Hacker News Reader

Comment by et2o | Hacker News Reader

It’s likely by this pedantic definition that no automobile could ever be brutalist. Architectural gatekeeping.

“The truck is consumerist, whereas brutalism’s monumentality is civic. The truck’s boldness serves the bravado of an individual, whereas brutalism’s visual power was meant to project the shared dignity of the public realm.”

Literally no product you can buy would meet this definition.

I guess you could make a brutalist city bus?

I definitely think it could be argued that there are many examples of brutalistic public transport - a great comparison would be New York City’s aluminium cans (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/MT...) versus London’s tube trains with their curves and glass (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Shiny_an...)

> "the shared dignity of the public realm"

That is a peculiar way to describe what Brutalism projects. I've always thought that it projected the sinister power of bureaucracy, and that was why government officials fell for it as hard as they did.

(I know you're just quoting the author.)

> That is a peculiar way to describe what Brutalism projects

By the express wording of the quote, it doesn't describe what Brutalism projects but what Brutalism was meant to project.

Not to mention a major motivation for electric vehicles is the public good and preservation of the public realm.

its better to think of it more as public harm reduction than public "good"

Same thing really

If people didn't see vehicles as a net positive compared to the alternative they wouldn't own them.

Not really. I see them as a necessary evil. Everyone else has one and expects me to be able to get around, so I have one too. If public transit were decent, I wouldn’t own a car.

necessary evil == net positive compared to the alternative

People own them because of a net positive for themselves, not for the society.

The word brutalist ultimately means whatever it is that it communicates.

> It’s likely by this pedantic definition that no automobile could ever be brutalist.

Brutalist comes from the french "brut" meaning "raw". So a car could perfectly well be brutalist by not hiding its nature under paint and covers.

The unpainted Reventon replica[0] is conceptually closer: it's bolted and welded sheet metal, and that's left obviously visible.

[0] http://www.gadgetsandgizmos.org/man-builds-replica-lamborghi...

I think this could be true, in the same way that I'm not sure a window air conditioner could ever be Rubenesque.

I find this definition the opposite of pedantic, paying attention to the spirit of the thing rather than the smaller details. Brutalism is not really a style for personal cars, and certainly the entire Elon Musk saga is non-Brutalist as you can get.

Excuse me but Jeremy Clarkson would beg to differ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbU0UJAdFj8

If we remove the requirement about the concrete, then Geoff car would also tick all of the boxes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCSNCs7bwCw

They give some examples. Like how it doesn’t show any of the bolts or welds and really is just a shell on a vehicle. A brutalist vehicle would be more raw.

Would the BatMobile be an example?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com