ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, November 05, 2017

Of art and the artist

It is interesting to observe that when SJWs insist that the art MUST be judged in light of the artist, it is merely another example of how they are projecting:
Like Hitler, Jeanneret wanted to be an artist, and, as with Hitler, the world would have been a better place if he had achieved his ambition. Had he been merely an artist, one could have avoided his productions if one so wished; but the buildings that he and his myriad acolytes have built unavoidably scour the retina of the viewer and cause a decline in the pleasure of his existence.

One of Jeanneret’s buildings can devastate a landscape or destroy an ancient townscape once and for all, with a finality that is quite without appeal; as for his city planning, it was of a childish inhumanity and rank amateurism that would have been mildly amusing had it remained purely theoretical and had no one taken it seriously.

A book has just been published—Le Corbusier: The Dishonest Architect, by Malcolm Millais—that reads like the indictment of a serial killer who can offer no defense (except, possibly, a psychiatric one). The author shares with me an aesthetic detestation of Jeanneret, and also of his casual but deeply vicious totalitarianism; but, unlike me, the author both has a scholarly knowledge of his subject’s life and writings, of which the perusal of only a few has more than sufficed for me, and is a highly qualified structural engineer. Mr. Millais is able to prove not only that Jeanneret was a liar, cheat, thief, and plagiarist in the most literal sense of the words, a criminal as well as being personally unpleasant on many occasions, but that he was technically grossly ignorant and incompetent, indeed laughably so. His roofs leaked, his materials deteriorated. He never grasped the elementary principles of engineering. All his ideas were gimcrack at best, and often far worse than merely bad.

To commission a building from Jeanneret was to tie a ball and chain around one’s own ankle, committing oneself to endless, Sisyphean bills for alteration and maintenance, as well as to a dishonest estimate of what the building would cost to build in the first place. A house by Jeanneret was not so much a machine for living in (to quote the most famous of his many fatuous dicta) as a machine for generating costs and for moving out of. In the name of functionality, Jeanneret built what did not work; in the name of mass production, everything he used had to be individually fashioned. Having no human qualities himself, and lacking all imagination, he did not even understand that shade in a hot climate was desirable, indeed essential.
The artists, authors, and architects of the modernist era have much to answer for, and they are answering for it in Hell. The best tribute that we can pay to them is to tear down their buildings and destroy their sculptures while pointing relentlessly to their paintings and books as preeminent examples of what no man should ever do.

An ugly man can produce beautiful artwork, but those with ugly souls can neither recognize nor create beauty. They can only destroy.

Labels: ,

84 Comments:

Anonymous Looking Glass November 05, 2017 6:25 AM  

It's somewhat sad how long it's taken for it to start to break out, but SJWs (like most Women) project what they believe by what they claim to be against. The insistence that Art has to be judged by the Artist that made it really points so the ugliness of their own souls. It's the only way they can remove good Art: to claim the Artist is guilty of X, thus they must be rejected.

It's amazing how much destruction a group of people will do to run away from the corruption of their own souls. But, well, 100 million murdered by Socialism, so it shouldn't be too surprising.

Blogger rumpole5 November 05, 2017 6:31 AM  

This post is an example of why I click your site every day to see what's up now with VD. There's often something new and usually completely on target. Anyone who has seen photos of the old Pennsylvania train station in New York City, and then suffered through the souless degraded wreck that is the present station, knows exactly what you are saying.

Anonymous RabidRatel November 05, 2017 6:35 AM  

To commission a building from Jeanneret was to tie a ball and chain around one’s own ankle, committing oneself to endless, Sisyphean bills for alteration and maintenance, as well as to a dishonest estimate of what the building would cost to build in the first place.

That is true of a lot of modern engineering as well. It seems as if nothing is built to last anymore, and it is guaranteed to cost you an arm and a leg to maintain as well. May those designers burn in hell, which is where they richly deserve to be.

The loss of beauty can be explained by the war against western culture, but purposely making something ugly, high maintenance and expensive need the invocation of the devil.

Anonymous RabidRatel November 05, 2017 6:38 AM  

rumpole5 wrote:the souless degraded wreck

That describes post-modernism so well it would seems to have been the purpose of it all along.

Anonymous Steve November 05, 2017 6:48 AM  

I have wondered all of my adult life why modern architects hate people.

The profession has been a PoMo cult of bullshit since Nineteen Canteen. I'm not sure it's even possible anymore for architects to design something that isn't ugly or stupid.

If you look at what happened to art colleges - most of which haven't produced anything except grotesquerie since baby boomers were students - the basic technical skills people took for granted in previous centuries just aren't being taught anymore.

Convergence means we're probably going to have to round up the current generation of architects and immurate them, then start from scratch.

Blogger Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club November 05, 2017 6:50 AM  

The best tribute that we can pay to them is to tear down their buildings

Target acquired!

Get yer heads down, boys, this's gunna be a bigun!

Anonymous Nick November 05, 2017 6:51 AM  

From 2011: "Seventeen buildings designed by Swiss-French architecture pioneer Le Corbusier have become UNESCO world heritage sites, the Swiss government said on Sunday, ..." Thankfully the God Emperor has pulled out of UNESCO. One of the many tragedies of World War II was the destruction of so much beautiful architecture, adding insult to injury by replacing it with postmodern, soulless, communist cement blocks.

Anonymous GithYankee November 05, 2017 6:58 AM  

This site is always worth a monthly check in for the worst in modernist architecture

http://kunstler.com/eyesore-of-the-month/november-2017/.

The essays are a good example of clueless boomers trying to figure out a world gone mad, without r/K or race realism to help their anticipations.

Anonymous Steve November 05, 2017 6:59 AM  

Compare the mirrored blobs and infantile geometry of modern architecture with the Victorians, who even made beautiful sewage treatment facilities.

Blogger Resident Moron™ November 05, 2017 6:59 AM  

I don't consider his buildings to be any degree more ugly than any of his contemporaries or successors in the modernist "movement".

The astute reader will notice that this is not a compliment.

For the less astute an additional clue can be garnered from consideration of the alternate meanings of "movement".

Blogger Zach November 05, 2017 7:03 AM  

"You have to give this much to the Luftwaffe. When it knocked down our buildings, it didn't replace them with anything more offensive than rubble."

-- HRH Prince Charles

Anonymous Rocklea November 05, 2017 7:06 AM  

If aliens were to study human anthropology, from ancient times to now, and only used architecture as a metric, they would have to conclude that we are a devolving species.

Blogger Felix Bellator November 05, 2017 7:13 AM  

@6 Tatooine Sharpshooter's Club. Huh, but that building absolutely fits the function. AA culture in architectural form. Paid for by other people's money I am sure.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd November 05, 2017 7:16 AM  

Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club wrote:The best tribute that we can pay to them is to tear down their buildings

Target acquired!

Get yer heads down, boys, this's gunna be a bigun!


How appropriate that an African American museum is in an ugly building.

Rocklea wrote:If aliens were to study human anthropology, from ancient times to now, and only used architecture as a metric, they would have to conclude that we are a devolving species.

In a sinful world, you expect things to get worse, not better.

Anonymous NH November 05, 2017 7:18 AM  

VD,

Who's criteria then do we use to judge art's beauty and why theirs? Must art always be beautiful?

Anonymous Post Alley Crackpot November 05, 2017 7:20 AM  

"... SJWs insist that the art MUST be judged in light of the artist ..."

Very well, as they like it: what they deem to be art is simply political aesthetics without substance, and as such may be rejected summarily on that basis alone.

Any additional merit in any particular work has nothing at all to do with them.

Corbusier's followers certainly did a bang-up job of his idea of "streets in the sky" -- when they were implemented at places like Cabrini Green and Pruitt-Igoe, they turned into alleyways for muggers, drug dealers, and neighbourhood terrorists.

If you were looking for an architect to implement "Leviathan's Greatest Hits", one of his ideological descendants certainly has the chops to deliver the goods ...

Anonymous Post Alley Crackpot November 05, 2017 7:25 AM  

Steve @5: "I have wondered all of my adult life why modern architects hate people ..."

We have a lovely antidote to such places in Wales, it's called Portmeirion ...

If you've seen the television series "The Prisoner" with Patrick McGoohan in it, then you've seen Portmeirion.

Blogger Jew613 November 05, 2017 7:33 AM  

There are cities which require all new architecture to fit in with the traditional local building style. Once you've seen one of these places, the beauty and warmth, modern western cities without this restriction are just depressing.

Anonymous Trutharrives November 05, 2017 7:33 AM  

https://www.thedailybeast.com/snl-host-larry-david-roasts-harvey-weinstein-why-do-so-many-sexual-harassers-have-to-be-jews

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable November 05, 2017 7:44 AM  

NH wrote:Who's criteria then do we use to judge art's beauty and why theirs? Must art always be beautiful?

Mine, because it affects me and on purpose. Yes, because ugly art is a reflection of an ugly soul; an intention to harm me is psychopathic.

Anonymous vfm November 05, 2017 7:47 AM  

"I have wondered all of my adult life why modern architects hate people.

The profession has been a PoMo cult of bullshit since Nineteen Canteen. I'm not sure it's even possible anymore for architects to design something that isn't ugly or stupid."

It's disgusting to see these modern "architects" "design" these what are essentially overpriced boxes that get built in older neighborhoods with character. It's especially egregious in leftard areas because leftard goobermint loves them property taxes and leftards don't mind destruction of legacy and everything else.

http://www.rsir.com/eng/sales/detail/286-l-638-tphp2g/contemporary-new-construction-brighton-seattle-wa-98118

Blogger SteelPalm November 05, 2017 7:47 AM  

Dalrymple has a marvelous ear for insulting prose, as that hilarious takedown of the vicious French frog Le Corbusier demonstrates.

Anonymous vfm November 05, 2017 7:49 AM  

"There are cities which require all new architecture to fit in with the traditional local building style. Once you've seen one of these places, the beauty and warmth, modern western cities without this restriction are just depressing."

Exactly. And cities without those restrictions are leftard by and large. Go figure.

Blogger Phillip George November 05, 2017 7:51 AM  

Tom Wolfe "Form our house to bauhaus" says it all.

Cathedrals and old churches/ buildings/ chateau are one of the ways the Tour de France sells metaphorical bums on seats tickets.

The otherness longed for is just yesterday.



Blogger Cataline Sergius November 05, 2017 7:52 AM  

I think the biggest problem architecture has at the moment is curse of William Levitt.

He is the one that invented the concept of plans that are created with the needs of the Builder first and the Buyer second (if at all).

If you are going to build a home; one, read up a bit on architecture and visit the forums.

Two, on the basis of what you learn, hire an actual architect. You'll (*probably*) be glad you did.

Anonymous JAG November 05, 2017 7:52 AM  

http://rense.com/general32/americ.htm

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

Blogger YIH November 05, 2017 7:53 AM  

https://infogalactic.com/info/Paintings_by_Adolf_Hitler
He at least had some talent.

Blogger Phillip George November 05, 2017 7:57 AM  

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Accolade_by_Edmund_Blair_Leighton.jpg

Art for arts sake. A beautiful build is something to enter.

Blogger Cataline Sergius November 05, 2017 8:06 AM  

vfm wrote:"There are cities which require all new architecture to fit in with the traditional local building style. Once you've seen one of these places, the beauty and warmth, modern western cities without this restriction are just depressing."

Exactly. And cities without those restrictions are leftard by and large. Go figure.


This was Grand Rapids Courthouse. Built in 1893

This hideous thing is what was built it replace it in the 1960s.

Blogger tuberman November 05, 2017 8:12 AM  

1. Looking Glass

"But, well, 100 million murdered by Socialism, so it shouldn't be too surprising."

Was that the true number? Probably many more? The only good thing about it was that most of the murdered were socialists too. They were just the wrong kind of socialist, or they didn't swim the correct direction when the school turned, or their past held them accountable no matter their politics. Or a thousand other things that will get you killed on the Left.

Blogger YIH November 05, 2017 8:29 AM  

Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club wrote:The best tribute that we can pay to them is to tear down their buildings

Target acquired!

Get yer heads down, boys, this's gunna be a bigun!

What should a church look like? Not like something done in Minecraft that's for sure!

Anonymous dystonia November 05, 2017 8:31 AM  

It must be World Architecture Week or something. Seen earlier this week : https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/why-you-hate-contemporary-architecture (or "why is that spacecraft parked in an Austrian village?").

And previously, https://weburbanist.com/2015/02/08/new-frank-gehry-building-so-ugly-it-has-to-wear-a-paper-bag/

Blogger Johnny November 05, 2017 8:42 AM  

Who's criteria then do we use...

The criteria should be you, not some expert or movement. If you like it and you would like it to be somewhere, then it is art. If it is only silly then perhaps it should be in a public place and only occasionally seen by passerbys. If it pleases, then perhaps hung on the wall of a residence.

As for art producing an emotional sensation, in movies the only unacceptable emotion generated is boredom. The audience can be pleased, frightened, alarmed, tormented, whatever. Only don't bore them.

Blogger YIH November 05, 2017 8:42 AM  

@32. dystonia
New Frank Gehry Building So Ugly it Has to Wear a Paper Bag
Looks like it was already bombed.

Anonymous Uncle John's Band November 05, 2017 8:42 AM  

26. JAG

Yup. And stir in a dose of the postmodern 'reason, refinement, and canons of beauty are just a mode of thought, no different from animism' for seasoning.

The underlying problem is the centralization of the art world in a handful of institutions and critical organs. Its a common story: few nodes of control and an closed, perverse culture made leftist takeover easy.

Contemporary architecture is actually one of the most blatant of the Emperor's New Clothes situations, but the network of 'expert' nihilists in the prestige schools, media, and firms are very effective at persuading high dollar clients. Stripping the false veneer of intellectual sophistication off these parasites would go a long way towards getting nice environments back.

Blogger tuberman November 05, 2017 8:42 AM  

Christopher Lasch in his book "The Minimal Self," did a great job of demonstrating the total lack of any soul by the Left, in Art or in anything else.

Lasch argued for mature playfulness instead of narcissistic, infantile play. The Left's play treats the world and everyone in it as fecal matter to be smeared by them.

Blogger tuberman November 05, 2017 8:51 AM  

Contemporary architecture is just crap, and it's intentionally crap. It is another attack on Western Civilization. PERIOD.

Anonymous Uncle John's Band November 05, 2017 9:06 AM  

Our architecture expresses our civilization. Western canons of beauty are a concrete realization of Western Civilization, both historically (generations of lived tradition) and intellectually (philosophical underpinnings of the arts). Throw out the architecture and you are literally erasing the intellectual and cultural identity of the West.

I suppose the fact that it is hideous makes the degradation sweeter to our enemies.

Blogger Johnny November 05, 2017 9:10 AM  

I lived in Washington DC for a while and what I noticed was two small parks of the sort an office worker might linger in over the noon hour. Both small, perhaps the size of a buildable lot, one was old and in somewhat ill repair. It was in the general style of a park with concrete walkways that went through the grass from trees to park benches. In the center was a pond with some lily pads. Being small and in an urban area, it featured a decorative wrought iron barrier around the perimeter; not tall enough to truly keep people out, but it did direct traffic over to the sidewalk like walkways.

This park showed its age in a variety of ways. Some ground movement left the walkways not entirely flat, the wrought iron barrier sometimes leaned in a variety of directions, and the pond at the center always suffered from at least some unwanted algae growth. In favorable weather there would always be a few people in this park and over the noon hour it tended to fill up.

The other park, not so far away, was of new construction. It was immediately attached to one of these large rectangular office building of masonry construction. It consisted of a single large concrete surface, and had concrete slab benches for those who wanted to sit. It also featured street light style lights, made up of stainless poles. And at the top of the poles, staying with the everything square style, there were rectangular light fixtures, gray in color. Whoever it was who built this park, they might just as well not have bothered. Despite being open to the public, I never saw a single person use it.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 05, 2017 9:19 AM  

@9. Steve.

Holy moly. That's practically a cathedral... for sewage!

"If aliens were to study human anthropology, from ancient times to now, and only used architecture as a metric, they would have to conclude that we are a devolving species."

They'd be correct.

"Must art always be beautiful?"

True art? Yes. Look at all the examples of "art" that is not beautiful then extrapolate their intentions and you end up with something that looks identical to modern "artists" who not uncommonly work with and produce literal filth.

Heck, even gargoyles that were meant to look so scary as to scare away demons, they look beautiful next to most modern stuff.

"https://infogalactic.com/info/Paintings_by_Adolf_Hitler
He at least had some talent."


Agreed.

"What should a church look like?"

Minecraft? I've seen halfway decent stuff in minecraft. That stuff mostly looks like it was spawned by 1984.

Blogger stevo November 05, 2017 9:31 AM  

I always wondered why people made such a big deal about Frank Lloyd Wright.

Anonymous patrick kelly November 05, 2017 9:38 AM  

"Who's criteria then do we use to judge art's beauty and why theirs? Must art always be beautiful?"

No and then we judge it to be ugly

Blogger Johnny November 05, 2017 9:59 AM  

Imagine you build a chair. The chair is suitable for use, it makes appropriate use of materials, and by ordinary sensibilities it looks like a chair should look like. Perhaps as this chair is first built it will be seen as a work of art. But then this chair gets copied and eventually most chairs look like this first chair. It becomes not an artistic creation, but by being common, only a chair.

Now to make a chair and have it be judged a work art, it has to look other than how a chair commonly looks. It has to be too big, or too small, or too short or too tall or too whatever. That is, the work of art chair has to be odd looking or dysfunctional, else it isn't a work of art, it is only a chair.

Next consider the problem that goes with being an artistic expert on chairs. If the expert on chairs has a common opinion and thinks that chairs should look like chairs, it is hard to pass as an expert. Thus the expert has to like some sort of chair that is in some way offensive to ordinary sensibilities. And so the exotic looking chair, the one that isn't right, becomes in the opinion of the expert the high art chair. And then what happens is that what what gets passed on as high art is really only pretentious art, odd looking for the sake of being odd looking.

Anonymous Marvin Boggs November 05, 2017 10:01 AM  

@11: I'm not a great fan of Prince Charles, but that is a truly great quote given in the British manner that I do love.

Anonymous Marvin Boggs November 05, 2017 10:07 AM  

I must confess that I find the exteriors of his buildings to be butt ugly. I have always been a "function over form" guy (I'll happily take both when possible, but I will settle for highly functional) and I cannot tell how well the buildings achieve their intended function simply by looking at them from the exterior. Anyone out there ever worked/lived in one of these monstrosities? If so, was it functional?

Blogger Heian-kyo Dreams November 05, 2017 10:16 AM  

The local Catholic church is one step above this in hideousness. It looks more like a YMCA or movie theater than a sacred space to give glory to God.

Blogger James November 05, 2017 10:34 AM  

NH wrote:VD,

Who's criteria then do we use to judge art's beauty and why theirs? Must art always be beautiful?


It should be beautiful or striving towards the beautiful. Art that is not beautiful is politics. When art is intellectualized it becomes mental masturbation. This is very easy to see (or hear) when it comes to the art of music. I personally believe that classical music (which I believe includes baroque, pre-classical, classical, and some Romantic composers) shows this clearly. After Beethoven, you had a number of composers that produced some great works, but nothing of the quality or quantity of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Why? Because earlier composers had created such a high standard. When subsequent generations of composers started creating music, they couldn't compete with the earlier beauty. So, they became "intellectual" composers. Jewish composers like Mahler or Schoenberg created structured noise, not beautiful art. And because of the Emperor's New Clothes, critics naturally tried to show their intelligence by championing it. By promoting it, they destroyed classical music. Today you have "performance artists", like John Cage who "composed" a piece of silence. Come on! You have to despise your audience when you take a dump like that on stage.

Anonymous Mathias November 05, 2017 10:41 AM  

@45,

With architecture, form IS the function.

Anyone notice that modernist and post-modernist architecture, like communism, comes from the (((same source)))?

Anonymous Uncle John's Band November 05, 2017 10:56 AM  

47. James

This is exactly what happened in the visual arts after the Renaissance. Mannerism is the intellectualized degradation of the unattainable standard of classical beauty established by Raphael and the early work of Michelangelo.

Decline phases always follow singular genius. What matters is whether or not a tradition can recover its footing (Bernini), or power dive straight into oblivion (John Cage).

Anonymous One-who-is-hated-by-Jews November 05, 2017 10:57 AM  

https://www.henrymakow.com/2015/04/sobran-judaism-hates-christianity%20.html

Anonymous Brick Hardslab November 05, 2017 10:58 AM  

The absolute worst abominations I have ever seen were put up by architects. This one guy would take lovely Victorian neighborhoods and brutalize them with a monstrosity that looked like Frankenstein torture dungeons designed by cthulhu.

One place I worked on was across the street from a city park on a lake. The houses tended to be smaller, 'vacation' homes scattered between bigger Victorian era homes. He built a prison block all in black and dark gray with random slabs of black concrete and ugly jagged pieces of iron spikes like tank traps bolted to the side of the house. From the inside it was all bare Frankenstein wiring and while the lot had views of the park, lake and two gorgeous mountain ranges he blocked all of them deliberately from inside the house. The neighbor lady got out of her car and looked up at this nightmare menacing her looming over her little bungalow like a pagan prison for insane murderers, no windows just bare black concrete and oddly jagged steel spikes and she burst into tears. She couldn't stop sobbing. This three story monster would block the sun from about two o'clock on forever.

Inside it was bare everything, fixtures wires, stairs walls. The stairs were bare concrete slabs with black cables and steel posts. They looked like they were designed as a trap to kill unwary children and the elderly. They looked like something used to electrocute cattle.

The views of the lake, the mountains and the lush park were all blocked by giant slabs of concrete, thickets of black steel spikes as tall as a man and bolted and welded together at angles. The east side had one window a narrow frosted glass thing like you'd see in a gas station men's room. The rooms were small and mean and the only color was the room with a window on the east side. That room was a little girls bedroom. Two or three years old and she was condemned to this Hell. The room was the only one with cheerful fixtures or painted walls and the wife had shrieking arguments over it with the architect. He didn't want to sully his pristine vision of a torture block in Rylleh, she didn't want her daughter surrounded by ugliness every waking moment.

This architect would put support posts in the middle of a doorway, plumbed in fixtures on bare steel walls or under sloping ceilings so you had to squat to take a shower or duck to wash your hands.

And that place wasn't the worst suicide inducing blight he produced by a long shot. It goes without saying he's richer than Creosus.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 05, 2017 11:16 AM  

NH wrote:Who's criteria then do we use to judge art's beauty and why theirs? Must art always be beautiful?
Found the clown that considers himself an "artist"
Found the communist
Found the mid-wit poser

Blogger TM Lutas November 05, 2017 12:11 PM  

Make beauty, offer it, and make these people reject it. Publicize their preference for the ugly.

Don't make it political. Make it civilizational.

What's stopping you?

Anonymous Gen. Kong November 05, 2017 12:28 PM  

The descent into the ugly is quite noticeable starting in the 20th century. By the 1920s, ugly was in and beauty was out. Frank Lloyd Wright is an interesting case. The earlier, prairie-style items are heavily influenced by Japanese architecture and often visually attractive. Even Fallingwater has a grace to it - though this is likely though means of working with the landscape rather than standing in opposition to it. Evidently even basic engineering was not a requirement for getting the architect's badge even in Wright's day. Nearly every structure built has been plagued by serious structural defects (Fallingwater itself had to be closed down for several years as multi-million structural repairs were made to keep it from literally falling down the hill).

Of course, one wonders how much the slaughter carried out by (yet another) of the holy people in the 1914 Taliesin massacre might have contributed to the general uglification of his style. Hard to say but Wright's personal life was pretty much as disaster even before then, and the fashion - defined by (((important media))) in place like NYC - shifted markedly after WW I in any case.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 05, 2017 12:56 PM  

I know a guy in his mid forties who has made an absolute fortune building vacation beach houses in traditional styles. People want them. He and his wife started out fresh from school able to scrape together just enough money to build what was not much more than a shack in terms of size, but they did it with traditional architecture. Nothing elaborate, just clapboard sides with a traditional porch, but it looked like a house and sold immediately at a premium.

Of course, he's selling to individual families, not to governments or corporations. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised that soulless entities buy soulless buildings.

Blogger Randell Gary November 05, 2017 1:00 PM  

"An ugly man can produce beautiful artwork, but those with ugly souls can neither recognize nor create beauty. They can only destroy."

Might as well quit my art college stint and do manual labor. I need to do something practical anyway.

Anonymous AB.Prosper November 05, 2017 1:29 PM  

Modern architecture is fairly repulsive and often an affront to the eyes but best as I can tell its not a religious offense to make houses for humans that are bad unless you are copying a holy place or something.

I make make an acceptation for the Brutalists , modernism sucks but its still useful. Brutalist structures actually hurt people. T


That said the real curse of modernity is rootlessness, no roots in a place, in a job or vocation, in a faith and without roots, you have little grounds for aesthetics or beauty

Figure out how to stop people from being moved around like pieces on a board, make sure they have work and family and traditions in one place for generations and most of the problems we face will vanish in time.

Its going to require big changes though, the essential enemies of roots are economy of scale and automation.

Anonymous Ain November 05, 2017 1:32 PM  

"This was Grand Rapids Courthouse. Built in 1893

This hideous thing is what was built it replace it in the 1960s."



That describes my entire home town, if not most of the nation.

Blogger Redpill Angel November 05, 2017 1:48 PM  

Sure, lots of art and architecture is ugly, and when erected in the public square is quite meaningful and influential. The message, always of dissolution, decay, and disorder, is imprinted visually, repeated day after day as we walk around and into it: visual propaganda of the highest order. Every city now has a set of hideous fallen-girder sculptures lying around, looking like nothing so much as pieces of fallen skyscraper, an apt-enough symbol of fallen Western civilization. You wouldn't believe what an enterprising welder gets paid in gubment money for this permanent garbage littering the landscape.

Blogger kurt9 November 05, 2017 2:29 PM  

I despise this man, Le Corbusier, for his influence on architecture. I especially despise the "brutalist" architectural style, as should all people right in the head.

I had a friend whose father studied under Frank Lloyd Wright. We visited Taliesen West (which is in the Phoenix area) in the late 80's. I loved Wright's architecture because it was open, spacious, and allowed the sun in. You could be in one of Wright's houses or buildings and still feel like you were outdoors.

Le Corbusier was Frank Lloyd Wright's nemesis and I could never understand why the architectural professon was so ga-ga over Le Corbusier. I came to understand that one of the reasons why the architectural profession failed to design more in the Wright style was due to the pernicious influence of Le Corbusier.

To this day, I absolutely despise Le Corbusier and his ideas.

The Takimag article makes an interesting point that the calamity of the first world war twisted a lot of people's brains.

Blogger tublecane November 05, 2017 3:22 PM  

I've been entertaining the notion lately that modern art is was largely a money-laundering scam, which makes sense for paintings that can be produced easily, moved around, and shoved into dark corners of basements.

But modern architecture, how did they get the money power to pay for those? They take actual time and effort to erect, as well as plan at least insofar as you have to keep them from falling on people. Even if you don gave to give thought to making them beautiful.

Plus, paintings, sculpture, "installations," and such are stuck in easily avoidable galleries and other spaces. When you visit them, you can spend your time networking, sipping cocktails, or doing rails of coke. People actually have to go to work in modernist nightmares every day. The buildings aren't avoidable.

How did these degenerates get rich people to subsidize them? Bill-footers can be degenerate, too, but were they all *that* hopeless?

Blogger tublecane November 05, 2017 3:25 PM  

By the way, next time anyone gets on the "dogmatic slumber" business of church, patriotism, or whatever, try chanting "form follows function" at them.

At least with Christianity you get Christ. Modernists were tricked into believing in spare white boxes. Who's enlightened?

Blogger tublecane November 05, 2017 3:31 PM  

By the way, though modernism fails according to its own criteria--the buildings are dysfunctional, often irrational, and unscientific; they ain't cheap; and common people hate them; and they've been superseded by new "New" styles, so they aren't even New anymore--I still prefer to judge it aesthetically. And those buildings are ugly, ugly, ugly.

Blogger Feather Blade November 05, 2017 3:37 PM  

Steve wrote:I'm not sure it's even possible anymore for architects to design something that isn't ugly or stupid.

Depends on what school they were taught in. Most American architects follow the Chicago School, which is all of the Modernist degenerate Bauhaus German imports, but some are still taught in the Beaux Arts style, which makes pretty and classical looking buildings.

Anonymous RabidRatel November 05, 2017 3:40 PM  

tublecane wrote:I've been entertaining the notion lately that modern art is was largely a money-laundering scam, which makes sense for paintings that can be produced easily, moved around, and shoved into dark corners of basements.

Have you been reading Miles Mathis lately?

Blogger Redpill Angel November 05, 2017 3:44 PM  

Tublecane, what you say about modernist nightmares is true. Our city, however, has sculpture outside too, paid by the city. After serving on a nightmare committee to choose art, I came to the conclusion that liberals like modernist architecture and sculpture precisely because they see it as meaningless -- no history, no religion implied, no connections with any ancient culture -- and therefore a tabula rasa for their ideas. Just a thought. Everyone but me on my committee seemed dead set on quickly choosing the biggest, ugliest, most meaningless pile of steel they could buy. The final choice was placed in a "park" next to a busy tunnel, perfect place to get your dog run over. Nobody goes there, not even homeless people.

Blogger tublecane November 05, 2017 3:52 PM  

@5-Art schools were corrupted by a number of things,* but the overall theme is that no one teaching actually believes in academic art anymore. That's one of their most popular insults, to call something "academic." Which may sound like a good thing, because academia is corrupt and that's not an ideal environment in which to create art even at its best. But if you feel that way, why do art schools even exist?

Not for artistic purposes; that's for sure. For networking, for failed artist pensions, because these people can't think of anything better to do, and so on. Kinda like regular college, except even fewer people acquire skills or come out with jobs.

Not coincidentally, modern and postmodern art more closely follows the true definition of "academic" than the 19th century art they denigrate. Modernism/postmodernism are detached from everyday life and practicality, stuffy, uninteresting to normal people, excessively formal, abstract, theoretical, and so on. The only thing it lacks, really, that old academic art had is idealism. That's not a good thing.

*Painting technique, which was already doomed perhaps by the shift away from private ateliers, was ruined by the Impressionism. Architecture was ruined by all the little collectives, with their theories expressed in manifestos, and of course the Bauhaus model.

Blogger tublecane November 05, 2017 4:00 PM  

@65-Yes. It was an article titled something like, "Filing a Suspicious Activity Report on the Entire 20th Century." Though I tend to disagree with him on it being entirely a scam. I figure lots of people legitimately believe in modern art (we call them suckers), and the rich merely take advantage of them.

The idea was also put in my head by reading a book called the $12 Million Stuffed Shark.

Blogger OGRE November 05, 2017 4:11 PM  

Gravity is just a social construct.

Blogger tublecane November 05, 2017 4:40 PM  

@8-I remember that site from years ago. I got sick of the "peak oil" mindset, but anyone who hates modernism/postmodernism that consistently deserves patronage.

Blogger tz November 05, 2017 5:05 PM  

A classic passage from Ayn Rand's Fountainhead proved prophetic
Ellsworth Toohey was a fictional SJW before they became called that - or an original cultural marxist. The SJWs are the warrior arm of the cultural marxists.

But here you might have noticed something. I said, ‘It stands to reason’. Do you see ? Men have a weapon against you. Reason. So you must be very sure to take it away from them. Cut the props from under it. But be careful. Don’t deny outright. Never deny anything outright, you give your hand away. Don’t say reason is evil – though some have gone that far and with astonishing success. Just say that reason is limited. That there’s something above it. What ? You don’t have to be too clear about it either. The field’s inexhaustible. ‘Instinct’ – ‘Feeling’ – ‘Revelation’ – ‘Divine Intuition’ – ‘Dialectic Materialism’. If you get caught at some crucial point and somebody tells you that your doctrine doesn’t make sense – you’re ready for him. You tell him there’s something above sense. That here he must not try to think, he must feel. He must believe. Suspend reason and you play it deuces wild. Anything goes in any manner you wish whenever you need it. You’ve got him. Can you rule a thinking man ? We don’t want any thinking men."

Keating had sat down on the floor, by the side of the dresser. He did not want to abandon the dresser; he felt safer, leaning against it.

"Peter, you’ve heard all this. You’ve seen me practising it for ten years. You see it being practised all over the world. Why are you disgusted ? You have no right to sit there and stare at me with the virtuous superiority of being shocked. You’re in on it. You’ve taken your share and you’ve got to go along. You’re afraid to see where it’s leading. I’m not. I’ll tell you.

The world of the future. The world I want. A world of obedience and of unity. A world where the thought of each man will not be his own, but an attempt to guess the thought of the next neighbour who’ll have no thought – and so on, Peter, around the globe. Since all must agree with all. A world where no man will hold a desire for himself, but will direct all his efforts to satisfy the desires of his neighbour who’ll have no desires except to satisfy the desires of the next neighbour, who’ll have no desires – around the globe, Peter. Since all must serve all. A world in which man will not work for so innocent an incentive as money, but for that headless monster – prestige. The approval of his fellows – their good opinion – the opinion of men who’ll be allowed to hold no opinion. An octopus, all tentacles and no brain.

Blogger tz November 05, 2017 5:18 PM  

@15 Who's criteria then do we use to judge art's beauty and why theirs? Must art always be beautiful?

There's a modern 1% for art to fill the ugly edifices with even uglier paintings and "sculptures" which usually look like bits leftover after some kind of terrible accident.

First, Art conveys emotion first, though can do more, e.g. Bach. So if you are trying to convey the horror of war, the art will be ugly. But it will not be popular. Most people won't pay (or even attend long) atonal or worse modern music concerts.

Perhaps it is easiest to answer by the Sistine Chapel. There Art is ascending to heaven. Ideals. There is a bit of truth and rationality in symmetry, ideal forms, geometry, etc. as well as the topics. What would a holy angel look like? A demon, not pretending? What in nature do we find pleasing? (Though read the first chapter of CS Lewis' "Abolition of Man"). Much of the idea of the beautiful (as the ideas of the good) is built-in. Men know what makes women beautiful, hence the push to uglify them. The ideal, the perfect, the natural, the healthy. The effects of virtue.

Because truth can hurt, we aren't allowed to reason.
Because beauty can hurt, we glorify ugliness.
Because goodness would require hurt to achieve, we turn everything gray or even glorify or redefine evil.

Blogger tublecane November 05, 2017 5:43 PM  

@15-If you're seriously interested in alternate criteria, study art history and aesthetics.

Art is allowed to contain ugliness, but should always be beautiful in its overall effect.

Blogger tublecane November 05, 2017 6:03 PM  

@41-Me too. Looks like the same simple geometric shapes piled on eachother, only he incorporated some natural features, like rocks. Whoopedee-doo.

Blogger tublecane November 05, 2017 6:18 PM  

@71-Unfortunately, the Fountainhead makes Wright out to be heroic by implication, vitiating much of the message.

The designs they show in that Gary Cooper movie, yuck. Might as well have Peter Keating create everything.

Blogger Thot November 05, 2017 6:19 PM  

As someone who likes to art, listening to Jordan Peterson speak about art and artists........ well he has it pretty much spot on. Not that I like the responsibility he lays at artists feet. What I also like is he despises post modernism.

Anonymous Uncle John's Band November 05, 2017 7:23 PM  

Beauty is transcendental. It's why the most awe-inspiring art is religious. The idea of striving for an unattainable metaphysical ideal is second nature.

The way each artist expresses beauty is subjective, but the transcendental that they are expressing is not. Modern materialism has nothing to stretch the spirit. Its "beauty" is superficial and fleeting.

Anonymous my name is Nate Higgers November 05, 2017 8:47 PM  

I have heard the claim that art is a means of communication. That's probably overly broad, and facile--but when I look at "brutalist" buildings, I can well believe that the architect had a message for the public, for the world. "I hate you all. Look at my ugly building, all jagged angles like a stack of Czech hedgehogs welded together. I want all the world to look like this. Because I hate you. Bauhaus-style unornamented glass-and-steel boxes weren't ugly enough to convey my contempt and malice."

I wonder what goes on in such an architect's head. I imagine that anyone who designs such buildings must have an inner monologue similar to that of "AM" from Ellison's "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream."

Blogger tublecane November 05, 2017 9:00 PM  

I feel I should that with the references to fascism, Hitler, and totalitarianism, you might get the wrong idea. Not that the Third Reich produced great art, but their art wasn't that degenerate. At least they didn't go in for pure Corbu nonsense.

The preferred architectural style of the Nazis was what you might call monumental neoclassical, as typified by the works of Albert Speer. This was in fact the dominant style for public buildings and monuments internationally back then, including in the Soviet Union and the Western democracies.

Anonymous Mr. Rational November 06, 2017 1:23 AM  

He was known as Le Corbusier, but I can't find a translation of that word into any English equivalent.

Anonymous gabriel November 06, 2017 2:14 AM  

Maybe this link was posted here in older posts, but I think it is worthwhile.

Why Beauty Matters by Roger Scruton: https://vimeo.com/103665136

Blogger tublecane November 06, 2017 2:40 AM  

@80-My understanding is that "Corbusier" is meaningless. He adapted the moniker from his grandfather's name, or something like that.

Anonymous GregMan November 06, 2017 2:01 PM  

I regard Art Deco as the last REAL architectural school of the twentieth century. Everything else is crap.

Even Art Deco started to fade towards the end, as it became more minimalist and geometric. Compare some of the New Deal government buildings in Washington with earlier masterpieces like the Chrysler Building and Buffalo Central Terminal.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 07, 2017 12:04 AM  

He was known as Le Corbusier, but I can't find a translation of that word into any English equivalent.

(roughly) The Crow (or maybe Raven, I'm not sure if there's a difference in French). He picked it himself as his pseudonym.

An odd name, but would you want to be called Jeannerat?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts