Comment by modernerd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by modernerd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

These are just the word marks, not the full logos.

I mocked up a comparison of the logos (Microsoft/Airbnb/Spotify/Pinterest rarely use their word marks without the accompanying icon) and they start to retain a _little_ more personality, at least for the tech comparison.

https://imgur.com/a/v5yKD3o

It still seems fair to say they're more bland than past iterations, though. The theme is ”[optional icon] + sans serif word mark”, and it's a good example of “small m minimalism” — a kind of unthinking collective march toward an absence of detail — touched on by The Cultural Tutor in this thread:

https://twitter.com/culturaltutor/status/1538211892707086338

> Perhaps minimalist design is so prevalent because we no longer have anything to say.

> You don't need me to explain what the Gothic cathedral says, for example.

> But the skyscraper? It doesn't say anything, really. It's just... there.

> And suddenly everything, everywhere starts to look the same.

> Absolute neutrality. No detail. No identity.

> What does that say about us?

Architecture is a wierd one to pick on because it has function and form.

For instance, the gothic cathedral doesn't actually need those two giant pillars out front, it is held up by it's cantilever. So we removed those.

Also... Anyone else think it's very dark in here? How about we change out the engraved walls for windows?

All this thick concrete and engravments don't allow us to build bigger than 8 stories. How about we change it out to a steel internal design and add more windows. It will allow more light, decrease weight and allow us to build higher.

> Absolute neutrality. No detail. No identity.

> What does that say about us?

I disagree entirely with the basis of your argument. The amount of art in TV, Movies, Video games and overall graphic design has been on an incredible trajectory.

What happened is that we started to understand our goals and mission. Adding two $400k gothic style pillars to the facade of a building that do absolutely nothing for thee structural soundness, or spend that 400k to add a bit more elegance to the rooms?

pretentious and ostentatious or functional?

You're right that there are still thousands of examples of objects with identity and personality in all forms of modern art and design.

You're also right that modern design and architecture are shaped by changing missions, goals and standards (as well as changing fashions, material science, economic concerns, and maintenance and energy considerations since the 16th Century).

I don't think that was the twitter author's point, though. (I was quoting the author in the parent — it wasn't “my argument”.) They didn't say, “we should over-engineer structures even though material science has improved to the point that we no longer need to” or, “we should embellish things excessively even if the budget might be better allocated elsewhere”. They simply claimed that detail is linked to identity and personality; when there is less diverse detail in modern design there will be less diverse identity and personality.

This seems fair to me and it's easy to corroborate. Popular logos have converged around inoffensive icon + sans-serif font. New buildings are typically homogeneous unadorned concrete/steel boxes or glass towers or some mix of both. Popular hardware has converged toward a minimal glass slab. Sales websites feel like cookie-cutter versions of each other. These objects can all still be beautiful, but they can also lack personality.

The subtext in the author's thread was that it doesn't need to be this way. It is possible to meet modern goals and standards and also design to a budget, but be braver (the active, big-M Minimalism rather than the more cowardly small-m version). You can build “minimal” things that have details, identities and personalities. For example, Teenage Engineering[1] and Zaha Hadid's architectural firm[2] both inject their designs with detail and personality while following a minimalist/modernist style. This elevates them from the glass slab/box world of some of their peers, and it makes the products and environments more interesting to use and live in.

[1]: https://teenage.engineering/

[2]: https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/top-architects/a295-30-...

A square box of concrete can be functional.

I don’t think that trade-off is real - can’t think of a single classical, beautiful building I’ve been to where the interior would benefit that much from a flat glass facade. In fact what comes to mind is Penn Station as a counter-example. Do you have any examples?

my point was alot of the 'Design' of Gothic came from it's requirements, not percieved beauty. They put those giant pillars and facade up to hold the building up. They were a very expensive way of building.

Now with modern technology like cantilevers, these 'Gothic Buildings' don't actually require those giant pillars of rock and are there purely for nestolgic purposes. Highly expensive nestolgic purposes.

& obviously me and you have been looking at different skyscrapers. I live in chicago and I think they are all absolutely stunning & unique.

>I don’t think that trade-off is real - can’t think of a single classical, beautiful building I’ve been to where the interior has been downgraded because of the facade. Do you have any examples?

Obviously they had a budget on the building. The more you spend on non-functional, artistic requirements the less you have for functional.

The whole principle of modern architecture literally bases itself around how awful gothic buildings are for this very reason. Functional, unpretensious designs that let in alot of light.

Also, the carved ornamental bits of classical and medieval architecture were mostly designed based on very different aesthetic sensibilities to our appreciation of how the stone looks after the centuries have worn the paint off...

We'd probably consider the original Greek temple decoration in its original state as looking a bit gaudy, and they'd probably consider the undressed stone or white paint of neoclassical architecture of the last couple of centuries to look unfinished.

> But the skyscraper? It doesn't say anything, really. It's just... there.

> And suddenly everything, everywhere starts to look the same.

these are nationalist dog whistles....

Yes, those Nazis really hate _squints_ everything looking the same?

How so?

At least in the US, contemporary design culture (or at least cherry picked, extreme examples of it) is weaponized by the far right as a way of leveraging traditionalism as ideal and progressivism, secularism as nihilistic and degenerative.

It's also a convenient way to say "cities = bad, country = good" which is convenient because minority groups historically congregate in cities and the countryside is predominately white.

Really the problem is rooted in late neoliberal capitalism not our bipartisan politics

Sorry but this didn't really answer my question. Taking popular stances, that even you admit to agreeing with, and calling them dog whistles because some fringe group doesn't agree with it in exactly the same way as you, is really jumping the shark.

It would be one thing if that quote was some "coded" message, but this was your answer? Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com