Comments by "" (@LO-dm6uf) on "What Makes Buildings Beautiful (And Why Beauty Does Matter)" video.

@Joskemom exactly! Modern buildings can be very beautiful but as far as this channel is concerned, if you don't add excessive ornamentation on your facades and make creepily symmetrical buildings then it's ugly
5
What a terrible video, the argument that beauty can ONLY be achieved by classical and traditional styles makes zero sense. And the video conveniently leaves all the beautiful contemporary "modern" looking buildings that people love. Complexity, details, curves and nice compositions can all be achieved through modern styles and there are too many examples. Just because it's now easier to make an ugly building doesn't mean the problem is in the style. This is the definition of an extremist reaction to an extremist action
3
No thank you, building neoclassical architecture in 2023?? How unoriginal, uninspired, and UGLY?? I'm not saying every modern box building is beautiful but to act like contemporary styles are the problem makes no sense and is unfair to all the beautiful contemporary buildings that millions of people visit each year like Heydar Aliyev center in Azerbaijan, Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Sydney Opera house, Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg. People are agreeing with this video because all they see around them are 100 year old modernist buildings which ARE mostly ugly and most architects would agree with that no doubt, so when you tell them we should go back to traditional ornamented buildings of course they'd like that idea because it's better for them than modernist buildings, not knowing that contemporary architecture can be VERY beautiful without being an inefficient sellout of a building.
2
That's not true lol. Many architects are egotistical but most of them just do whatever the clients want, aka large real estate companies. Also architecture is not just pretty facades lol, it's very reductive of our profession. Yes, some companies don't put effort in making good looking buildings but that doesn't mean we should all go back to classical overly ornamented buildings. Look at all the beautiful and loved contemporary buildings.
2
Because nobody wants classical ornaments, literally nobody. People love classical ornaments on OLD buildings with HISTORY, these ornaments actually have meaning and tell stories especially that they're all hand made. But mass produced ornaments on buildings would actually look very ugly and hold zero value or meaning
2
That's literally subjective taste....there's a reason why pop, hip hop and other viral music genres are so popular because SO many people love them. The idea that only classical forms of arts are beautiful is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, it's such an anti productive, backwards opinion when you discredit all contemporary artists just because you "think" older ones are better.
2
@unknowninfinium4353 okay? What does that prove?? Of course any type of contemporary art is based on older types, new genres don't get created out of thin air....you literally just proved that new genres and pop music ARE attractive and beautiful. So what is your point here? Older music is not objectively superior just because it inspired what came after it, because music is SUBJECTIVE. I may love pop music and hate classical music genres that inspired it, and vice versa, that doesn't mean either of them are superior or inferior. It's just TASTE, but when talking about the general public, MOST people would prefer new genres than old genres because tastes also change in each era or generation.
2
Modern architecture died decades ago literally everyone is moving to more context aware buildings. Just because many buildings look boxy and contemporary doesn't mean they have no relation to the context, there are exceptions obviously
2
We're not defending ugly buildings. Contemporary new buildings can be VERY beautiful, and you'd be flat out lying if you said u never saw a beautiful contemporary building. Because going back to classical styles is DUMB, inefficient, and very unoriginal and uninspired
1
Because classical architecture isn't the only "beautiful" architecture. This video is an extremist response to an extremist action, which are the remaining ugly buildings brought by the influence of modernism, that doesn't mean that all contemporary buildings are ugly, or that the solution is to go back to classical styles. That's DUMB and very out of style
1
@colummulhern8865 that's a valid point, these iconic buildings cannot be mass produced for now, but the video is claiming that beauty in architecture is only found im classical amd traditional styles, which i just disproved by these examples. I just looked at Cayala, and what a terrible example. This is a gated community for the rich who who can afford living there and fantasise about classical buildings. The cheapest building there is 70 times more than the average Guatemalan salary. This is a JOKE! The buildings look nice i guess, but at what cost? If it's only gonna be accessible for the wealthy, which again brings up the inefficiency of classical buildings in modern times, we NEED to be build fast, efficiently and still keep aesthetics. Many new developments DO ignore aesthetics, yes, but AGAIN the problem isn't the style. Instead go look at new social housing developments in Vienna, Austria, these are houses that are built very efficiently and fast to sustain the city'a growing needs yet very affordable by the majority of people in Vienna, AND still look beautiful. You may think they look too boxy from the outside but actually going there and experiencing it yourself is a totally different things. Vibrant colored walls, shifting balconies and different textured facades all make a very beautiful building that people love living in. That's why Vienna is one of the most livable cities in our times and is a PERFECT model for how modernity is very beautiful AND efficient without being unoriginal and blatantly romantic for the sake of it.
1
@javierpacheco8234 literally open archdaily and search for any new building....there isn't a specific kind of contemporary architecture because there isn't a specific style nowadays....iconic buildings like Heydar Aliyev by Zaha Hadid, Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg, the Sydney opera house, Guggenheim Museum in Newyork and the other one in Bilbao...and SO many much more buildings, you cannot tell me you find each and every building of those ugly, because just like old traditional buildings, millions of people each year visit these contemporary "ugly" buildings just to see them in real life.
1
EXACTLY! The video makes it seem like people only visit traditional buildings and that they don't visit iconic contemporary buildings like the Sydney Opera house, Heydar Aliyev in Azerbaijan, Guggenheim Museum is Bilbao, Dancing House in Prague, Centre pompidou in Paris ans MUCH much more "beautiful" new buildings. Everyone here are still affected by 100 year old modernist buildings which were mostly ugly, but that's not the case with most new constructions
1
THANK YOU! They willingly chose bad examples of contemporary architecture, as if all new buildings are grey, bland and ugly which is FAR from the truth
1
No thank you. Classical, heavily ornamented buildings will not make our cities beautiful.
1
Art Deco is a 100 years old....stop getting stuck in the past. The US is still stuck in the past too because they build using modernist styles which also existed 100 years ago
1
That's not happening anytime soon lol nobody wants carbon copies of old historical buildings that hold no value or meaning but copying the past.
1
@FreshPrincce because NOBODY around the world is building neo-classical buildings, literally nobody wants them, people love classical buildings because they're OLD and hold historical values and stories. People nowadays want shiny new buildings that look different, new and NOT ugly. And yes what you're implying is basically carbon copies because classical architecture has like 3 or 4 tropes repeated throughout every type of building. Excessive ornamentation in NEW buildings will be very ugly and unoriginal. The problem is people still see 100 year old modernist buildings in their cities and think new architecture is built this way which is pretty unfair. Look at the Sydney Opera house, Heydar Aliyev Center in Azerbaijan, Elbphilharmonie in Hanburg, Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Dancing House in Prague. These are all contemporary buildings that millions of people visit each year just to see them in real life, you wanna tell me these are ugly buildings that are hated by everyone?? In conclusion going back to traditional styles is NOT the answer, many architecture firms nowadays make boring buildings, yes, but that's not because the buildings don't have ornaments or aren't symmetrical lol it's because they take advantage of the fact that contemporary styles are simplistic so they don't put effort into the aesthetic part that's IT.
1
@FreshPrincce no cost is just a secondary reason, not at all the main reason, just like music and art, we don't build in the same style we do 400 years ago, most people love contemporary art and music, and many people still love classical music, that doesn't mean mainstream artists should go back to classical styles because there's no high enough demand for it and people would prefer new experimental and different genres of music. Same thing with architecture, You personally liking traditional architecture doesn't mean that all other people must want them built today too. Many contemporary buildings being ugly isn't because contemporary styles are ugly, it's because some real estate firms are lazy and would rather save money. As i said, look at the examples i just mentioned of beautiful contemporary buildings. You may personally still prefer traditional architecture that's fine but you can't call them ugly because millions of people visit them each year because they're so loved
1
@FreshPrincce commie blocks?? Are you kidding?? These buildings are over 100 years old, nobody builds buildings that look as ugly as commie blocks no more, so just like i said, the solution isn't going back to traditional architecture, this video is claiming modern architecture can never be beautiful...THIS is what I'm saying is bullshit. If you like traditional architecture just say that! But don't claim that all mainstream architects shifting to traditional architecture is gonna solve many problems because it won't! It's okay to be biased because art is subjective but to claim that your favourite style is superior because people "love it" and intentionally bring up terrible modern examples like commie buildings is not helping your argument!
1
Brutalism has been defeated LONG ago, this video did a great job only highlighting the ugly contemporary architecture and willingly ignoring all the good looking contemporary architecture present all around us. It's not our fault America has so many ugly buildings and cities in general they do NOT represent the rest of the world
1
The golden ratio is still widely used in architecture and art
1
@kidtrunks2568 did you even read my reply? I literally said at the end that there are always exceptions, I'd be lying if i said each and every new contemporary building looks amazing ESPECIALLY buildings in the US. The US is the definition of ugly ass car-centric cities anyways... Also it's convenient for you to mention the ugly buildings and ignore all the great examples of contemporary architecture achieving beauty without resorting to nostalgic classicism. You guys love old traditional buildings because they're OLD and signify much more than just its beauty, because if heavily ornamented buildings are erected now y'all will call them unoriginal copies with no substance or value.
1