I think there's also the understandable response that's going on: there's the idea that people who have created brutalist works in their own work, and are proud of their participation in art history as a result of that, and proud of their work's expression of those principles (say, in the particular design they've used in a piece of UI, an app, a product, has been discussed, gauged and aimed for internally to be brutalist), will feel this work "Brutalist Hacker News" challenges the pride that they have in their own brutalist works because they feel it calls into question their achievement, and the definitions they base that on.

But it doesn't call it into question! It only expands the historical tapestry of what they're already a part of. It enriches it! But perhaps it enriches it in ways they don't like? That's ok. You don't have to like every work. It's not a flag you march under, but a big house. But perhaps so big as to be unmanageably incomprehensible, at a glance. So there's confusion - but where isn't there? But what can be said to be different of any encompassing human endeavour? The multitudes, highly differentiated, multi faceted. And would you really want to call yourself part of something that doesn't have that richness and that depth?

Works like this, that stretch the historical tapestry, only enrich your own works that are part of the same. They don't diminish them, they only make them part of something bigger. You may not like them, but nevertheless you benefit from them. By trying to restrict the living definition of brutalism to something less, you end up only diminishing your own work. Celebrate the differences, even if you dislike them, I suppose. Tho it may be jagged little bitter and colorful pill to swallow. Hahaha! :)