Comments by "On The Piss" (@On_The_Piss) on "The Aesthetic City" channel.

  1.  @TaoDeChing-ls5gz  Disney world for wealthy people. Nothing more, nothing less.
    49
  2.  @MissEldira modernist or post modernist? Do those commenting in here even know the difference? I hear both referred to, with apparently little understand of what either are.
    25
  3. Modernism has already survived for nearly 100 years so far. Unless, as usual with this channel, we are confusing “modern” and “modernism” ?
    18
  4.  @CheeseBae That’s why neo-classicism is pointless. It’s had it’s day. Time for new ideas.
    10
  5.  @CheeseBae  That Modernism was co-opted by the private sector is a testament to its success, rather than a symptom of its failures. One can make the same argument of art. Anyone can paint a pretty picture, but who cares? Aesthetics are shallow. They date. The purpose of modernism was to reject aesthetics in favour of FUNCTION. You know, as in - actually living in these places. Nobody builds classical buildings anymore, and for good reason. They’re great to look at, but nobody actually wants to be inside them beyond a cheap Airbnb thrill.
    9
  6.  @vinlondon8904  Hmmm I wonder if that is because the classical buildings are restored and and protected in the more affluent areas of the UK by those that can afford to do so? The same happens in New Zealand, where I live. Renovated Victorian villas are exclusively in the rich areas of my city. Gee I wonder why? 🙄 I grew up in an 1860’s villa. It was dark, damp and cold. We didn’t have the money to restore and renovate it. You’ll find that those that do renovate them, completely change the interiors because their original format was not fit for modern living. Such is my point. The tacky Disney world gated town for the wealthy in this video isn’t a classical building, it is merely pretending to be one - devoid of the history and importance that makes real classical buildings worth saving.
    9
  7.  @Kaulos7gt  But a bunch of wealthy people get a new gated development to live in! Why are you complaining? 😂😂
    8
  8. If you’re going to make video after video incessantly criticising modernism, then perhaps you owe it to everyone to make a video explaining modernism and what it actually is, what it aims to accomplish, and do it objectively. Let people decide. Compare classicism to modernism. Show the battle between aesthetics and function. Do better. You’re pandering.
    7
  9. That’s fine because this tacky Disney world “town” isn’t Guatemalan either, it’s Spanish.
    7
  10. A triumph for who? The wealthy that can afford to live there? To look out their tiny windows? Live inside the dark rooms? There’s a reason these videos rarely show interiors. Just bland aesthetics. No ideas, no progression, just lazy regression.
    7
  11. I genuinely think 99% of the people in the comments have NO IDEA what modernism actually is, the history of it, and what it strives to achieve. Perhaps we should consider that buildings are not just exteriors. Interiors matter too. And I know I’d rather live in a light filled, thought out modernist building than a decrepit, tacky, dark and cold traditional building. And you would too.
    7
  12. This is just subjective nonsense. This video has described modernism as “hideous” without explaining why. Zero insight, just subjective feelings. Yawn. If we are dealing in subjective feelings, I find classical buildings to be busy, tacky and garish. Neo-classical architecture is even worse. Clinging onto a past that everybody has left behind. Hardly a revolution, rather it is regression.
    7
  13.  @kidtrunks2568  LOL. Why are you speaking for me? Why are you speaking for anybody other than yourself? “Everyone” does not “know” these cities are better, actually. I am not a Christian. I am not a traditionalist. Speak for yourself, please.
    7
  14.  @kidtrunks2568  It’s funny to me that you mentioned “non-Christian” as if that has any bearing whatsoever on design or architecture. It speaks volumes about you though.
    7
  15.  @LA_HA  Fair enough sorry for coming off aggressive, but the person that makes these videos is, I believe, pretty disingenuous.
    6
  16.  @LA_HA  What I’m getting at, is that modernism was a RESPONSE to classicism. It was a rejection of it. It tried to solve the problems associated with classicism, the tacky aesthetics, the decoration, the lack of thought towards what it might be like to actually live in these buildings. Modernism prioritises function over form. And for good reason. It’s easy to be nostalgic from afar, but a very different story for those that actually have to live in these externally “pretty” places.
    6
  17.  @CheeseBae  More tiny windows am I right! Who needs natural light anyway? 😂🙄
    6
  18.  @landrypierce9942  You realise most properties in the early 20th century didn’t even have toilets, right? This weird nostalgia for the past is bizarre to me.
    6
  19.  @shweshwa9202  So you’re suggesting we recreate ancient Roman buildings? Are you being serious right now?
    6
  20.  @MissEldira  There is nothing modernist about communist apartment blocks. Why are you conflating the two? This is the problem, most of the people watching these videos and decrying modernism have no idea what it actually is.
    6
  21.  @MissEldira  So why then do you equate Soviet apartment blocks with modernism? They share nothing in common.
    6
  22.  @kidtrunks2568  Sounds to me as if it is progress that threatens your ideology. Modernists are answering questions and solving problems. Traditionalists represent the status quo. Stagnant.
    6
  23. Traditionalists holding up progress as usual.
    5
  24.  @LA_HA  Complete with tiny windows, no natural light, cold, damp, cramped for most people. Top floors for the monarchs and wealthy. Brilliant
    5
  25.  @LA_HA  I’m not sure how else I can explain it to you. Small exterior windows = limited natural light. It’s not complicated. Just look at the exteriors of any classical building. There’s a reason modernist architecture makes full use of the sun and natural light, with large windows and lots of glass, and there’s a reason why classical architecture is not practical today. Nobody enjoyed living in classical buildings, except the wealthy. I live in New Zealand, a British colony. We are filled to the brim with Victorian, Elizabethan classical architecture. I grew up in an 1860’s villa. Trust me. They are cold, dark and damp. You’ve visited Victorian architecture, I’ve lived it.
    5
  26.  @alleghanyonce  I’d love to see how much light you can fit through those tiny little “beautiful” windows on those classical facades. It’s clear 99% of the people on here have absolutely no idea about architecture beyond “ugly” or “beautiful”. There’s much more to architecture than aesthetics.
    5
  27. Yes it’s nice to be wealthy and live in gated communities huh
    5
  28. Disney. 😂 That pretty much sums it up. Disney world for the wealthy.
    5
  29.  @CheeseBae  “The problem with building purely for [beauty] is buildings inevitably age, trends change, and aesthetics become dated. You may love classical architecture, I find it tacky. And I’m not alone. You said it yourself, beauty is subjective - and classical architecture relies on it, whereas modernism doesn’t. It relies on function. These buildings can be adapted and modernised. Classical architecture cannot.
    5
  30.  @landrypierce9942  That you’re lazily writing off all modernist architecture as “concrete cubes” just shows your own ignorance tbh.
    5
  31.  @kidtrunks2568  “everyone knows these types of cities are more beautiful” / “beauty is subjective” PICK ONE
    5
  32.  @LA_HA  Just look at the exterior windows bro. It’s not hard to imagine. Also I have lived in Victorian apartment buildings. They ain’t nice inside. Trust me.
    4
  33. So, then, what are these buildings? Classical or modern? They don't even know themselves. Just a tacky mess of design styles. I understand that a mix of old designs with modern techniques can be valuable, but this development is neither. The interiors (judging by the video you shared), appears to be just your typical bland pseudo luxury mini mansion style that you see in a rented rappers mansion in Bel Air. Not my thing. But everyone is entitled to their own opinions I suppose. @AlexandrePRODHOMME 
    3
  34.  @CheeseBae  I'm a troll? Your only argument is entirely subjective. "I love ornament". OK? So what? You have VISITED historic buildings. But I'm willing to bet you have never LIVED in one. I have. You're dwelling in disconnected nostalgia. Your romantic idea of classical buildings refers exclusively to the grand palaces built for the wealthy. But that simply isn't reality. The vast majority of classical buildings were designed to be pretty from the outside, but with little thought put in to the interiors in which poorer people had to live. You can call me a troll all you like, but at the end of the day you're just arguing with emotion, nostalgia for times past. A time you never experienced, for buildings you never lived in.
    3
  35. The point he is trying to make, is that modernism was created to be an equaliser. To make good design accessible to everyone. That modernist buildings can be built cheaper, and made available to more people - including the poor - and provide them lots of natural light and space, rather than building grand disneyworld towns for only the wealthy to enjoy. If a classical building has massive floor to ceiling windows, then it is not classical anymore - it is borrowing from the ideals of modernism. You can't have your cake and eat it too, mate.  @CheeseBae 
    3
  36. Thank you for speaking reasonably. I agree, ultimately. But when I argue against classical architecture, I am speaking of REAL classical buildings. These are not pleasant to live in, unless renovated and their interiors updated to modern living standards. The interiors of the buildings in this video, are not classical - they are modern. Such is my point.  @AlexandrePRODHOMME 
    3
  37. Where’s the shots of the interiors? Let me guess. They have tiny windows, hardly any natural light, and are furnished with tacky classical furniture made for people who like to pretend to live like monarchs. Gross
    3
  38. Architecture has always been political, whether you like it or not.
    3
  39.  @the_aesthetic_city  I genuinely think 99% of the people in the comments have NO IDEA what modernism actually is, the history of it, and what it strives to achieve. Perhaps we should consider that buildings are not just exteriors. Interiors matter too. And I know I’d rather live in a light filled, thought out modernist building than a decrepit, tacky, dark and cold traditional building. And you would too.
    3
  40.  @CheeseBae  Classicism, neoclassicism - it’s all the same regressive garbage that we left behind in the early 1900’s. Hitler loved classical architecture, and sent modernists to the camps. Just saying. 🤣
    3
  41.  @CheeseBae  The most vehement proponents for classical buildings are usually those that don’t have to live in them.
    3
  42.  @Chinoiserie9839  Why are you equating modernism and post modernism as if they’re the same thing?
    3
  43.  @LaughingInTiny  Good argument, thanks.
    3
  44.  @CC.R0Y  Look but don’t touch, what a utopia!
    3
  45.  @CheeseBae  I didn’t say modernism is an equaliser, I said it was created to be an equaliser. It is a political movement. A social movement, to improve the lives of everybody and reject classicism which benefited the wealthy, ruling classes. Sure you can find examples of “luxury” modernism today, but that wasn’t its original intention. Sure, we should value and be inspired from classical architecture - but that doesn’t mean we should keep building it. We value those buildings for their history, culture, importance - not just their aesthetics. You yourself said modernism was “only successful in the private sector because it was cheaper to build”, now you’re arguing against yourself? Which is it? Is it cheap or expensive? You’re entitled to your personal preferences on aesthetics as much as I am, but by doing so you’re making my point for me: Modernism isn’t about aesthetics.
    2
  46.  @buragi5441  so you studied architecture at university I assume? Please define “beauty”, specifically. You can’t because it’s subjective. I don’t think classical architecture is beautiful. I find it tacky, busy and garish. And the interiors are mostly cold, damp and dark.
    2
  47.  @lawrenceholden5716 Wow, it’s almost as if anybody who actually designs buildings knows that regression back to cold, dark, damp classical architecture is not in the best interests of anybody.
    2
  48. No, they're too expensive because they're too expensive to build. I don't think you understand how property markets work.
    2
  49. You've visited a victorian era building, I grew up in one. An 1860's villa to be precise, in New Zealand. It was dark, damp and cold. The Victorian building you visited was most likely renovated, modernised, and nothing like it was when it was first built. You are clinging onto subjective ideals of "beauty" and nostalgia, I am arguing for function - and for those who actually have to live in these buildings. We can't all live in gated Disney world towns that only the wealthy can afford. These aren't classical buildings, they're just pretending - modern buildings masquerading for traditionalists to feel like they're kings and queens. Adorned with tacky columns and frills, but lacking in the history and depth that makes real classical buildings worth protecting. The town in this video is about as tacky as it gets.  @CheeseBae 
    2
  50. Yes, that's right. The areas with historic classical architecture are celebrated and protected, as they should be. The buildings in this video are not classical, they are merely pretending to be. They have no historical or cultural importance whatsoever, they are little more than a Disney world for the wealthy - such is my point. @unconventionalideas5683 
    2