Brutalism is best architecture. prove me wrong. protip: you can't.
Reconciling politics and taste
Kayden Bennett
Jeremiah Sanders
It's unironically based and subversive.
People who consider that only naked Greek men and old ass medieval castles are art usually are the ones who know the least about art.
Owen Collins
Anthony Perry
As a visitor from /monarchy/, let me opine with some reactionary takes on materialism.
Now I'm the first one to disbelieve, and scoff at the notion that dialectical materialism necessarily results in communism. Evolution does not have a goal, and the same is true of markets and economies; they are aimless beasts on the landscape, competing for survival.
But I think I know why art used to be good, and is now bad; it's all about the economics. Or put another way, excessive wealth leads to excess/unessential and often disposable crap. This extends beyond the plastic garbage gyre in the Pacific Ocean made of your shitty plastic water bottles, and extends even so far as buildings. Skyscrapers are a good example; a building that has no alternative uses other than being office space or apartments. Or take the strip mall; it could have been designed as a plaza, and hence would be useful later for non-retail oriented small businesses, but instead it was designed to be torn down wastefully in the event that it needed to be repurposed.
In short, throwaway culture (the thing that actually happened to beauty) is itself a feature of unrestrained capitalism. That's not to say I approve of communism, but facts are facts.
And no amount of supposedly leftist faggots creating eco-homosexuality positive buildings, some of which will fall down due to the erroneous idea that structural supports are toxic masculinity architecturalized, are going to change the fact that the ugliness is only made possible by rampant capitalistic exploitation and narcissism.
Be an authoritarian for good reasons instead; like the fact that freedom is overrated/mostly a political talking point for America and her allies.
Logan Cruz
and?
Noah Young
Evolution generally leads to a more perfect form of whatever it applies to over time: matter, species, economies, etc. Though the participants may not be intentionally promoting this end it occurs regardless. With economies, increasingly developed means of production, the base, command a new superstructure, such as the institutions and values of a time and place. The progression of material bases as it regards to these things is linear in history: first there was primitive communism, wherein labor and productive forces were collective, then came feudalism, with its accompanying social relations of lord and peasant and such, and now capitalism; with its newer relations that were compelled by mass industrialization and the accumulation of this new form of the means of production by capitalists, who became the ruling class. The technological advancement of a society, as evident through basically all of history, correlates with the evolution of social morality, norms, economic relations, and all such.
Yes, and in another way: as the US industrialized and began to come into its own, Americans desired to create art, however that was largely a European tradition and so in reaction they began producing their own domestic kind of art; "modern" art, which took off in the Cold War as a further reaction against socialist realism in the Eastern Bloc. With this, agencies like the CIA helped promote by creating shell companies and creating artificial demand for this kind of style (independent.co.uk
Michael Hill
Gonna stop you right there. Evolution doesn't care about perfection/there is no such thing as perfect, only reasonably efficient/not half-bad given the circumstances. Need I remind you that Giraffes exist? Yes that ugly fucking thing with the supersized neck. Or the koala, the only creature dumb enough to eat eucalyptus leaf as its sole form of nutrients. Sort of like how Venezuela decided that the only thing it would do is shit out oil for eternity. Both are headed for extinction.
Let me fix that for you; massive amounts of wealth being generated by technological advancement, resulted for a 150 year time-frame in history, in a very real need to distribute those resources equitably. Socialism was just the attempt to go from equity to equality and hope nobody noticed. This resulted in an evolution (not better or worse mind you, just a change) in social morality. The second the free-flowing faucet of cash turns off, society will revert to the way it was evolving over the antecedent 18 centuries. Meaning that for a society that is not so rich, equity loses relevance. Think instead of how non-industrial and low-industrial societies manage themselves; hierarchy, authority, feudal relationships, and loyalty, these correspond to the material conditions of a society where money is expensive, so social life is lubricated by stark certainties and metaphysical realism because these generate the most trust, and trust lubricates an economy. Hence, such a nation is inherently monarchical; it seeks to have a good father for the nation, as in the household.
In short, we've had it too good. Anyway, not trying to go full /shtf/, it probably won't be too rapid a decline, more of a slow thing that will happen all our lives. However the migrant crises is a symptom; those people were supported by American Petro-Dollars to pick bananas for our tables. Now less of them are needed, so they are unemployed, with no opportunities, and their own governments don't have the welfare to help. Economics are dismal.
Didn't know this, thanks
Life mirrors art doesn't it? We produce throwaway garbage, so our art is throwaway garbage.