Eh surely every organized religion institution ever is or was shitty, but their architecture can be apreciated anyways.
The good religions like the friends society meet in circular rooms. Even the architecture scaffolds the harm.
They're one of the main forms of american protestantism and controlled multiple state legislatures (and banned colonial expansion while they were in power). They also have their own schools and meeting houses. I'd call them a proper institution. Sometimes folks call them Quakers because they're mystics, so when they're contacted by God they'll start quaking.
But wasn't kellog a quaker? And that's why the instant oats are called quaker?
Convert that altar into a sacrificial altar and we can talk
Someone should probably turn the lights on before the mass starts.
Here's what it looks like when the lights are on: https://traverse360.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/st-francis-de-sales-muskegon-interior-1964/
I honestly can't understand how anyone sees beauty in this architectural style.
When I look at general western architecture styles, I mostly see imperialism and oppression and spectacle. We emulate Rome who pillaged multiple continents for resources. We emulate the UK who did it more effectively. We build cathedrals to capitalism every day we put up luxury condos or a glass rectangle.
Bolshevism isn't pretty, but there's catharsis in how total the rejection of the status quo is. There's beauty in the statement made by a mass of angry people eating their oppressors. Modernist music isn't pretty, but rebellion against the tonic that had dictated western music for centuries created something entirely antithetical to the institutions which created that music. Stravinsky's Rite of Spring caused the rich to riot at its premiere because they couldn't perceive the music in what I'd recognise as a beautiful ballet. Modernist art has none of the technical mastery of a classical painter or sculptor, but Duchamp's Fountain is my favourite sculpture because he put a urinal in front of the most pretentious art scholars in the world and said "yeah this is art fuck you". Van Gogh's ugliness was a subjective portrayal of light, Picasso's was seeing all perspectives of an object at once, Mondrian's was reducing a scene to its barest elements of colour, Rousseau painted fantasy jungles he built from botanical gardens. In all of those artists, the beauty is what they're contrasted against. The institutions, the socioeconomic exclusivity, the cultural conservatism and fetishisation of an idealised past, the economic prestige of the executives and bishops and patrons who built these as monuments to their own vanity.
I'll always hold brutalism up as the most beautiful architectural style because it's a urinal presented to the Salon. It insults everything I hate about architecture, a field I otherwise really love, and destroys the property values of everything around it. It wins accolades when fail-son architects making Glass Rectangle With Curve #7 don't. I want there to be at least one counterweight to every gaudy piece of shit building in every city, and over time I want that to change peoples' values so that they don't keep building those shitty things.
edit: Especially for a church. All the beauty of a cathedral has a material root. Literacy was walled off from the poor, access to the bible was restricted to the clergy. All of those stained glass windows and ceiling murals and gilded surfaces are vicious spectacle meant to bedazzle people who couldn't afford one of those candlestands or windows. If you're reducing a church to its barest structure, you're making the people inside of it approach it from a utilitarian way. There is nothing to distract you from the intent of the sermon other than the rhetoric, you're not looking at the only example of fine art in your town that you have access to while thinking about your god, you're not excusing a clergy full of paedophiles over the aesthetics of their presentation and the inherent feeling of gravitas you assign to someone dressed in a cardinal's uniform surrounded by expensive things.
So for you, the beauty comes from the message more than perceiving it as pretty?
That's the guiding rule of modernism in general. This is hard to listen to, after dozens of times it's still not something I can easily find the music in like I can a folk song. But contrast it with every other double-bass song you've heard in your life. Every other composition outside of modernist styles only portrays a very small part of what that instrument is capable of. You get a narrow cultural window for aesthetic appreciation and the role of a double-bass in western music. In that he plays every sound a double-bass can make. The composition isn't written around the cultural standards you've been taught for what music is, but on a spectrographic analysis of the instrument. Short of sitting down with a double-bass and learning it, that's the only time you'll hear most of those sounds.
If we only perceive things as pretty and use that as our main standard for how good it is, that to me is a form of idealism. It's consuming media without asking questions about the origins and intentions and deeper levels of that media.
Aaaaaaa he started squeaking and all I could think of was the terrible noises I used to make with my violin. Sorry I stopped listening it was making my flesh crawl.
That's the natural reaction to it and is about how I feel when I look up at a brutalist building. 33 Thomas Street is one of my favourite buildings in the world but when you stand under it there is such a feeling of hostility to it. But inside is an evil thing, the NSA tapping a telecommunications junction, and I don't want people to pretend that evil thing doesn't exist or isn't evil. If they go to Wall Street on the same island, first they see a golden bull showing the strength and wealth of the market. Then they see big shiny buildings that make them think "If I work there, I'll have a fantastic life and a powerful job in an office with a view that I can say I work at so women will fuck me". What they don't see is the wage theft that underlies the market or the exploitation behind the commodities or the sociopathic decisions made inside those buildings. The prettiness of a typical New York skyscraper distracts you from its purpose and impact while driving a real estate market that makes it impossible to be poor on that island. The best thing you could put in Manhattan, short of a guillotine in Central Park, is a giant "fuck you" to everything and everyone in Manhattan. That building is such a fuck you that it's one of the most hated buildings in the world. Somewhere out there is probably a calculation of how much it robs surrounding real estate developers and landlords of property value just by existing.
Intellectually I can see the satisfaction in saying "fuck you" with architecture, but my heart says the vibes are bad and are making me feel bad. I guess I'm asking for pleasure? I don't want to look at buildings that hurt my eyes any more than I want to listen to music that hurts my ears. I guess I'm in the "that's an interesting exercise, please keep it away from me" camp.
In that case, where does the development of new ways to feel pleasure from objects come from? If we didn't create new forms of art and new ways of understanding beauty, we'd still be tracing our hands on caves and playing basic percussion beats. That innovation needs to come from some combination of material and social conditions. When I look at a classical painter it's stunning, true mastery of the science of portraying an image, but that's not just some schmuck painting a lady. Behind him is a patronage system that relied on feudal exploitation, the crusades, and colonialism. Behind her is a system of patriarchal chattel slavery where she was sold by her father to her husband for aristocratic power gain. Every stroke of blue pigment, meant to appeal to you in a way that conveys divine authority because of its scarcity in nature, came from ore mined by Afghan slaves. That beauty became commodified and a commodity fetish, and it could have advanced either through oppressive or liberatory means. The beauty became a standard which was rigidly enforced, to the detriment of making new or good art, by a class that excluded normal people from both production and consumption of the beauty. If you made art, your intentions as someone who would have been a radical would be judged by the standards of a wealthy old white man who decorates their house like Donald Trump. If you weren't a wealthy old white man or the middle class white male pet of one, you were totally excluded from making art. As a nerd for this shit I can't name five female composers from before the 19th century. I can't name a black one or an Asian one or a self-made independent one or one that average people got to listen to unless they went to the kind of event that would make the German government play Beethoven.
The liberatory ones have to teach a new standard of beauty that comes from a different place and a different mode of analysis than how traditional art is produced. A guy like Rousseau can't afford to leave France and can't see a tropical plant without becoming a settler-colonist. Being able to access a public resource like a botanical garden, being able to teach himself to paint in a mature way without relying on the oppressive infrastructure of the French art world, and glorifying something that went against the industrialist values of that society all created something that was fundamentally different and at least to some degree hostile to the senses. But it unlocked new ideas for new groups of people who could act on them in ways that don't serve the powerful. I can point at Rousseau and say that's why we should build green spaces in ghettos and fund public art education, ideas the patrons of his contemporaries would reject as they try to enforce their monopoly on beauty. I can point at a jungle scene and say that wild, disorganised, natural foliage is just as beautiful as a manicured aristocratic garden that relies on dozens of indentured servants and was only painted to jerk off the wealthy white man who owned it. If that painting is rejected by a museum, I can question that museum's judgement instead of accepting that the Salon understands art better than I could because they have fancy art titles.
Damn. That was the best anyone has ever explained that to me before. Thank you
I think it's quite lovely. Add a little more indoor low light greenery and flowing water and it would look like a grotto.
Fair enough, but I think there would have to be A LOT of greenery to get me to see this as anything but stark and joyless.
Getting rid of the red light would help too. Right now it looks very sinister to me.
I don't know, I'm not catholic. I've been inside a few catholic churches though and I'm trying to remember. Maybe I just don't remember the light because there's other color from stained glass and stuff so the contrast isn't so stark?
It's usually a candle encased in red glass, or a small red light. There usually are other dim lights in the sanctuary, and the sanctuary is usually placed to the side and not as prominently as in this church.
I think having just the red light fits the aesthetic of the church.
I really like it.
I dislike monochromatic looks and stark angles, so I think brutalism is pretty much always going to be a miss for me unless it's COVERED in plants for some color and curves.
Oh yes the red light has got to go! But the starkness of the bare stone contrasted with natural light, low light greenery, and water would be quite relaxing. I am also talking less about a church but more of a communal space for meditation and relaxation.
I dunno, I'm looking at the picture and there are pretty massive vertical gaps between horizontal "shelves" and it doesn't look like there are any at the top. You could have some kind of trailing greenery draping from the shelves, but most of it is only getting covered with climbing vines, which are going to degrade the concrete.
I don’t think this particular example is great but I’ve seen some brutalist buildings that had pleasing external external architecture imo
I like the geometry and scale, to me theres something really breathtaking about stripping away all the fancy embellishments of past architecture and avoiding the glass blob shit of most contemporary architecture I see. I also like the combination of simple basic materials in concrete and glass used in complex ways within the restrictions of fairly clean geometry.
Also somewhat like HappyBadger said I feel theres an actual identity and culture to be found in brutalist architecture, much of past architecture is purely praising the monarchy/aristocracy or the church, or their equivalents, and modern commercial architecture feels fairly soulless since its just a bunch of glass in some blobby shape that doesnt offend or stick out. Brutalism makes me actually feel something and it doesnt do it through just pumping me full of cultural nostalgia for awful systems of power that are glorified as "our history"
Me neither at first mostly because big pointless concrete structures are expensive and ugly cuz bare concrete, but idk, sometimes I think I like some
That's the worse touch, yes. I like the light coming from abpve that way, but it's obviously only for a minute at noon and the rest of the day that fucking thing is even creepier
That is just absolutely gorgeous. Brutalism fucking rules.
i think concrete with a bunch of holes (think trypophobia trigger pics) has good characteristics but idk
All square and bare concrete? Don't think so, but I don't know shit about that anywyas
Damn that's amazing. Is this why I liked the Standard Oil building the most when I was in Chicago?
