You see, you just said that "We just don’t have the tools yet to objectively define beauty" and "Boston City Hall is objectively an awful building" (and holy shit, it really is awful) in the same paragraph! Don't you see the contradiction?
In another comment here, someone said, "I'm not arguing for or against that - I'm just stating a fact (...) I find it extremely ugly."
Hey, "I find it extremely ugly" IS arguing against! There is the contradiction again.
But you see, people are all apologetic because they are afraid of criticizing. The truth of the matter is that tagging, graffiti, murals or whatever you want to call these abominations are made by very poor youngsters who could have access to real art if they wanted (museums, libraries, internet), but they don't because they are brought up in a ghetto culture that basically forbids them from even getting interested in traditional art. And a lot of people cower when they criticize it (or never criticize it at all) because criticizing that garbage is considered politically incorrect. So that so-called "art" is only tolerated thanks to fear of reprisal and should be labeled "fascist art" because that's what it is.
Unpopular opinion, but Boston City Hall is an objectively VERY beautiful building.
Brutalism is absolutely an acquired taste, but it is, by all measures, an objective style that can be measured against, in the same way classical or say, Spanish Mission architecture style is. In fact, some would even go so far as to argue that most Victorian/neo-classical architecture is just a chintzy facade with no real architectural rules, akin to a Vegas casino or a Cheesecake Factory (I wouldn’t, but some would).
But as far as Boston City Hall being “objectively” ugly— that’s an objectively wrong statement. I can understand the vast majority might unfortunately say they personally find it ugly, but that is subjective.
I have the same views on e.g. Dallas City Hall too, which I think is another stunning example of a beautiful building many people hate.
Saying a pile of trash covered in mold and feces is objectively ugly— I’d agree there. Barring that, though, I’m of the strong opinion that most anything expressive, including graffiti, is “art”. Your response to whether you find it beautiful or not is your own, but that does not make it art or not.
Boston City Hall isn't just awful because of the deranged architecture (which admittedly is a consistently abusive architectural style), it's awful because it's also a place that nobody wants to be because of the poor design of the plaza (necessitated by the bad design of the building). So it fails not just in terms of design, but in terms of harmony with the city and the people.
I will definitely give the building credit. It's an exemplary expression of brutalist architecture and it'll be in architecture textbooks forever. If you had to design the peak brutalist building that included how it affected the built environment, this would be it.
The style is objectively bad in the same way that if you say that Starry Night is a bad painting or that David is an example of bad craftsmanship you're be wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. A good way to separate your opinion (beauty is in the eye of the beholder stuff) is like this. I like Blink 182. It's not great music but I like it. The Beatles or maybe the Rolling Stones could be considered objectively good music. I don't particularly care for either, but I don't have to let what I think get in the way of what's true.
You can do the same thing with Boston City Hall. You can compare Boston City Hall to something like the Notre Dame Cathedral. There's a reason why one is considered a global treasure, and the other is probably the most hated building in America. We can converge on truthy understandings of things we don't have good objective measurements for (yet). You know it when you see it.
What is art or not is not decided by popular vote.
Similar to how film or food critics often differ from the general audience on what makes a good film— art must be studied within the context of itself.
Boston City Hall is a sublime architectural expression of the maxim, “you can’t fight city hall”. It’s an inhuman, authoritarian concrete bunker that makes the citizen feel lower than rat shit. Its highest artistic purpose would be if it were demolished with high explosives to celebrate the Fourth of July.
I completely disagree— walking around inside Boston City Hall, and any well-designed Brutalist building in general, makes you feel like you’re in some sort of natural rock formation.
Brutalism prizes honesty over anything else— the necessary structural elements are the form, and everything else gets out of the way. And that’s why walking through a good Brutalist building often feels refreshing, or like you’re an explorer:
Have you ever walked inside of a natural rock formation? Like a cave or something? They look nothing like that. Those photos look like the inside of a prison.
>> But as far as Boston City Hall being “objectively” ugly— that’s an objectively wrong statement.
>> I can understand the vast majority might unfortunately say they personally find it ugly, but that is subjective.
I have a very hard time reconciling these two (consecutive) statements. If the vast majority of people say they find something to be ugly, I would say that that makes it ugly. Imagine everyone in the world - except you - said "Boston City Hall is ugly." Claiming that it is not ugly, and that everyone's statement is subjective, seems wrong (since you've admitted that it is possible for things to be objectively ugly.)
Brutalism can be "sublime" under the right conditions, but the conditions are few and far between. It's not an aesthetic for everyday, hence many people's issue with it in prominent high traffic civi buildings. Otherwise it's a haunted house. Once in a while, on a moody night... chefs kiss.
No because it's true just not proven. I can't prove to you that doing squats are good for your health as a human being but I know it to be objectively true (specific conditions aside). Medicine strongly suggests that this is the case, but there's no formal proof or tool to measure it at least that I'm aware of. Good architecture roughly follows the same pattern here, but the effects are harder to measure even though the societal repercussions of bad design are profound.
> The truth of the matter is that
Completely agree. I view graffiti as more of an expression of frustration (which is well warranted) than it is art. That's not to say graffiti can't be art or can't be beautiful which is why I called out "urban art" specifically, but it's by far the exception and not the rule.
You're showing up to Hacker News to yell about poor youngsters with "ghetto culture," and then project them as "fascist." Are you really sure about this?
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/dmn/TIM5CMDTIZAKTFO3HKJMXZU6VE.jpg){kind=link}
In another comment here, someone said, "I'm not arguing for or against that - I'm just stating a fact (...) I find it extremely ugly."
Hey, "I find it extremely ugly" IS arguing against! There is the contradiction again.
But you see, people are all apologetic because they are afraid of criticizing. The truth of the matter is that tagging, graffiti, murals or whatever you want to call these abominations are made by very poor youngsters who could have access to real art if they wanted (museums, libraries, internet), but they don't because they are brought up in a ghetto culture that basically forbids them from even getting interested in traditional art. And a lot of people cower when they criticize it (or never criticize it at all) because criticizing that garbage is considered politically incorrect. So that so-called "art" is only tolerated thanks to fear of reprisal and should be labeled "fascist art" because that's what it is.