Hacker News Reader

Comment by cm2187 | Hacker News Reader

The problem with "beautiful" is that it is very subjective. This picture is my definition of ugly. Unless you were sarcastic.

View on HN

Here too. It's using a boring building and adding make-up. Very kitschy make-up. That's not architecture, it's just decoration.

Maybe that's what modern buildings are lacking? Are we to surmise that architecture is dead if the proposed positive effects of architecture are better accomplished with decoration? The issue with architecture (edit: as practiced) is the resulting abundance of boring, dull or plain ugly buildings. If all it takes is some decoration, away we go, problem solved.

They are definitely lacking a human "scale" and something we can relate to (in my view). But it is also not solved with decoration. Architecture decoration is like putting lipstick on a pig. A dead pig.

Seconded.

There are these avant-gardes who wouldn't think twice about turning any public building project they could lay their hands into massive brutist absurdist sea of concrete gray from their dreams [1], if given a chance.

Add to that a couple of behemoth art pieces [2] strewn somewhere on the premises that will no doubt one day pulverize some poor souls.

Alas, the tyranny of the stroppy and vengeful minority.

[1]

https://lebbeuswoods.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/fic-2.jpg

http://www.artspace.com/filip_dujardin/untitled_2007_boxes

[2]

http://art-nerd.com/sanfrancisco/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/...

http://art-nerd.com/sanfrancisco/ballast-by-richard-serra/

I actually really love the look of your first link. Though I think it only works as a piece of art, the Escher-esque impossible shape as well as the empty naturalness of the surroundings. You'd never see such a dense building all by itself in isolation.

I was interested in a print until I found out it was $3,500 for an Inkjet print.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com