6 comments

  • Justin Jackson, over 3 years ago (edited over 3 years ago )

    When I was 13, I remember being blown away by the game [Doom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(1993_video_game). It had a 3D engine, graphics and sound like I'd never seen before. At about 2.25 MB it took 40 minutes on my dial up modem.

    Nowadays, the average web page is bigger than that. That's insane.

    I think we're going to see a return to lightweight websites. Simple. Focused on the words.

    This will be good for designers: less cruft, less ads mucking up layouts, less scripts to load, less heavy fonts.

    3 points
  • Pablo StanleyPablo Stanley, over 3 years ago

    The examples of governmental buildings are awful, they look like fascist institutional blocks of concrete. I'm all for making lightweight, minimalist design, but that doesn't mean that you have to be lazy; it still requires craft, and that you solve a problem not that you just follow a trend. Also, were they seriously criticizing the use of folders and tags? Those are great functional things that make life easier. The video condemns design snobs, but ironically, their statement came off pretty snobby too.

    3 points
  • Fadil Eledath, over 3 years ago

    I feel as if the article misunderstands the point of brutalism in architecture. Brutalism is an expression of confidence and commitment through cement and other more permanent materials to bring a style that others may not like but serves the purpose without bells and whistles.

    A lot of 'brutalist' websites are actually just parodies of the past. For an actual version of brutalism brought into websites, you would need to transfer these elements into web design. This is brutalism - (http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/).

    Adding flashy GIFs and purposely making a website unappealing is not brutalism.

    2 points
  • Andrew ZimmermanAndrew Zimmerman, over 3 years ago

    It beats my initial thought that Brutalism is more art-brut than an architectural movement.

    Websites should use the best tools for its purpose.

    0 points
  • Rob CornishRob Cornish, over 3 years ago

    I somewhat agree and disagree with the brutalist approach, websites do load far too many frameworks, plugins and other bloated elements that are just not needed, all because its easy.

    Where just 1 line of javascript would do instead of loading an entire jQuery framework.

    It's down to the designers, developers and the core team involved to make these decisions to create better websites without the bloat. What happened to story telling?

    The brutalist approach may work to some extent but for me personally people should create and design what they feel best fits the solution and objectives in mind. If a client is after something stripped back then yea go for it, on the other hand if the client's vision is different then use your skills, tools and knowledge to create whats required.

    The brutalist approach does feel like i've stepped back into 99' and its a bit nostalgic. Be good to see where it can lead to.

    0 points