> incorporate elements of glitch, retro, video-game saturated colors
This doesn't seem related to the ethos of "real" brutalism, nor Neo-brutalism.
> modernslick web design, these creations invoke something similar to the spirit of brutalist.
How? Because people generally find them unappealing?
Brutalism is a minimalist movement characterized by showing the raw construction and function over superfluous elements and design flourishes.
Neo-brutalism is a similarly minimalist design style that focuses more on color and layout, but caries with it the simple and clear construction, with simple shapes and typography.
Adding "glitch" and retro video game references seems directly opposed to the core intent of both movements, both the minimalist nature, and the shying away from superfluous decorations. Even the user of Emoji iconography instead of plain text is non-brutalist. Neo-brutalism the re-imaginated design movement carries the original ethos with its focus on the raw elements that make up the design (eg. typography) over decoration. The classic gumroad example is a perfect demonstration - clear, focused typography, boxes with simple, stark borders to delimit various UI elements, etc.
I feel like I can say this because I'm Gen-Z, and not some old man yelling at the clouds, but let's not use the name of random styles to reference new and unrelated styles.
Can it not be more than what you imagine it to be? Can it not grow with the times? Can its forms not adapt? Its definition not encompass more than what was previously imagined?
Or do you believe it be like "the static dictionary" of art history? where everything, once established, remains unaltered forever? To me, that seems kind of ahistorical, things change and grow. Isn't that what's going on here? Hahaha! :) I think it is!
Things can grow and change, and language especially can change too. But even as things change, language is still used to convey meaning, and if words can be used to mean anything at any time, it no longer becomes a tool to convey meaning. Maybe one day we’ll say the color of the sky is “green”. But the first guy to point to the sky and call it “green” should expect a lot of people telling him that actually it’s “blue”. Isn't that what's going on here? Hahaha! :) I think it is!
On a more serious and academic note, things change, and styles and movements and definitions change. This is known and accepted, and not really the goal of this debate. But styles and movements are defined by a collective, they’re contemporary to a time and place and group of people. One guy self-labeling his work on HN is not the evolution of a movement. Movements are defined by a group of people working together (or at least interacting) to define their movement. There is a social discourse amongst them, and collective understanding - even if it changes over time.
Neo-brutalism is a movement that is happening now, across the internet, by a lot of people. It is distinct from the 1950s brutalism (hence the new name). Most of those people have clear and overlapping idea of what they’re creating - many literally publish goals and definitions of what it means to them. Those people are the ones engaging in a contemporary discourse around design and style, and defining their movement… while a lone HN post is using their name but not their discourse.