] other materials, such as steel, timber, and glass, are also featured.

The picture I linked to is surely minimalist, has bare building materials and structural elements are exposed. It has no decorative design. It has unpainted concrete, angular geometric shapes in the ceiling, and a monochrome pallet. Why is this not brutalism?

Well, the skylight, for one thing, which is clearly a major design element.

More importantly, as I noted, none of the other buildings listed by that particular winner are brutalist. So, again, the original claim that brutalism is the only thing built nowadays is false.

The skylight uses unpainted metal and glass and shows structural elements. It lacks all decoration and is monochrome. You seem to have a very particular interpretation of brutalist.

When I give an example of someone who is renowned as a brutalist, you say that does not count, because he built those long ago. When I give a modern example of an obviously brutalist building, you point to old examples to claim the architect is not brutalist. You can't have it both ways.

I honestly do not understand your gatekeeping here. The Cap Ferret House uses unpainted metal, angular geometric shapes, exposed structural elements, and no decorative elements. It has a monochrome pallet. Their other buildings have this too. This meets all the elements of brutalism. Perhaps the term is used in a different way than Wikipedia claims.

When I give an example of someone who is renowned as a brutalist, you say that does not count, because he built those long ago.

? Obviously he was doing Brutalism when he was doing Brutalism. But, again, please explain to me what someone's work done 60 years ago says about what style is common now? Charlie Chaplin got an honorary Oscar in 1972, but the films of the 70s were hardly Chaplanesque.

When I give a modern example of an obviously brutalist building, you point to old examples to claim the architect is not brutalist.

The example you gave was apparently complete in 2012. The examples I gave were completed in 2009, 1998, 2005, and 2013, respectively. I don't know why you are saying that the one exception is more representative of the architect's career. And, it is of course very possible that he (actually, I think it is they) uses different styles, or a combination of styles.

The Cap Ferret House

Well, if the Cap Ferret House, which looks like this, and Boston City Hall, which looks like this are both Brutalist, then "Brutalist" has no meaning.

Edit: PS, "The skylight uses unpainted metal and glass and shows structural elements. It lacks all decoration and is monochrome." I am pretty sure all skylights use unpainted glass. And I am not sure how you know that the metal is unpainted. Moreover, how does it show more structural elements than most large skylights?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats