site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   31360 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.

Not in vogue, you say? (That's the 2020 winner)

And the other 39 winners over the last 40 years?

  • -11

I think you are on a loser here. The prize announcement for the 2006 winner says:

The new laureate began his career in the 1950s and was part of what was then considered the avant-garde in São Paulo, known loosely as creators of the Paulist brutalist architecture—practicioners whose work, often using simple materials and forms, emphasized an ethical dimension of architecture. He is widely considered the most outstanding architect of Brazil.

Exposed raw concrete is the essential element of brutalism:

Among his most widely known built works is the Brazilian Sculpture Museum, a non-traditional concept of a museum, nestled partly underground in a garden in São Paulo. He made bold use of a giant concrete beam on the exterior that traverses the site. His Forma Furniture Showroom in the same city is considered an icon of his approach to architecture.

How many winners need to be officially considered brutalist for you to be wrong?

The 2019 winner was Arata Isozaki.

Notable early works include the Ōita Prefectural Library (1966), Expo '70 Festival Plaza in Osaka (1970), Museum of Modern Art, Gunma, and Kitakyushu Municipal Museum of Art in Fukuoka (both 1974). Several of his works from this era are considered definitive examples of Japanese brutalism.

These works were cited in the Pritzker prize announcement.

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.

  • -12

You asked about the winners of the Pritzker prize. I gave two from the last 20 years who were cited as brutalists by the Pritzker announcements. The award is now a lifetime achievement award, it seems, and they cite brutalist buildings in the award announcements.

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?

I was not the person who brought up the Pritzker award. It seems to be regularly given to people who were famous brutalists during the height of their career.

If you look at the 2021 winners, in the prize announcement they have some recent pictures of buildings. The top right picture of "Site for Contemporary Creation, Phase 2, Palais de Tokyo, photo courtesy of Philippe Ruault" has rough exposed concrete pillars, which are brutalist.

The award says:

Retreating from white cube galleries and guided pathways that are characteristic of many contemporary art museums, the architects instead created voluminous, unfinished spaces.

Unfinished concrete is the essence of brutalism. Perhaps there was a move away from brutalism in the 90s, but it seems to be back.

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?

More comments

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