Thank you so much for that article. Too much to think about and contemplate to write now, but wow, thank you. I love that piece and all its morsels to savor.

Interesting article, Ida. Thanks for sharing. One thing the discussion reminded me of was that when I first moved south to N.C. for college, I was introduced to the term ugly as a descriptor for behaviors. I never heard it used that way in Pennsylvania. It made sense to me and it does seem that certain behaviors (unkindness, violence, dishonesty, and the like) could be universal in the concept of being ugly. Material things are much more variable and changeable, I think, when it comes to ugliness.

I'm with you Lars. Give me Rococo over Brutalist any day.

My ideas of beautiful and ugly are always changing, but I try not to obsess with "ugly" - it's just being ugly to do that

Yes, good point about ideas evolving. Mine too, and this probably holds true for many, if not most, of us. So many facets of life that I might have considered "ugly" in my younger years now seem to possess a certain clumsy charm, if not outright beauty. For me, the beautiful is just as hard to define as the ugly. It all depends so much on context, and, well, if I'm honest, even my particular mood on any given day.

Thanks to those who have read this. I figured there were some here who would appreciate it.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.

This subject reminds me of Tolstoy's What Is Art, which I read for a Russian literature class in college. In it, Tolstoy struggles with how to define aesthetics and never comes to a concrete conclusion.

Judy said what I was thinking, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Bayley didn't say that the Trellick Tower was a "thing of beauty" he said that now that it has been declared a "building of national historic architectural importance " that Prince Charles will now call it a thing of beauty. Who knows, maybe Bayley was saying that tongue in cheek.

Brutalist vs roccoco - that's a toss up in ugliness for me with roccoco edging out brutalist for the award.

Ugly and beauty is so personal and can be so emotional it's hard to define why we react either way to things.

Brutalist art and architecture is a trend, and it will pass, just as rococo has, but I tend to think that in the future it will not be appreciated as much as rococo, whatever the current trend becomes.

Even the Italian futurists, who hated classical and renaissance art and architecture, expected whatever they replaced it with to fall out of style and be replaced with something else. At least the Futurists created what I consider beautiful art and architecture, even if very little of the architecture got built. I very much appreciate their architecture over the brutalist movement. For me, the brutalist movement reminds me of "The emperor has no clothes." I think it deserves a place in history, but not a major one.

Brutalist architecture lends itself to being enhanced by graffiti, which I do think improves it, but I often find graffiti depressing, especially when it is not placed on brutalist architecture.

Interesting little take on Brutalist beauty:

https://www.phaidon.com/agenda/architecture/articles/2018/september/17/these-brutalist-buildings-are-actually-really-beautiful/

I was surprised to see the church in Stykkisholmur, Iceland featured. We were there earlier this year and it took my breath away. I was not aware at the time that it was considered of Brutalism architectural design.

Reykjavik's Hallgrimskirkja is considered by many to be an example of Brutalism. Again, one of the most pleasing churches I've ever seen.

But there is a sinuous, organic beauty in these particular places, and I do differentiate them from so many other representations of the style that leave me feeling cold and exposed. Again, context plays a part, as does sensuality where it becomes a part of the equation.

Those are much more beautiful than what I have seen in Brutalist architecture. My mind always goes to the Soviet style apartment buildings that I think no one likes, or low-income project housing in inner cities.

My brother went to SUNY Albany (for his MFA), where the campus has Brutalist buildings designed by Louis Kahn, and he told me that almost all students there hate the architecture of that campus. They can work in some applications, but in many cases they fail, and often they do not age well. I think they require more upkeep than one might expect. That white church looks good as long as it is pristine, but if the paint start to age and perhaps flake off in time, I don't think it will look as good. As with any style, people get tired of it after a while and neglect to maintain it.

Yeah, there are many buildings in Reykjavik that have a cold war look about them. Soviet-style hard lines and rather ominous-looking. Those buildings do lend themselves well to graffiti.

But back to that Stykkisholmur church. Here's another view, from the front, which shows the surrounding landscape. The natural setting only serves to intensify the beauty of this place IMO. It seems to have a grand presence against the rugged coastline. It seems to be making its own imposing statement to the glaciers in the distance.

And the inside is simple and serene.

There was something about this place that made it hard to want to leave.

But yes ... it's not the Brutalist norm.

I do like the Reykjavik's Hallgrimskirkja, and it reminds me of some monumental sculptures that a friend's father did back when he lived in Armenia. His father was commissioned by the Armenian government to execute these sculptures in metal, and then he immigrated to Lebanon, Paris, and finally to the U.S. where he started a metal working company in Los Angeles. I commissioned them to make chandeliers and floor lamps in metal for us, and he showed me the portfolio of their work in Armenia.