
The Cybertruck is not brutalist - dangerman
https://www.inverse.com/article/61479-cybertruck-brutalism-not-really
======
no_flags
Kind of reminds me of this copypasta that has become a meme in the emo music
scene:

"Real Emo" only consists of the dc Emotional Hardcore scene and the late 90's
Screamo scene. What is known by "Midwest Emo" is nothing but Alternative Rock
with questionable real emo influence. When people try to argue that bands like
My Chemical Romance are not real emo, while saying that Sunny Day Real Estate
is, I can't help not to cringe because they are just as fake emo as My
Chemical Romance (plus the pretentiousness). Real emo sounds ENERGETIC,
POWERFUL and somewhat HATEFUL. Fake emo is weak, self pity and a failed
attempt to direct energy and emotion into music. Some examples of REAL EMO are
Pg 99, Rites of Spring, Cap n Jazz (the only real emo band from the midwest
scene) and Loma Prieta. Some examples of FAKE EMO are American Football, My
Chemical Romance and Mineral EMO BELONGS TO HARDCORE NOT TO INDIE, POP PUNK,
ALT ROCK OR ANY OTHER MAINSTREAM GENRE

~~~
AtlasBarfed
"Leading Brutalist Expert" is a hilarious phrase.

If almost everyone considers it brutalist, well, too bad expert gatekeeper of
an ill-defined abstract notion.

~~~
derefr
Regular words work that way. Jargon words don't.

Jargon words are defined once, in an academic paper that introduces them, and
then everyone else _using the word in the jargon sense_ keeps using that exact
definition. If the word becomes useless, they get a new word, since the old
word still means—and will be preserved to forever mean—the old thing.

If you think about it, this is the only way that academia can "work" over a
span of generations. We need to be able to differentiate statements about
phlostigon from statements about calories; statements about the luminiferous
aether from statements about electricity; etc. If we just re-used the word
"phlostigon" _for_ the concept of calories, we'd both render a lot of previous
papers _way_ more confusing than they need to be, and also make productive
debate about which of the hypotheses is true basically impossible.

Anthropology (and so art/music/etc. history) is an academic discipline; words
like "Brutalist" _are_ jargon terms in that discipline. (They're also non-
jargon words used by laymen like journalists, but that pretty much doesn't
affect what the academics do at all.)

It all seems very obvious if you map it to your own discipline. E.g. if
laymen, when they say "a matrix", mean some VR simulation thing, that doesn't
change what it means when a mathematician says "a matrix", right?

------
loa_in_
As a person with personal interest in visual arts I never have seen the appeal
of appearance of many popular "great looking" cars of today's variety. Even
muscle cars and luxury models.

Cars up to 70's and 80's were really nice and aesthetically pleasing, and I
find the Elon Musk's vision to be really nice and refreshing.

It might be that I'm partial to science fiction in general, but I really would
like to see this vision developed further.

~~~
thdrdt
A lot of cars today are designed around regulations and with aerodynamics in
mind.

For example in Europe you can't have a spoiler that could catch a cyclist. And
it is prefered that there is room between the hood and motor in case of an
impact with a pedestrian.

This is why a lot of cars start to look the same.

This is also why the cybertruck in it's current form will never be allowed in
Europe. A door that doesn't dent on impact of a huge hammer gives a nice show
but is a big no for a lot of different safety reasons.

~~~
app4soft
> _This is also why the cybertruck in it 's current form will never be allowed
> in Europe._

To be honest, Cybertruck may be not allowed in Europe for citizens, but I not
see any limitations that could prevent allowing Cybertruck for farming in
Europe.

~~~
dividedbyzero
Southern Germany is chock full of small to large-ish farms (all of which would
be tiny to small for US standards I guess), but either people hide their pick-
up trucks extremely well, or there aren't a lot of them around. Also, wouldn't
not having a Straßenzulassung (permission for road use) mean you couldn't use
it on public streets at all?

~~~
solarkraft
You can see a tractor on the road every now and then, so there must be some
regulatory way. However that comes with servere limitations, for example on
speed.

------
3pt14159
It's also more subtly curved than most people give it credit for. I know a guy
that is creating 3D models of the truck for some people that want to simulate
it in simulated wind-tunnel. He was flabbergasted at how much they could keep
the straight looking form while also smuggling in critical curvatures here and
there to stop eddy currents from forming.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
I'm guessing you mean turbulent eddies (which form in a fluid) rather than
eddy currents (which form inside metals subjected to changing magnetic
fields).

In any case, it's impossible to stop eddy currents from forming. Any car, even
if it's as slippery as a LMP1 prototype, will generate lots of turbulent
eddies. The question is, how bad will the drag coefficient be.

And that's a question you won't be able to answer with simulations unless you
have a few tens to hundreds of millions of CPU-hours lying around.

~~~
3pt14159
Ah yes, sorry. You're right. I'm so used to thinking about computers that I
flummoxed the two.

~~~
lonelappde
Did you mean confused, not flummoxed?

~~~
arbitrary_name
Does it matter, pedant?

------
et2o
It’s likely by this pedantic definition that no automobile could ever be
brutalist. Architectural gatekeeping.

~~~
Negitivefrags
“The truck is consumerist, whereas brutalism’s monumentality is civic. The
truck’s boldness serves the bravado of an individual, whereas brutalism’s
visual power was meant to project the shared dignity of the public realm.”

Literally no product you can buy would meet this definition.

I guess you could make a brutalist city bus?

~~~
toasterlovin
> "the shared dignity of the public realm"

That is a peculiar way to describe what Brutalism projects. I've always
thought that it projected the sinister power of bureaucracy, and that was why
government officials fell for it as hard as they did.

(I know you're just quoting the author.)

~~~
dragonwriter
> That is a peculiar way to describe what Brutalism projects

By the express wording of the quote, it doesn't describe what Brutalism
_projects_ but what Brutalism _was meant to project_.

------
andrewflnr
Brutalist philosophy always sounds cool with its honesty and showing of how it
works. But then you look at what it actually produces and it's usually, you
know, brutal. If brutalist architects could just find it in their hearts to
make their buildings have nice shapes along with all the other properties,
maybe they wouldn't be so reviled.

~~~
thaeli
There are exceptions. The Washington DC Metro, for instance.

~~~
darkr
London has plenty of well-loved and iconic brutalist examples. A far from
complete list:

Barbican Estate, Southbank Centre/Royal Festival Hall, Centrepoint, The
Brunswick

~~~
Nursie
I'm not sure many of those count as well loved. The South Bank is an
abomination.

------
spectramax
I disagree. If one definition of Brutalism is to be honest about materials -
then Cybertruck nails that. Unpainted stainless steel is as brutalist as it
gets.

We can argue about the design intent of the way it looks and whether that’s
Brutalism. Aesthetics is only one aspect of Brutalism.

Another aspect of Brutalism is to expose innards without guilt - If Cybertruck
doesn’t have non-structural decorations, farings, etc and it doesn’t attempt
to cover things up, that’s pretty fucking Brutal.

~~~
FisDugthop
I'm not sure whether a covered car can be brutalist, to be honest. When I
think of a brutalist car design, I think of go-karts.

Other features of brutalist design:

* By exposing the skeleton, the object shows itself as a platform that can be built upon. However, the Cybertruck's convex hull and covered, armored plating do not lend themselves to confident self-expression, but instead drown out any attempt at customization.

* The purpose of the object is apparent and plain in its construction. The Cybertruck's wheels give away that it is a rolling vehicle of some sort, but otherwise its design does not indicate that it is road-worthy, fast, durable, rideable, etc.

* One of the article's main points: The object should, in its humility, elevate a shared societal viewpoint. Quoting from one of the experts in the article:

> The truck is consumerist, whereas brutalism’s monumentality is civic. The
> truck’s boldness serves the bravado of an individual, whereas brutalism’s
> visual power was meant to project the shared dignity of the public realm.

The other quote that is worth repeating:

> [But] we don’t see any bolts or gaskets or other details of joinery.
> Brutalist architects would never allow this. They wanted the method of
> making and the assembly of parts to be legible — to be put on display as a
> way of being vividly honest. This was a core principle, and the sleek
> machined quality of the Cybertruck is ultimately a disqualifying
> characteristic.

~~~
thatswrong0
Unnecessarily exposing innards doesn't feel brutalist to me. Covering up the
innards is a functional requirement of being a reliable car - you don't want
the engine exposed to the elements, for example. You don't want to expose the
driver to rain and snow. You don't want to have the frame rust. A huge part of
brutalism is not letting design compromise functioning of the object and not
hiding the materials that compose the object.

Buildings that are considered brutalist still have walls and a roof, because
you know, a building being covered by a roof and having walls is what creates
room and space inside. There'd be no point to building it otherwise. But they
don't worry about hiding the ductwork and piping inside because hiding it
doesn't add to the functionality of the building.

In the cybertruck, the use of unpainted stainless steel is letting the
inherent useful properties of the material shine - that's certainly brutalist.
The material being difficult to work with is what created the harsh angles in
the silhouette - again, that's brutalist.

~~~
spectramax
I agree with you mostly - slight contradiction you say "Unncessarily" and then
talk about the functional use of those covers to prevent water and snow
ingress. I think what I was alluding to is that a piece of cover for 100%
decorative use - no safety, functional or any reason but to make things look
nice. That is the "guilt". :)

Definitely agree, unpainted stainless steel is a brutalist trait.

~~~
thatswrong0
I suppose then you could argue about the inside of the car, as that is where
most of the unnecessary covering would exist.

------
crooked-v
My snap judgment of the Cybertruck is vaporwave rather than brutalist... but
that might just be from the similarity to a DeLorean's style.

------
ken
Besides the political slant, they appear to claim it isn’t brutalist because
it has no visible connectors or internals ... and then show photos of
allegedly brutalist architecture with no visible connectors or internals.

------
throw_m239339
Of course it is not brutalist. "Brutalism" has become a buzzword just like
"minimalism" 10 years ago. The shape, design and materials of this truck have
absolutely nothing to do with "brutalist" architecture.

------
nmeofthestate
So, it's not brutalist for political reasons. True brutalism is collectivist
or civic whereas trucks are individualist.

Can't believe I read all the way to the Pseud's Corner wankery denouement.

------
aasasd
For cars that fulfill some of the ideas of brutalism, see dune buggies or
Ariel Atom.

The truck can be called (neo-neo-)modernist since it does away with indulgent
decorative curves that bulbous current cars are full of (thanks to people
learning to produce panels of whatever which shape), with barely-
comprehensible shapes of headlights spilling all over the hood and sides, and
rather importantly with radiator grille and other front decorations which are
the last bastion of recognizable brand imagery on the otherwise-identical cars
of today.

The truck is a reaction to current trends, just like Rivian. And like design
movements were reactions to the preceding ones during the whole of the
twentieth century.

------
linksnapzz
Insofar as it isn't made out of beton brut, the Cybertruck(Good God How I Hate
That Name) can't be called classically Brutalist.

Though I suppose a truck with a steel reinforced poured-concrete chassis is a
little beyond even Musk's olympian ambitions.

------
kevin_thibedeau
The seats are probably a little comfortable. True brutalism needs to crush the
human spirit.

------
SlowRobotAhead
Brutalist or not, it’s not real.

That car as shown will absolutely not pass crash testing, European
homologation and pedestrian impact, both issues with it being 1/8” stainless
steel panels (separate discussion how those make no damn sense!). It has no
mirrors, or wipers.

What has been shown is a roughly drawn concept.

Anyone that thinks they’re going to get exactly that and exactly for $40,000
hasn’t been around the concept car scene.

I’ll engage discussions on this thing when it’s not just a PR move.

(Source: automotive engineer)

~~~
prestonh
I know nothing about cars, but I've been wondering how anything remotely
resembling what was shown could pass a crash test. It's going to have to be
radically transformed, so why bother even showing a design at this point?

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
My company has been through crash about three times at a million dollars a
pop. I’m 99% certain that “truck” as shown will not pass.

Not even getting in to ped impact.

There is no way 1/8” steel panels will cut it. There will need to be some thin
panels and some serious crumple zone going on “under the hood”.

------
jessriedel
tl;dr: The Cybertruck is not brutalist because it's designers do not promote
the same politics as brutalist architects:

> But Banham and his fellow brutalists had a purpose behind their intense
> design, something more than just a building.

> And on this, Pasnik, argues, the two groups — Brutalists and Tesla designers
> — couldn’t be more different....

> “The truck is consumerist, whereas brutalism’s monumentality is civic. The
> truck’s boldness serves the bravado of an individual, whereas brutalism’s
> visual power was meant to project the shared dignity of the public realm.”

~~~
NoodleIncident
> the sleek machined quality of the Cybertruck is ultimately a disqualifying
> characteristic

~~~
jessriedel
That's a terrible objection (and is not the primary one made in the article,
hence "tl;dr"). Brutalist architecture is _highly_ machined, and many famous
examples are sleek, e.g., The Paulistano Athletic Club Gymnasium.

------
c3534l
A pickup truck is more Brutalist than the cybertruck.

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
A truck with the bed removed and the flatbed added seems appropriate.

[https://nationwideonlinetrailersales.com/products/pj-
trailer...](https://nationwideonlinetrailersales.com/products/pj-trailers-gs-
model-truckbed?variant=19968895090801&currency=USD)

------
kodisha
This chart [1] is awesome reminder of a current state in car design.

Even without Tesla, a change is in dire need.

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/coe1mnbupjv8qbe/1_uEe9rvbQB8XM6uYW...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/coe1mnbupjv8qbe/1_uEe9rvbQB8XM6uYWT_6vng.jpeg?dl=0)

~~~
542458
I mean, once you’ve accepted the basic requirements of:

* four wheels

* meets legal size limits

* reasonable aerodynamic characteristics

* room for passengers

* sufficiently sized windows and doors

* crumplezone

* reasonable collision and roll characteristics

* front that mitigates damage to pedestrians

* (for SUVs) large trunk with large door

* practical to manufacture

* etc

the design space is pretty limited, and so it’s not surprising that all
vehicles in a given class look pretty similar. It’s like how most large planes
look pretty similar - it’s not laziness, it’s optimization within constraints.

It’s also worth noting that the Cybertruck, as shown, does not meet a lot of
the basic requirements (rear views, windshield wipers, impact characteristics,
headlight legality) so any shipping version will have to have a changes made
towards a more traditional form.

------
Animats
Let's see what the actual selling price is. It's probably going to be very
high by pickup standards. In which case the prestige value matters more than
the functionality.

------
JJMcJ
If by bold you mean "looks like a stealth destroyer" then yes it's bold.

------
techbio
We shall see if it becomes brutalist in the civic sense when self-driving.

------
brainlessdev
Aside: is anybody else having trouble reading the yellow-on-grey heading?

------
HorstG
The Cybertruck can't be brutalist because it us not ugly enough... At least it
is far less ugly than anything properly called brutalist.

Its rather nice, comparable (but not as good) as e.g. the Lamborghini Countach
and similar designs.

------
arbitrage
so it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, an walks like a duck, but isn't a
duck, because whoever made it wasn't thinking about ducks at the time.

i disagree. it's brutalist. the article says so. it meets all the criteria,
except: it's a truck.

c'mon. that's reductive pedantry at its worst.

------
swiley
No it’s obviously vapor wave not brutalist.

------
JohnFen
Maybe it's not brutalist, but it's certainly brutal to the eyes.

~~~
msla
Behold the power of a mistranslation:

> The term ‘brutalism’ was coined by the British architects Alison and Peter
> Smithson, and popularised by the architectural historian Reyner Banham in
> 1954. It derives from ‘Béton brut’ (raw concrete) and was first associated
> in architecture with Le Corbusier, who designed the Cite Radieuse in
> Marseilles in the late-1940s.

But since the word can be used as an insult in English, it's used with no
reference to its original meaning, obscuring the fact it's a botched
translation.

~~~
arbitrage
linguistic shift. meanings and etymologies can drift over time.

in english, in the modern age, brutalist implies brutality.

~~~
oh_sigh
No, it doesn't. No one is describing, say, the Geisel Library as 'brutal',
unless they've heard that it is Brutalist and didn't understand the etymology.

------
ActorNightly
I honestly stopped reading when I read "brutalism experts"

~~~
dang
Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

------
NicoJuicy
Meanwhile, CyberTruck isn't allowed in West-Europe due to safety concerns.

It bends too little in case of an accident.

~~~
llampx
Nobody has crash-tested a Cybertruck yet...

~~~
buboard
this traffic pylon did

[https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-hits-traffic-pylon-with-new-
cy...](https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-hits-traffic-pylon-with-new-cybertruck-
after-1840307783)

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
Thanks for posting that, I had never seen the Cybertruck move. That looks
terrible in motion. It moves like a toy and not in a good way. Something funky
about the way the wheels fit in the wheel wells and the way it all goes
together.

------
sidcool
The Cybertruck looks like it's designed by Howard Roark from the Fountainhead.
I still don't know what to think about it.

------
buboard
I don't think the truck's design will survive the trough of disillusionment.
It's not a great or classic design, not even in the way that iphone-modernist-
revival became classic.

Also the idea that brutalism could be something to aspire to is misguided

------
remarkEon
Kind of off topic but:

> Mark Pasnik is a founding principal of the Boston-based design firm
> OverUnder and a professor of architecture at Wentworth Institute of
> Technology.

If you go to the OverUnder website, the proposal to “revamp” the existing
Boston City Hall is just an admonition that brutalism sucks and is miserable
to be around.

> The design creates vibrant counterpoints of light and liveliness to City
> Hall's monumental framework. It proposes a series of tactical modifications
> to the building's lowest and most public levels: clarifying way-finding;
> improving views, light, and sustainability; occupying abandoned spaces; and
> increasing the building's openness to the city.

> Daylight from the atrium would stream downward into what is presently a dark
> hall. Light globes, colorful wall panels, and illuminated information
> screens would create an animated atmosphere.

So, adding in all the things brutalism is not. Guys. Just tear the thing down.
No amount of aesthetic improvements will make people like that place.

[http://overunder.co/work/architectural/Boston-City-
Hall](http://overunder.co/work/architectural/Boston-City-Hall)

~~~
mepiethree
The Boston City Hall can suck without meaning that all brutalist architecture
sucks. For example, the Glen Park BART station in SF is widely considered an
architectural achievement

www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/amp/Glen-Park-BART-station-could-soon-be-an-
official-14189658.php

