Gdanning
2yr ago
No, heavywater said something completely incorrect. And, as it happens, I don't particularly like brutalism, with very few exceptions. What I don't like is people opining from positions of ignorance, whether it is UWS liberals who complain about Citizens United doing things it didn't do, or conservatives complaining about contemporary architecture without understanding what it is.
Gdanning
2yr ago
You're not saying outright that I have to defer, but your statement "It is that if you are going to criticize contemporary architecture, then it helps to come across as knowing what you are talking about" certainly carries the implication that I ought to be deferring to those with the right vocabulary.
No, saying that you should use the right vocabulary does not mean you should defer to anyone.
As for your local architects, run-of-the-mill architects follow the trends set by elite architects. If your local govt is only building concrete boxes, the fault lies with them, not with the field of architecture. Because governments in other parts of the country seem to be able to build something other than concrete boxes,
Gdanning
2yr ago
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.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Ah, I see, I misunderstood.
But I am skeptical that that is the case. Eg: Los Angeles replaced a number of library buildings not too long ago, and they are built in a variety of styles: https://www.lapl.org/branches/northridge https://www.lapl.org/branches/sylmar https://www.lapl.org/branches/harbor-city https://www.lapl.org/branches/encino-tarzana https://www.lapl.org/branches/mid-valley https://www.lapl.org/branches/sun-valley
But it is possible that it might be different in redder areas, where people might be less willing to spend tax money on attractive public buildings.
Gdanning
2yr ago
What's the difference? Are there some sort of Brutalism Police that we need to watch out for here? Dude, I am agreeing with you: That particular building looks Brutalist to me, but of course I could be mistaken. But nevertheless, if one out of 20 or 30 is brutalist, then the original claim that "Apparently brutalism is the only acceptable architectural form these days" is not correct.
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.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Gdanning, I appreciate your attempts to explain it to me, but I remain unconvinced that "The mainstream of constructvism has important insights in many fields". If I need to understand the history of the philosophy of international relations in order to see the important insights of Constructivism, then I'm comfortable dismissing its insights as "not actually important in the grand scheme of things",
Thanks, but I confess I don’t understand why you think a better understanding of international relations, of all things, is "not actually important in the grand scheme of things." I have a hard time thinking of something that is clearly more important in the grand scheme of things. Equally important, perhaps, but not clearly more important.
Gdanning
2yr ago
The award is now a lifetime achievement award, it seems, Right. Which is why they mention their old work. How does that imply anything about what style is common now?
Gdanning
2yr ago
Blocky forms made out of concrete" is brutalist enough for me -- what would you call the style of the 2021 winner?
That's what I meant by brutalesque.
There was no evidence presented that they planned to riot
So, you have read the trial transcript? Can you provide a link?
A jury can get things wrong,
Yes, but a jury that has seen all the evidence is much more likely to be right than some guy on the internet who hasn't, especially when that person has an obvious bias.
Gdanning
2yr ago
No one says you have to defer to anyone. But it is impossible to have a conversation unless we have a common understanding of terms. If someone says, "I hate contemporary architecture because I hate brutalism," I would think he would be happy to learn that most contemporary architecture is not Brutalist. Ditto if he says "I hate contemporary architecture because I hate concrete boxes," he should be happy to learn that most contemporary architecture is not concrete boxes. See,eg, Frank Gehry and other "starchitects."
And, guess what? With some exceptions, I don’t like brutalism either. But I like plenty of more contemporary stuff. Because they aren't synonyms.
Gdanning
2yr ago
I don’t understand why you think references to buildings designed from the 1950s to 1974 refutes the claim that brutalism has not been in vogue for 40 years.
Gdanning
2yr ago
I know exactly what PF was going to do when they got to the event.
No, you believe that. You don't know it. Note that the jury, which actually heard the evidence, found beyond a reasonable doubt that you are wrong. Perhaps a little humility is in order.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Dude, modernism predates Brutalism. The point is not that contemporary architecture is beautiful, nor that is ugly. It is that if you are going to criticize contemporary architecture, then it helps to come across as knowing what you are talking about. Take a look at the newest buildings built in NYC, for example. How many are brutalist?
Gdanning
2yr ago
But, were that true, wouldn't that be reflected in the Pritzker prize awards? What reflects the institution of the architecture profession better than that?
Gdanning
2yr ago
Where are you getting your definition of "realists"? In the colloquial meaning of "realist"
I don’t mean to sound impatient, but why not spend two minutes googling realist school of IR before asking that? That is, after all, what I explicitly referred to. Not to the colloquial meaning. As for "I don't see why they would conclude that a country whose government has committed genocide would be less likely to intervene to stop another genocide," first, the difference I meant to highlight was not that Nazi Germany committed genocide but Sweden did not, but rather that they have different norms. See the topic sentence of the paragraph in question. Second, realists don’t make that prediction. Rather, they would think they are exactly equally likely, because realists don't consider norms at all when discussing state behavior.
do not see a reason why I'm not allowed to conclude that nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea should elicit a different international response than nuclear weapons in the hands of Great Britain without the constructivist need to claim that the nature of the nuclear weapons is different between the two
Two points. First, previous IR schools like realism were unable to predict that the responses would be different. In contrast, constructism can. That’s what I meant when I said it had some useful insights. Second, constructivists do not say that the nature of the weapons is different, but rather that the meaning of the weapons is different (eg, one is a threat), and it is the meaning assigned thereto, not the inherent nature thereof, which determines how a state will respond.
I want to understand why there is any benefit for believing that social context changes the reality of objects, or that we're not allowed to consider any actor as different than any other actor without constructivism
Those are both strawmen. As I mentioned, in its non-extreme form, constructivists do not talk about the reality of objects, but the meaning attached to objects, and also to concepts. After all, important concepts in IR like "threat" and "ally" are not objects at all. As for whether we are not allowed to consider some actors as different from others without constructivism, no one said otherwise. There are other schools of IR which treat states as nonunitary actors whose behavior is a function of internal factors. Constructivism's contribution is re the role of norms, identity, and other ideas.
Gdanning
2yr ago
You made a claim that the convictions are legally dubious. You based that on ostensibly "notable" evidence which is in actuality legally irrelevant.
an alternative universe where they did arrive at the park and marched as they had planned to and exactly in the manner they have been documented to march in every single other case, it would have been harder to allege a conspiracy to riot.
This amounts to a claim that, when police have evidence that people are conspiring to commit a crime, they must wait for them to actually commit the crime before arresting them, in case the police are mistaken. Have you ever advocated that in any other context, in which members of your team were not the ones being arrested?
Gdanning
2yr ago
2020 is Brutalistesque, but 2021 is not Brutalist at all. The point is that "Apparently brutalism is the only acceptable architectural form these days" is clearly incorrect.
It's notable here that the members were arrested on their way to protest, they did not even have the opportunity to leave the vehicle.
I am not familiar with the specifics of this case, but it is important to note that this is NOT notable. in Idaho, as is the norm:
"[A] conspiracy is established upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there is an agreement between two or more individuals to accomplish an illegal objective, coupled with one or more overt acts in the furtherance of the illegal purpose. . . ." State v. Smith, 161 Idaho 782, 787, 391 P.3d 1252, 1257 (2017) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Garcia, 102 Idaho 378, 384, 630 P.2d 665, 671 (1981)), reh'g denied (Apr. 20, 2017). Thus, an overt act must be (1) committed by one of the coconspirators (i.e., someone who is a party to the agreement) and (2) the act must be done in furtherance of the illegal purpose.
State v. Medina, 447 P. 3d 949 (Idaho: Supreme Court 2019).
Hence, IF they agreed to riot, then the crime was complete the moment that anyone committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. That includes acquiring weapons, or a car, or many other acts. See State v. Averett, 136 P. 3d 350 (Idaho Court of Appeals 2006) ["In State v. Brown, 113 Idaho 480, 745 P.2d 1101 (Ct.App.1987), this Court stated that, "the overt act requirement is satisfied by slight evidence," and that the "act in furtherance of the conspiracy need not itself be criminal." Brown, 113 Idaho at 493, 745 P.2d at 1114. It is not required that there be a direct connection between the overt act of legally purchasing items used in the manufacture of methamphetamine and the criminal act of producing methamphetamine. The legal act of purchasing items necessary for the manufacture of the methamphetamine is sufficient to establish an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."].
Hence, it does matter that, as you note, "it is not illegal to have a shield."
Brutalism hasn't been in vogue for 40+ years. See recent Pritzger winners.
Edit: No, concrete boxes are not the only acceptable architectural form. Frank Gehry does not design concrete boxes. Nor does Rem Koolhaas. Nor does Santiago Calatrava. Nor does Renzo Piano. Nor does Daniel Libeskind.
And of course there is a wide variety of styles represented here
Gdanning
2yr ago
"Constructivists argue that states can have multiple identities that are socially constructed through interaction with other actors." is untestable,
I don't know why you think it is untestable. A variable like "identity" is difficult to measure, but that does not make the claim untestable.
"500 British nuclear weapons are less threatening to the United States than five North Korean nuclear weapons" is obvious without constrictivism.
But is not obvious why it is obvious. IR schools of thought such as realism predict that the US would respond the same way to the development of nukes by the UK as to the development of nukes by North Korea. Constructivism provides an answer. As it says, "nuclear weapons by themselves do not have any meaning unless we understand the social context."
In addition, as the article notes, constructivists argue that "the social relation of enmity between the United States and North Korea represents the intersubjective structure (that is, the shared ideas and beliefs among both states), whereas the United States and North Korea are the actors who have the capacity (that is, agency) to change or reinforce the existing structure or social relationship of enmity. This change or reinforcement ultimately depends on the beliefs and ideas held by both states. If these beliefs and ideas change, the social relationship can change to one of friendship. This stance differs considerably from that of realists, who argue that the anarchic structure of the international system determines the behaviour of states."
Then there is the discussion in the article about social norms and how they affect state behavior. After all, all else being equal, which country would you predict would be more likely to intervene to stop a genocide: Sweden, or Nazi Germany? Realists, et al, would say that they are equally likely, but constructivists would disagree. Why do countries tend to support countries whose majorities are ethnically similar? And what the heck is all this stuff about the "special relationship" between the US and the UK? Would the UK have backed the US in Iraq so strongly in its absence? Surely the UK's interest were served no more by the Iraq war than were French or German interests.
Gdanning
2yr ago
You are referring to an extreme form of constructivism. The mainstream of constructvism has important insights in many fields.
? 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.
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.
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?
More options
Context Copy link