[HN Gopher] The beauty of concrete
___________________________________________________________________
The beauty of concrete
Author : jger15
Score : 137 points
Date : 2024-05-17 15:09 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (worksinprogress.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (worksinprogress.co)
| simonsarris wrote:
| I have a budding rose garden that I would like to adorn with
| statuary. One problem is that I have a tight budget. A second
| problem is that if you look at garden centers you will see its
| easy to find 9000 different cast stone frogs: frogs meditating,
| frogs reading books, frogs thinking, frogs with a purse and
| shopping bags, frogs in an Adirondack chair, frogs hugging,
| reclining frog, etc. It is surprisingly difficult, however, to
| find cast stone classical or ancient sculptures outside of a few
| pastiche renditions.
|
| I find this extremely odd! I would think there would be a large
| market for beautiful cast stone things. Instead, there is
| (apparently) an extraordinary market for concrete frogs.
|
| I figured that in the era of 3D printing and widespread 3D
| models[1], it might be fairly inexpensive to make my own mold and
| pour my own casts, even if I do destructive casting techniques.
| Here again I was disappointed: To order a 3D plastic print from a
| site like ShapeWays came out to over $1300 for something fairly
| small. So that's off the table, too.
|
| I expected more democratization of ornament than there really has
| been, given the tech today. It's surprising to me that no one is
| trying to make silicone molds available of famous statues,
| generally, but I guess there's just no interest or no perceived
| demand. Or maybe there is a big market, and I've missed it,
| because I was not searching for silicone molds of frogs.
|
| [1] For instance, The British Museum has a sketchfab with free
| models: https://sketchfab.com/britishmuseum
| treflop wrote:
| Silicone is actually surprisingly expensive.
|
| I've done cast stone... poured into cast silicone... which was
| cast from 3D printer molds... which was printed from my own 3D
| models... and silicone was by far the most expensive part.
|
| It only made sense because I was casting a lot of stone molds.
| Spastche wrote:
| use latex, and if it's big enough, back it with fiberglass.
| that seems to be the common way to make molds on youtube
| pvg wrote:
| I like the idea that technology might eventually change or
| increase the variance of McMansion outdoor decor tastes.
|
| It seems reasonably within expectations that ornamental
| concrete frogs are a bigger market than ornamental naked dudes
| holding up a severed head, tough, no?
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| I think the reason that large (cast) stone is very expensive is
| not the creative part or the molds. It is mostly the storing
| and transportation.
|
| Storing is hard because of the space it takes and manual labour
| to move the heavy item when reorganizing.
|
| Transportation is costly for the same reasons and additionally
| it can easily damage and any damage causes it to suddenly have
| virtually zero value.
| bccdee wrote:
| Why not cast on site? A silicone mould is light and durable,
| and while pouring concrete isn't _easy,_ I don 't think it's
| prohibitively challenging. You could ship the mould, cast on
| location, and return the mould for a refunded deposit.
| krisoft wrote:
| Because that won't be cheaper. Yes shipping statues is
| expensive, but setting up an impromptu workshop in your
| garden then tearing it down only after one cast is going to
| cost even more.
| lostapathy wrote:
| You're going to have a hell of a time getting very many
| objects out of a mold meant to hold concrete for an
| interesting lawn ornament. Especially when in the hands of
| a renter who's probably by definition never used the
| process.
| acomjean wrote:
| In somerville MA about 10 years ago someone was selling mini
| easter-island heads as lawn statues, which I though was a great
| idea.
| Swizec wrote:
| There's a dude from Slovenia who makes cement casts of famous
| philosophers! Although I think they're more desk than garden
| sized.
|
| https://www.etsy.com/shop/jurgenstudio
| Animatronio wrote:
| He's also on HN:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jurgenwerk
| sdwr wrote:
| I think it's about whether you see the work directly, or
| through a lens of status consciousness.
|
| You are saying:
|
| - classical statues are beautiful, I like beautiful things
|
| And they are saying:
|
| - classical statues belong in palaces, and I don't own a
| palace, or want people to think that I'm reaching above my
| status
| boustrophedon wrote:
| There are several sites with instant quotes that are cheaper
| than Shapeways.
|
| PCBWay and JLCPCB both offer similarly-priced very cheap 3d
| printing and CNC services out of China. Weerg in Italy also
| offers 3d printing and CNC services and I'm probably going to
| try them out for the next thing I need printed. The only non-
| marketplace service I've seen in the US that offers instant
| quotes is i-solids in Texas, but they have quite high startup
| costs and seem to be more geared towards small-medium
| production runs.
| adolph wrote:
| There's always Lego for concrete casting:
| https://youtu.be/C3EcdyQECBY
| i1856511 wrote:
| When I looked myself in my local garden center, I actually
| found over 9,000!
| anon291 wrote:
| Just go to estate sales.
| jahewson wrote:
| Instead of a plastic 3D print you might be able to get away
| with CNC milled foam.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| Foam as a concrete mold? I don't think it's going to keep it
| shape and even if it did the surface and details are going to
| be terrible.
| krisoft wrote:
| > To order a 3D plastic print from a site like ShapeWays came
| out to over $1300 for something fairly small.
|
| If you are on the DIY path could you possibly find a hackspace
| and print it for yourself?
| krisoft wrote:
| Further clarification: the reason I'm asking is because I'm a
| member of a hackspace in Oxford, and this is the kind of
| project we would both love to support a member with and have
| all the tools to help. Obviously i don't imagine that you
| live close to us, but maybe you have other similar places
| near you?
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Ever thought about taking up stone carving? The tools are
| surprisingly simple.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| UK here. Our garden centres do have faux classical statues but
| then again we also have plastic garden gnomes. As in the film
| Gnomeo and Juliet but without the Elton John back catalogue.
| onthecanposting wrote:
| Buy a quality printer for their asking price and make your own
| molds. If it's fairly large, you may want to put the mold in
| sand for support, or cast in sections. Just remember to leave
| yourself pick points for lifting, and use dowels to join your
| segments. Embed a little steel, like a mesh, if any parts may
| be in tension or subject to bending.
|
| You've discovered a market with unmet needs!
| kurthr wrote:
| One cheaper and easier thing to do is to shape foam which can
| be done with hot wire 3D cutters into fairly large sizes (like
| baby elephants) and then put mesh and concrete on the surface.
| They look heavy depending and can last outside for decades if
| done properly, but are much easier to move than concrete
| versions. When you see a lot of large commercial outdoor
| concrete or mosaic structures this is how they're made.
| thunderbird120 wrote:
| It's interesting to think that rather than being destroyed by
| becoming too expensive, ornamentation may have died because it
| became too cheap. A lot of ornamentation existed to show off
| wealth and status, but if everyone can have it thanks to
| improvements in production then it doesn't do that anymore.
|
| It's unfortunate that making buildings look nice seems to be
| secondary to other types of status signaling. It's hardly a new
| issue either. When the Chrysler Building was completed in 1930 it
| was criticized for being gaudy for having the nerve to actually
| try to have some style.
|
| >"Lewis Mumford, a supporter of the International Style and one
| of the foremost architectural critics of the United States at the
| time, despised the building for its "inane romanticism,
| meaningless voluptuousness, [and] void symbolism".
| dullcrisp wrote:
| I don't know, you can look at it as because gaudy, ostentatious
| displays of wealth have become impossible, we've become able to
| focus on other things (yes, including subtler displays of
| wealth).
|
| If the ornamentation had value outside of signaling, it's now
| readily available to everyone, as the article says.
|
| But I'm not sure how much I believe that. Fashion is fashion.
| I'm sure there is a hypothetical present where minimalism isn't
| valued nearly as much. But I still think that's mostly
| orthogonal to how much people care about aesthetics.
| anon291 wrote:
| We've lost more than intricate ornamentation. We've lost
| ornament as a thing that regular people 'ought' to be around.
| I think it's interesting how Americans often assume that
| ornament is meant to display wealth, and is thus some sign of
| show-offness. I think the opposite is often the case.
| Ornament displayed in public is actually meant for public
| enjoyment. It's a form of philanthropy when done by a private
| wealthy individual, and a form of public works when done by
| the state. Humans deserve to live in beautiful environs. We
| should strive for that, but we've regressed greatly, with
| even wealthy neighborhoods being devoid of nice beautiful
| public spaces (except for a handful in particular cities).
|
| The average Roman peasant would have been exposed to more
| ornamentation in their life than the typical American.
| Whereas Americans would be driving by endless McDonalds,
| Starbucks, and strip mall number 523, a Roman peasant would
| have seen the great triumphal arcs, the facades of the great
| buildings, etc. It's just a complete loss. Anyone who's been
| to an older city in Europe or Asia knows exactly what we're
| missing. When ornament is a thing that exists, whether
| private or public, the whole public enjoys it regardless.
| koolba wrote:
| > I think the opposite is often the case. Ornament
| displayed in public is actually meant for public enjoyment.
|
| The statues and fountains throughout Madrid are a great
| example of this. Sheer beauty all over the city that you
| pass just going out for a coffee.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_of_Neptune_(Madrid)
| dullcrisp wrote:
| Not every Roman peasant lived in Rome. It'd be more apt to
| compare Rome with, say, NYC than with a random strip mall
| somewhere.
| pvg wrote:
| _The average Roman peasant would have been exposed to more
| ornamentation in their life than the typical American._
|
| You'd have to count ornamentation very selectively for that
| to be true. Every corporate logo is ornamental. A modern
| American farmer probably encounters more ornamentation
| before they get into their ornamentally bright-green
| tractor. The rivet in their pants is ornamental, the
| mirror-polish on the bezel of their phone is ornamental,
| the 'World's Best Mom' on their coffee mug is ornamental,
| etc.
| pvg wrote:
| The Chrysler Building critique is not totally crazy (and I say
| this as a Chrysler Building stan) - it's not hard to imagine it
| having a very different public perception outside the context
| of its time and place. Not every building gets to be the cuter,
| shorter sibling of the Empire State Building, the Sam the Eagle
| of NYC skyscrapers.
| MrVandemar wrote:
| I'll say one thing: ornamentation is harder to _clean_.
|
| If you're in charge of cleaning your own things, perhaps you
| desire surfaces that are easier and quicker to deal with. If
| you're in a position to hire people to do it, maybe you don't
| care as much.
|
| And I wonder if that's one reason for less ornamentation.
| There's also a desire for more simplicity, I guess as a
| reaction to the layers of complexity we wrap our lives up in,
| and again, perhaps ornamentation in that case becomes
| psychologically unsettling.
| Arn_Thor wrote:
| Interesting notion. Perhaps the same is happening with LED
| lamps and fixtures now, in the UK. Every rental is flooded with
| lights in all kinds of shapes. They are sold extremely
| affordably everywhere. To me at this point the novelty has worn
| off and it looks tacky. Also, most damning, they aren't
| replaceable or repairable so all it's doing is creating future
| e-waste...
| mbforbes wrote:
| I've been randomly thinking about this a lot!
|
| One hypothesis I've been kicking around: human brains like
| detail.
|
| I thought of this on a walk down a (sub)urban city street.
|
| - High detail: I first noticed the variety of plants in just the
| garden strips between the sidewalk and the street. I was trying
| to count how many there were, and I quickly lost track. Then I
| started looking at each individual plant, and the amount of
| detail is wild---the sheer intricacy and variation in all the
| parts and stages of growth. Not to mention the colors (OK, and
| smell and movement).
|
| Then, I looked at the human made objects around me:
|
| - Low detail: Flat concrete road. Flat concrete sidewalk. Flat
| stairs. All from rectangular tiles. Metal pole handrail.
|
| The houses around weren't much better---boxy shapes, low
| ornamentation.
|
| While I think it's generally accepted that nature is more
| pleasing to the senses to be around human-created objects, it
| made me wonder whether _amount of detail_ is a fundamental aspect
| of what our brains enjoy.
|
| This rumination gets activated whenever I walk by old ornate
| buildings or read an article like this.
|
| Relatedly, even low-poly games people find beautiful (Tunic comes
| to mind) have an extraordinary amount of detail when you dissect
| the textures and postprocessing effects. I'd share a video but
| I'm way off track now.
| interstice wrote:
| I've wondered if an abundance of processing leads to parts of
| the brain 'wanting' to be utilised at a subconscious level.
|
| Like a bored border collie but it's the visual cortex
| alexpetralia wrote:
| I think something can have a lot of detail (granularity) but
| not necessarily be appealing. I imagine it's more like
| patterned detail, so fractal patterns which can expand into
| substantial and endless detail.
| maxglute wrote:
| Architects spend a lot of time doing "detailing", it's
| inevitable part of design and construction. Most of is simply
| not very good, or at least average human effort has hard time
| competing against nature. There's many aesthetically pleasing
| "tectonics", designs lacking in detail (ornamentation), but
| delightful in perception. Not that nature is always great, but
| on average it does feel more pleasing.
| dotancohen wrote:
| This is how I felt looking at the Saturn V at KSP. The thing is
| absolutely huge, and the further up the stack one goes the more
| intricate the vehicle gets. Every millimeter is carefully
| engineered, for over one hundred meters in length and maybe ten
| meters in diameter. Then the crazy lander and capsule at the
| top. The more I examined it, the more I felt that evolved, like
| it is a part of human evolution.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| I wonder if there's a sweet spot of, basically entropy that we
| desire as it's evolutionarily beneficial.
|
| A vast desert vs. a teeming rainforest, that sort of thing.
|
| Like how I always assumed that we prefer cold water because of
| alpine streams.
| keiferski wrote:
| This is also why I personally don't dislike concrete as much
| when it's surrounded by plants and/or in a more ruinous state,
| in the urbex sense. It has more complexity and less
| predictability.
|
| A book about this came out recently too:
| https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/brutalist-plants-book
| lukan wrote:
| "While I think it's generally accepted that nature is more
| pleasing to the senses to be around human-created objects"
|
| I would change that to "nature is more pleasing to the senses
| to be around human _mass produced_ objects "
|
| Human made houses and gardens and various objects _can_ be very
| beautiful works of art.
|
| But they usually aren't, because it is expensive. A
| permaculture garden is a joy to walk in, unlike a monoculture
| field. A handcrafted table with ornaments is beautiful, a
| common plastic table not so much. And just adding generic
| details would be cheap as well, but would still be ugly to me.
| It is not just about details, but the right details in the
| right pattern that makes objects beautiful and fitting in its
| place. Ideally also an house is designed to fit its
| surroundings. Otherwise it looks out of place. (Most do)
|
| So I am really looking forward the robot revolution, that will
| (hopefully) free us from the need to produce cheap, so we can
| focus on producing beautiful again.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| Thankfully, we have big windows today, so that we can see the
| nature outside and running water, so that we can have plants
| inside too. Why would we distract from that with some ornament,
| that can only be a pathetic imitation of the fractal wealth of
| detail of nature?
| ajuc wrote:
| It's weird that the obvious wasn't mentioned in the article nor
| here: cars change how you perceive cities.
|
| When you're walking you have time to apreciate ornaments on
| nearby buildings and you can see the whole buildings around you.
|
| When you're driving you don't have time to see anything that is
| close (as it whizzes by), the car roof occludes anything higher
| than the 1st floor, and anything that is far you can't see in
| detail. What's the point of ornaments when 90% of people won't
| see them? So instead of detailed ornaments people design
| buildings that look nice from 2 km away.
|
| Even the difference between walking and biking is huge. The same
| street visited by bike feels completely different than on foot.
| With cars you're basically half-blind. You no longer see the
| buildings around you - at best you might see the skyline on the
| horizon.
|
| I blame cars for the modern buildings' lack of decorations.
| mkoubaa wrote:
| My theory is population growth. When population doesn't grow more
| older buildings get reused and fewer ones are built, so society
| can afford to ornament new constructions. When the babies boomed,
| you got Sears catalog houses.
| em-bee wrote:
| i am surprised that this article is talking about concrete and
| ornamentation but then doesn't mention brutalism.
|
| isn't brutalism the very essence of using concrete without
| ornamentation?
| krapp wrote:
| Yes, but brutalism is anything but beautiful. It wouldn't make
| sense in an article showcasing cathedrals and statues to then
| say "here's a concrete eyesore that looks as if the concept of
| fascist bureaucracy manifested as a machine that feeds on human
| souls."
| em-bee wrote:
| that's my point. brutalism is ugly. concrete without
| ornamentation is ugly. but concrete can look beautiful with
| ornamentation.
|
| it's not the concrete that makes brutalism ugly, but the lack
| of ornamentation.
|
| i didn't mean that the article should showcase brutalist
| examples, but where it talks about more modern architecture
| using less and less ornamentation, brutalism is the worst
| outgrowth of that, so i thought it would make sense to at
| least mention that.
| anta40 wrote:
| I assume brutalism is.... too "emotionless" or Sci Fi-ish
| (e.g Blade Runner)?
| medo-bear wrote:
| Brutalism is anything but fascistic (social housing). In fact
| brutalism is the extreme emphasis of simplicity and
| minimalism through mathematical forms. Fascist architecture
| (and fashion and art in general) on the other hand is
| extremely ornamental. But in a world that quickly forgets
| what Nazism and Fascism really is you might be forgiven for
| your ignorance.
| PhilipRoman wrote:
| Fascists were surprisingly "progressive" in the original
| meaning of the word. Hitler himself was quoted saying that
| form follows function and if you look at the plans for
| their new capital, I would not call it particularly
| ornamented. I guess "imposing" would be a better
| description. It's a similar story with the more detailed
| blackletter fonts - "Your alleged Gothic internalization
| does not fit well in this age of steel and iron, glass and
| concrete"
|
| It is a big mistake to conflate traditionalism/conservatism
| with fascism/nazism, these movements were inherently
| modern, even when the majority of people under them were
| not (as is the case in most of the world - the politically
| active minority creates revolutionary ideologies which are
| then stripped down to only the essentials by the pragmatic
| masses).
| medo-bear wrote:
| Nazis and fascists were progressive in so far as they
| copied Bolsheviks (state control of the key sectors of
| economy and social programs). In fact they initially
| marketed themselves to the working class as socialists
| with nationalist and traditional values, as opposed to
| the cosmopolitan values of the communists.
|
| A lot of things are imposing but are not Nazi or Fascist.
| However Nazism and Fascism without traditionalism doesn't
| make sense. Both (especially Nazism) draw heavily on
| nationalistic mythology. This is not to say that
| traditionalism implies either Nazism or Fascism. That
| should be obvious. My point is that Brutalism has nothing
| to do with either Fascism or Nazism.
| rayiner wrote:
| Love this characterization of brutalism.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I'd add a few ingredients to brutalism, the idea that pure
| geometry and macro structures were the main factor to evaluate
| quality. A lot of post 60s projects were like that, large
| spaces, simple lines and curves, big blocks and connections. A
| top down architect game.
| harimau777 wrote:
| Personally, I prefer brutalism over ultra-modern glass
| buildings. That's because at least brutalism has an aesthetic
| and a commitment to communicating something through its design.
| At least it looks like something.
|
| In that respect I think it's more similar to older ornamented
| aesthetics than it is to modern glass and steel skyscrapers or
| McMansions.
| walterburns wrote:
| The invention of the steel core made the stone facade unnecessary
| to support the building, so most new buildings are covered in
| glass instead of stone. That's related to less ornamentation, but
| to me that's the big distinction between beautiful old buildings
| and ugly new ones.
|
| It also created a tremendous energy efficiency issue. Stone has
| much higher thermal mass than glass.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I don't know that the energy efficiency calculation is that
| simple. Stone is much more mass to move in the first place, and
| modern glass and insulation technology is very, very good.
| akomtu wrote:
| Architecture at large scale is built by the rich, it's the
| product of their minds. They could decorate it any way they want,
| but they choose not to, as it "doesn't add value", "it's not
| efficient" and "it's not productive". Architecture shows what
| their minds look like: machine-like, ugly in their raw
| efficiency. The common folk still decorate their houses and front
| yards if they have one. It's still unheard of to live in a grey
| cube with concrete slabs instead of the lawn and flowers.
|
| This slow shift in architecture style also means an eclipse of
| the ability of humanity to perceive beauty in general. The
| eclipse is temporary, but it lasts for centuries and we are yet
| to see its darkest moment. All this talk about productivity and
| efficiency is another face of this eclipse.
| cess11 wrote:
| I find constructing with sand hard to accept as beautiful.
|
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2713680/
| paperhatwriter wrote:
| Hackernews talking architecture always gives me the shivers.
| frou_dh wrote:
| Are you saying I need more in my toolkit than the two words
| Brutalist and McMansion?
| pfdietz wrote:
| Ah, beautiful concrete, producing a kilogram of CO2 for each
| kilogram of product.
| shortsunblack wrote:
| Concrete lasts longer. Concrete also absorbs CO2 from air. In
| its lifetime, it is expected to absorb all the CO2 emissions.
|
| Emissions do not really matter for a material that can last
| hundreds of years. Genociding old growth forests in Europe for
| biomass "renewable" energy, though. That's a problem.
| anovikov wrote:
| Here's my take: large format sheet glass that is safe and
| durable, has become much more available due to technological
| change, allowing for construction of buildings with much more
| sunlight, enabling interior designs which are both a lot more
| pleasant and let extract more rent. Glass exterior leaves less
| space for ornament and also makes the ornament less visible and
| even somewhat of an eyesore.
| analog31 wrote:
| >>>> Baumol illustrated 'cost disease' with the example of a
| string quartet. A string quartet produces no more live music
| today than it did in the nineteenth century, but the cost of
| hiring one has risen greatly.
|
| Has anybody actually studied the cost of hiring a string quartet?
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Based on my very limited experience running events, you could
| easily hire a professional one for a single performance for a
| few thousand dollars. For an amateur group, hundreds.
|
| Modern logistics and construction has significantly reduced
| secondary costs. Cost per calorie of food is nearly free
| compared to the past.
| analog31 wrote:
| Indeed, and my experience comes from being a musician. I'm in
| a jazz quartet, but both of my kids are in string quartets,
| one is a professional.
|
| One thing that might make it hard to study is that the cost
| depends on the event and what's actually being delivered.
| Everybody charges a premium for weddings and corporate
| events. But those things also have to run absolutely like
| clockwork. On the other hand, the bands I'm in are also happy
| to charge a lower price for a "budget" wedding that isn't a
| $100000 Disney blowout.
|
| Everybody charges different if travel is involved. What most
| ensembles do is, first, book as many high-dollar gigs as
| possible. Then, fill in the holes in the schedule with lesser
| gigs. The best musicians in my locale will take a $50 gig if
| the alternative is staying home.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| This is insanely expensive by historic standards. $1000 worth
| of purchasing power back in medieval Europe would pay laborer
| wages for a _year_ , not a day.
| m0llusk wrote:
| This raises issues, but may be missing some important points.
|
| Regarding the philosophy of ornament or not, brutalist architects
| were obsessed with texture. Many buildings that may seem at first
| to be without ornament actually had a huge amount of effort put
| into casting their concrete forms with rows of fins that stick
| out and are later roughly pounded back to form a particular look.
| This cost a lot of extra money even though it comes off as a
| rather plain texture to many.
|
| And when it comes to cost analysis this take is very shallow. An
| interesting counterexample is the recent rebuilding of a hospital
| in Chinatown, San Francisco. The initial designs were extremely
| plain and boxy based on the idea that every bit of money spent on
| ornament could be spent on life saving devices instead. Only when
| a foundation was formed to raise money specifically for
| ornamentation of the building was that added to the design.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-18 23:01 UTC)