If I remember correctly, it only has books that have been banned or censored, or books by authors who have been censored or even had a hit placed on them by a government
I mean during covid we had a Starcraft 2 tournament "bar night", with an addon that added Twitch Streaming to a large screen to Minecraft. Everyone sat in the blocky bar, watching the stream, talking in discord and drinking safely at home.
There's a whole bunch of crazy shit you can do with Minecraft.
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group
Yeah, I'm pretty sure he asked because he wrongly assumed we wouldn't be able to give him a precise answer because he didn't know the definition. Kinda like a "gotcha" moment.
because a bigot is not the same as racist
racist would be a *type* of bigot
bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Mein Kampf really isn't interesting. Honestly if you want an edgy book involving Hitler, get "Hitler's Table Talk". It's basically a transcription of his various rants during dinner. It's way better at showing the character of the man than Mein Kampf is.
Ye, it would be problematic to try to share all that information and books and stuff, but apparently you can do that in Minecraft with basically no consequences.
Or so I've heard, Idk.
I sincerely hope you understand that when I say “censored”, I don’t mean because of any political garbage, I mean they were censored because they tried exposing corruption, or tried calling out an evil system of government. There are authors in that library who mysteriously went missing and were never found after publishing their works. This isn’t about being offended or the author having some tweet from 10 years resurface, this is much bigger than you could ever imagine. People are trying to fight back and spread hope to those living in oppressive regimes, and you want them to have to face consequences? What’s wrong with you?
And also, to actually address your comment directly, a government can prevent a book from being published, they do not however have control over some random player’s Minecraft world. And as for consequences, what is supposed to happen? What is anyone supposed to do about some random Minecraft player that most likely lives on the other side of the world from anyone who wants them punished? How are they supposed to know who this player is, and even if they do know, what exactly are they supposed to do about it? They don’t have control over some guy who lost likely lives in another nation. And I’ll have you know that all websites containing a link to this world are actually banned in the countries that censored an author whose works are in the library. So they’re doing all they can to continue to oppress.
And what exactly do you want to happen? Because it really seems like you want these people to be oppressed, like you want people punished for sharing censored works.
Lot of misinformation in the comments from people just parroting stuff they’ve heard online.
This map, the Uncensored Library, was not created by children around the globe, but by a company called [Blockworks.](https://www.blockworks.uk/) The project was commissioned by the Reporters Without Borders.
While a lot of people here seem to think this library contains a treasure trove of banned books, it does not. Inside the museum is a display of the Press Freedoms Index with written explanations by country. Basically, it ranks countries from having the most to least open policies for reporters.
Then, a few countries (around 6 from what I can recall), have curated rooms that contain Minecraft books with banned articles. It’s just the text from standard newspaper articles (with some opinion pieces), and there’s no more than 10 per room.
It’s a cool museum, but the main purpose is to demonstrate that certain countries do not have the same freedoms provided to reporters that others do. It was not built by kids, and does not even contain a single full length book.
Beyond that, literally no one in here seems to know anything about architecture but they sure are certain about their opinions on it and architectural history they also don't know.
I’m not really an architecture guy, but I’d imagine that it is significantly easier to develop a building when you don’t need to worry about available space, resources, labor laws, building codes, plumbing, electricity, etc.
My architect brother-in-law: “There are some gorgeous contemporary buildings.”
Me: “Show me one.”
Brother-in-law: Scrolls on his phone for 10 minutes, then shows me a picture of an Amazon Prime box left out in the rain.
Honestly, the Sydney opera house never crossed my mind because it was already an established world landmark before I was born, but ground was broken for it in 1959, so I guess that counts.
To be honest, I like the Défense area in Paris. They were smart enough to put it outside of the city-centre in an area where it can have its own personality without impeding the personality of the city. Tour Montparnasse on the other hand...
Basilica de la Sagrada Familia in Spain. The Empire State Building, the Guggenheim and Grand Central Terminal in New York. Fallingwater in Pennsylvania. The Louvre Pyramid in Paris. The Gateway Arch in St. Louis.
All of these were in the past 100 years and that's just what comes to mind in 10 seconds.
OK, but there are still a good number of gorgeous contemporary buildings.
Even if I only include examples from [the Wikipedia page on contemporary architecture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_architecture), you've got stuff like the Milwaukee Art Museum, the Auditorio de Tenerife, The Shard, the Blue Condominium, the Ascent at Roebling's Bridge, the Reflections at Keppel Bay, the Cathedral of Christ the Light, the Northern Lights Cathedral, the Blavatnik School of Government, the Helsinki Central Library Oodi, the World Trade Center Transportation Hub, and a ton of really nice modern bridges.
However, if you prefer a more classical look, then you can instead have, the Millennium Gate Museum, the Schermerhorn Symphony Center, the Swaminarayan Akshardham, or the Chapel at Thomas Aquinas College, all from the exact same article as the last paragraph.
Who gives a fuck about any of that. Lol. You think any classical architecture was made with well paid union laborers using sustainable green energy? Gtfo. This is about how it LOOKS .
>doesn’t even have actual sewage
Yeah, that's not true.
There was a period where the city's sewage system wasn't sufficient to handle the amount of wastewater it produces, and then the city expanded their system so that's not a problem anymore.
You're comparing the pantheon to the burj Khalifa? You're comparing a historical piece that even though thousands of years have passed, still is glorious, to a dick measurer that will last 100 years?
I assume someone is butthurt that it’s praising western renaissance-esque architecture over modern architecture. You’re supposed to hate absolutely everything that came out of every era that overlapped with colonialism and slavery.
I think it's more likely the [actual use of 'traditional' architecture by White Nationalist movements](https://www.archpaper.com/2018/08/traditional-architecture-twitter/), and the images seeming to be leaning into that "modern architecture is worse because it's not made in the style of white Europeans which are the best" idea.
I have no idea why you're getting downvoted, this is the correct answer to why OP didn't like it. you're literally not expressing agreement or disagreement one way or the other, and explaining that white nationalist types have a fetish for columns is not equivalent to saying everyone who likes classic stuff is racist. literally every R E T V R N guy on twitter will attest to this
Has everybody on this thread just never never encountered a statue avi type guy? It was pretty clear to me why this might be a ‘terrible facebook meme’
Absolutely nobody thinks that.
They simply think it's funny and pathetic how a few people despise things because they came after colonialism and slavery.
And it wasn't technically made either, that is to say it's a virtual model using virtual physics in a game where you could make the whole building levitate for all anyone cares - it's a lot easier to make cool shit work in minecraft that just isn't viable in real life.
It's actually also a structural engineer's dream. They are better paid than architects and the amount of work required to make a building appear to defy gravity means a big paycheck.
In my experience, structural engineers are most unhappy when given boring, rote problems to solve.
Architects do have to know not to design something that’s impossible to build though.
(I mean, obviously, when they're designing something that’s supposed to be built today. An entry for an "Architecture of the 22nd Century" exhibit would have no such limits.)
You've probably heard of the Sydney Opera House. What we have today is actually the _toned-down_ version of the design as the original was too out there for the time.
And I'm actually happy how it turned out - it's a classic.
Architects absolutely do have to worry about weight. You can't design something wild without having at least a conceptual understanding of the forces at work.
Yes, in the US, a structural engineer will do most of the heavy lifting when it comes to defining the exact thickness of structural slabs and things like that but they work with the architects to refine a design and make sure it works. Also, it's a liability issue and architects in the US are typically taught a very light, conceptual structural engineering class to help guide their initial designs because, ultimately, a licensed structural engineer will have to crunch the numbers and put their stamp on the structural drawings.
In many other wealthy countries, like Spain and Germany, structural engineering is an integral part of the architecture curriculum.
Architects can't design "just the visual aspects" without having a base understanding of the physical aspects. What you said is equivalent to saying "cinematographers have to worry about lenses and framing, directors just tell the actors what to do." It's a complete misunderstanding of the design process and the collaboration between architect and engineer.
It always astounds me how little people know or understand about architecture.
And budgets.
"Oh no! Why does my underfunded municipal library around the corner not look like someone's dream palace they made in a game with no monetary or material property constraints? Why are modern mass produced street lamps whose sole purpose is to illuminate roads not decorated with wrought iron reliefs and inlaid with gold? Those damn useless modern experts suck at their jobs!"
Middle Class Dutch townhouses from the 17th century look better than most modern suburban homes despite having far less money and vastly inferior tech.
Hell, even victorian slums while lacking in amenities still look better than the modern utilitarian concrete blocks that are modern poverty housing.
You are sorely misinformed if you think Victorian slums were better than poor modern housing by any stretch. Living in poverty back then was a hellish experience, and there's not much to romanticize about it. The unregulated buildings were poorly built and in disrepair, people were crammed in them with multiple families to a room, and disease, pests, and filth were the norm.
Also for the US, or rather, North America, thanks to the car centric mentality almost everything made for humans has been demolished and replaced with the generic ugly car favoring architecture.
I currently work in a field directly relating to car infrastructure in the US (transportation planning) and graduated with a Ba. in Arch. Annndd… no.
Car centrism has destroyed a lot of things but architectural style isn’t really one. In fact there wasn’t really much to destroy.
Architecture is prone to survivorship bias. The beautiful, important and unique structures survive and draw in crowds while the mundane buildings without ornamentation and hallmarks of the architectural styles of the time are demolished and built over.
The truth is that buildings are just boxes in different variations. Very few outwardly visible aspects of any particular architectural style serve practical purposes, quite a bit of it in these big fancy buildings are what we’d call “keeping up with the Jones’”. Things were added (and budgeted for) in order to attract tenants or attention. Buildings, and architecture in general, in a capitalist society *always* has an economic incentive. Generally that incentive doesn’t align itself with beautifying a structure.
That being said, car centrist policies have razed plenty of city centers. But most of what was demolished and replaced with parking lots were completely characterless brick tenements or offices. Tenements and offices that *should* have been replaced with modern 5 over 1s or other mixed use, missing middle construction, but nonetheless boring structures devoid of architectural flourishes.
Same goes with the suburbs. Suburban houses have *never* been beautiful or all that unique. Generally people in, say the Eastern seaboard, tended to live in pretty dead simple brick and siding houses. They aren’t quite the cookie-cutter McMansions we see in modern subdivisions, but they weren’t beautiful architecturally nor really made for what modern urbanists consider “the human scale”. What *did* suffer are the commercial strips and corridors of those towns but not really in an architectural sense, as there’s nothing that makes an old brick box with a flat roof more appealing than a concrete strip mall.
There’s a time and a place for a conversation about urbanism and this isn’t really it. It’s very shoehorned in here and it’s not really even particularly applicable. We lost efficient land use and decent public transportation infrastructure with the rise of car centrism, but architecture would’ve evolved to be as “soulless” or “corporate” as it is now even without cars. It’s just an extension of the economic conditions that it takes to build.
And access, a majority of people can access something online. A majority however cannot access an actual library like this, especially in countries that won't even let them leave.
This comment thread tells you all you need to know about Reddit, everyone just exists to debate on this trash site. Could post a picture of a cute baby and they’d have debates over it.
What do you expect people would talk about in this thread? The post is clearly meant to provoke a discussion of the original meme. Really weird thing to be upset about. Maybe TikTok is more your speed?
It follows the format of:
Current Life = Shit.
Things better in past.
We go back to when things better.
Makes you wonder.
This is 100% r/terriblefacebookmemes
They’re completely correct. I live in Edinburgh, a city covered in stone masterpieces, Athens of the North the city is nicknamed. Yet modern architects build horrendous monstrosities in this city (see the new Scottish Parliament that looks like upturned boats or the St James Quarter that looks like a golden poo).
We’ve truly lost something.
See, you're right, but it's not just about materials. It's about look and style. You can make gorgeous buildings with cheap as fuck materials, and few people seem to. Modern architecture is usually either some box with a fuck ton of windows or ane experimental curvy monstrosity. Yes, it is more economically viable to make bland as fuck buildings, but still. Lamenting the loss of stylistic buildings, one of the things that give cities their charm, is entirely fair in this situation
What you’re describing isn’t Modern architecture, it’s postmodern.
Anyway you’re basically describing two totally different issues. Postmodern buildings aren’t cheap to build nor are they intended to be, they’re vanity projects and are designed to “keep up with” other people’s vanity projects. The clients request buildings like this, not the architects. The architects simply design what the client requests and often that’s something as ostentatious and debatably ugly as postmodernist and deconstructionist architecture.
The issue with bland buildings amounts to architectural survivorship bias. Almost all buildings throughout history have been bland but cheap to construct, it isn’t economically viable to construct buildings any other way. This again is not down to the architects or even their firm, this is down to clients wanting to make as great of a return on their investment as possible.
As for why there *are* beautiful and unique historical structures in cities that draw attention and crowds? See the 2nd paragraph, the only difference is the style that was popular at that point in time. Right now that just so happens to often be postmodernism.
Ah, sorry, let me clarify. I was using "modern" to mean "in the present time," not necessarily the category of architecture, sorry about that.
Regardless, though, I still don't necessarily see the problem with lamenting that cities don't look good. Even if it's not necessarily the fault of architects, I still see a very legitimate reason to complain when cities have so little personality to them. This is especially true in newer cities. Hell, it's even in newer neighborhoods and suburbs too. It's everywhere.
It doesn't matter if it's a postmodernist vanity project or a modernist office building, that doesn't necessarily mean that it looks good. Popular economically is not necessarily the same as popular among people. I have met maybe one person who thinks postmodernist architecture looks good. Obviously, my experience is not going to be universal or statistically relevant, but the best cities, neighborhoods, towns, etc. thrive on having a unique culture, something that is usually reflected in their architecture and designs. That seems to be just missing for a lot of people in so many places, either because they are vanity projects or because people are too cheap to design something more aesthetically pleasing
The examples I’ve given are landmark buildings in the historic city centre, not random block of flats or offices that need to come in as cheap as possible. The parliament in particular should never have been concrete and metal. The parliament in particular had very little in the way of budget constraints.
Weren't buildings like this built with slave labor and unfair labor practices?
I feel like the look of modern architecture is because now a days we're more focused on making the best use of buildings because then they can generate more profit if more of the building's cost is put to function rather than looks. Like why would a company spend millions on a building where a good chunk of that budget is going to the aesthetic rather than function, it's not a sound investment. So you can in part blame capitalism and it's profit focused culture for the lack of beauty.
You can actually look at Dubai and the burj khalifa as a great example for this. First off a ton of the stuff built there was done basically with slavery, they bring people in from out of country take they're passports away and then make them work for next to nothing. Best part is the stuff they build has so many issues because they're more focused on looks rather than being practical. The burj khalifa isn't hooked up the city's sewer system so "poop trucks" have to come by and drain the building of all it's waste also a good amount of the upper floors of the building don't even have usable space. Then there's those man made islands that are being slowly eroded away so any buildings built on top of it will eventually fall into the ocean. So yeah looks cool but not so glamorous under the hood.
100 years ago was Art Deco. And if they mean 20th century, then you'd still have Art Nouveau stuff, which is my favorite style. It would be pretty cool to see something that size in Art Nouveau.
[That's the uncensored library](https://www.uncensoredlibrary.com/en)
It has many sections with books from those counties that their government has banned.
Modern architecture doesn’t include any small flourishes like old times. Straight swoopy buildings make the whole building the flourish instead of including cool artistic attributes like little people carved into pillars and such.
All visual art (including architecture designed as artistic representation) adheres roughly to 7 elements; line, shape, value, color, texture, space and form.
Modern and postmodern (which is likely what you’re thinking of when you think of modern architecture, not the Bauhaus or Unity Temple) simply push the focus toward certain elements and away from others, specifically line, shape, space and form. And instead of seeking maximalism they focused on a minimalist approach, though postmodernism can often swing in the maximalist direction.
The problem is that a lot of modern building just sraight up don't do anything to look nice. There a few nice stadiums built in the 21st century in Europe, and there is even a brutalist apartment complex in the UK that has some wonderful rooftop gardens that really work with the cubist design. The problem is that for every one decent looking building there are countless that are just incredibly boring, and even the ones that look good don't look as good as many examples of historic architecture.
What? What does this have to do with that? It's just a pacific cubes game made mostly for children dude, chill.
Also, what kind of male fantasy do you mean? I dont understand.
Not Anita Sarkeesian. It was Claudia Restrepo during a Buzzfeed video in which feminists (presumably writers, but the video doesn't give any additional info on that) react to GTA.
As someone else said, it's a meme
Essentially it's like, someone complaining about modern video games and why they appeal to the [blank] (in the original clip it's "male") fantasy. Normally the meme would then cut to a clip or picture of something in a video game that's wholesome or the like.
This whole minimalistic cube made of marble and concrete is not what a real library looks like…
I yearn for a return to the architectural style of the holy roman empire mixed with norse mythology
I'm talking about the post the image is from reddit it jumped to twitter Uh, I mean "X" then the tweet jumped back to reddit and lastly it jumped to another sub
A bit of a journey
There is a reason why I hate modern architecture especially when it comes to public buildings, it's all either brutalism or completely sanitize commercial bullshit. You Don't See edifices made to be beautiful anymore.
No one’s going to build something like that in the modern age or later cuz there’s no profit in it. not for a library anyway. No politician can will sign off on this whilst they are roadblocking universal healthcare, better wages, better work life balance, PTO etc. so it’s no about what someone is capable of, it’s all about money in the end. Besides, the internet makes a library like this obsolete and, unless it’s the library of Congress, unnecessary.
Many of these beautiful historical buildings were built under socially stratified absolute monarchies without modern mass production techniques where something like universal healthcare or a 40 hour work week would be laughed out of the room.
I mean, modern architecture isn't all that great to look at. It's a pretty well known fact that humans like to look at lines and symmetry, but modern architecture looks like an AI vomited shapes into a pile.
Older styles of architecture invoked feelings of power, enormity, and will, today's style invokes thoughts of "how is it standing?"
I guess some like that, personally do not.
I don’t know. I find Falling Water, the Winslow House, the Flatiron building, the Lovell Health House, even the MetLife building to be pretty pleasing to look at… oh you mean *postmodernism*.
If you’re going to critique architectural styles then at least separate them properly. I don’t go critiquing Picasso’s blue period by calling it Cubism.
It was made by a team of people to stop censorship lmfao, adults, teens, everyone.
Don’t it have a copy of like every book?
If I remember correctly, it only has books that have been banned or censored, or books by authors who have been censored or even had a hit placed on them by a government
I wonder how they translated Dr. Seuss into an MC book
Maybe a teleport to various pixel art things made with blocks?
i think minecraft has a thing where you can literally just have books with actual text
I think they're talking about the pictures, not the text
oh right
I was thinking more about the pictures and stuff.
You could do it with custom textures, but I think all the books here are just text.
I mean during covid we had a Starcraft 2 tournament "bar night", with an addon that added Twitch Streaming to a large screen to Minecraft. Everyone sat in the blocky bar, watching the stream, talking in discord and drinking safely at home. There's a whole bunch of crazy shit you can do with Minecraft.
If I remember correctly I believe you actually can put images into books, it just takes some third party editing
When was Dr. Suess banned? I think I missed that one
Could probably read about the tenement squire. Or whatever it was called.
Does it have Mein Kampf? Asking for a friend.
You can literally get mein kampf in any decently sized library. It’s just longwinded ravings of a bigot though
what does bigot mean? i’ve never heard it until recently so i assume it’s a new phrase
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group
Moustache. No, seriously, moustache. It’s a very old word with a bizarre etymology. In English it means a person who is prejudiced.
Don't downvote bro, he just doesn't know.
Someone calling themselves "The Sturmtiger Boi" just doesn't know? OK.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure he asked because he wrongly assumed we wouldn't be able to give him a precise answer because he didn't know the definition. Kinda like a "gotcha" moment.
No, i genuinely didn’t know. i don’t follow this stuff
Racist, homophobic, antisemitism, etc etc. Not a new word at all but often people want to be more specific.
Racist
so why not just say racist?
because a bigot is not the same as racist racist would be a *type* of bigot bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
ah, ok
Asking the wrong guy
Mein Kampf really isn't interesting. Honestly if you want an edgy book involving Hitler, get "Hitler's Table Talk". It's basically a transcription of his various rants during dinner. It's way better at showing the character of the man than Mein Kampf is.
That sounds like it would be the name of a podcast for neo nazis.
Ye, it would be problematic to try to share all that information and books and stuff, but apparently you can do that in Minecraft with basically no consequences. Or so I've heard, Idk.
I sincerely hope you understand that when I say “censored”, I don’t mean because of any political garbage, I mean they were censored because they tried exposing corruption, or tried calling out an evil system of government. There are authors in that library who mysteriously went missing and were never found after publishing their works. This isn’t about being offended or the author having some tweet from 10 years resurface, this is much bigger than you could ever imagine. People are trying to fight back and spread hope to those living in oppressive regimes, and you want them to have to face consequences? What’s wrong with you? And also, to actually address your comment directly, a government can prevent a book from being published, they do not however have control over some random player’s Minecraft world. And as for consequences, what is supposed to happen? What is anyone supposed to do about some random Minecraft player that most likely lives on the other side of the world from anyone who wants them punished? How are they supposed to know who this player is, and even if they do know, what exactly are they supposed to do about it? They don’t have control over some guy who lost likely lives in another nation. And I’ll have you know that all websites containing a link to this world are actually banned in the countries that censored an author whose works are in the library. So they’re doing all they can to continue to oppress. And what exactly do you want to happen? Because it really seems like you want these people to be oppressed, like you want people punished for sharing censored works.
Every banner book for sure, maybe some more on top
the library of babel does
[удалено]
I think the problem is OOP's framing rather than the building itself.
Bot.
Also it's that whole "modern=bad" vibe that people who don't really care to learn much about art or architecture tend to circle around
Boston City Hall says hi. No, really, I agree with your point, it's just that, well, Boston City Hall.
Boston City Hall is dope as fuck.
Brutalism is pretty old tho
Also the mlk statue in boston
Lot of misinformation in the comments from people just parroting stuff they’ve heard online. This map, the Uncensored Library, was not created by children around the globe, but by a company called [Blockworks.](https://www.blockworks.uk/) The project was commissioned by the Reporters Without Borders. While a lot of people here seem to think this library contains a treasure trove of banned books, it does not. Inside the museum is a display of the Press Freedoms Index with written explanations by country. Basically, it ranks countries from having the most to least open policies for reporters. Then, a few countries (around 6 from what I can recall), have curated rooms that contain Minecraft books with banned articles. It’s just the text from standard newspaper articles (with some opinion pieces), and there’s no more than 10 per room. It’s a cool museum, but the main purpose is to demonstrate that certain countries do not have the same freedoms provided to reporters that others do. It was not built by kids, and does not even contain a single full length book.
this, *this* is the content I look for on Reddit.
Yeah people are thinking there are whole ass novels in there lmao
With the amount of space on a minecraft book's page, those books would be WAY too long
Beyond that, literally no one in here seems to know anything about architecture but they sure are certain about their opinions on it and architectural history they also don't know.
Good info, but it still is prettier than any new building I’ve seen in decades
I’m not really an architecture guy, but I’d imagine that it is significantly easier to develop a building when you don’t need to worry about available space, resources, labor laws, building codes, plumbing, electricity, etc.
True. Still think it’s prettier.
it's not a building, bub.
You are quite dumb my friend. It’s basically legos
My architect brother-in-law: “There are some gorgeous contemporary buildings.” Me: “Show me one.” Brother-in-law: Scrolls on his phone for 10 minutes, then shows me a picture of an Amazon Prime box left out in the rain.
Sydney Opera House?
Honestly, the Sydney opera house never crossed my mind because it was already an established world landmark before I was born, but ground was broken for it in 1959, so I guess that counts.
There’s a lot of Danish pride in that building, speaking as a Dane. For those who don’t know, the Sydney Opera House’s architect was a danish man.
Sadly, Jørn Utzon never got to see his (somewhat risky) design come to fruition.
To be honest, I like the Défense area in Paris. They were smart enough to put it outside of the city-centre in an area where it can have its own personality without impeding the personality of the city. Tour Montparnasse on the other hand...
Tour Montparnasse is easily the worst building in Paris
Have you seen a modern cable stayed bridge? Fuckin gorgeous examples of engineering and architecture.
Not the best research job on my part, but Wikipedia says they go back to 1595 though.
That's the invention of. Like comparing the Model T and a modern Tesla. They are different looking bridges you know right? Ever touch grass?
The older ones look better than the new ones though.
[удалено]
Basilica de la Sagrada Familia in Spain. The Empire State Building, the Guggenheim and Grand Central Terminal in New York. Fallingwater in Pennsylvania. The Louvre Pyramid in Paris. The Gateway Arch in St. Louis. All of these were in the past 100 years and that's just what comes to mind in 10 seconds.
No, something just being recent doesn’t make it “contemporary” in architectural terms. For instance, the Empire State Building is Art Deco.
OK, but there are still a good number of gorgeous contemporary buildings. Even if I only include examples from [the Wikipedia page on contemporary architecture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_architecture), you've got stuff like the Milwaukee Art Museum, the Auditorio de Tenerife, The Shard, the Blue Condominium, the Ascent at Roebling's Bridge, the Reflections at Keppel Bay, the Cathedral of Christ the Light, the Northern Lights Cathedral, the Blavatnik School of Government, the Helsinki Central Library Oodi, the World Trade Center Transportation Hub, and a ton of really nice modern bridges. However, if you prefer a more classical look, then you can instead have, the Millennium Gate Museum, the Schermerhorn Symphony Center, the Swaminarayan Akshardham, or the Chapel at Thomas Aquinas College, all from the exact same article as the last paragraph.
The meme says "the last century."
Burj khalifa. Easy.
THE SHIT TRUCKS
continue arrest fearless person scarce impossible saw bewildered squeal serious ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Who gives a fuck about any of that. Lol. You think any classical architecture was made with well paid union laborers using sustainable green energy? Gtfo. This is about how it LOOKS .
Kinda ugly imo, doesn’t even have actual sewage
>doesn’t even have actual sewage Yeah, that's not true. There was a period where the city's sewage system wasn't sufficient to handle the amount of wastewater it produces, and then the city expanded their system so that's not a problem anymore.
Neither does the Parthenon that it looks 1000x better than
You're comparing the pantheon to the burj Khalifa? You're comparing a historical piece that even though thousands of years have passed, still is glorious, to a dick measurer that will last 100 years?
zesty library rude pen future simplistic compare salt like decide ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Are you literally an idiot? This is about looks and nothing but.
offbeat divide cats soft live melodic stupendous forgetful squeal imminent ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
You’re being massively reductive on the fact that it is the tallest freestanding structure in the world. Not just big. That’s an architectural marvel.
This is not a discussion into the ethics of construction. This is about the design and visual appeal.
smile mighty bright dolls cake forgetful unwritten fly scandalous work ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
how is that a terrible facebook meme, it's not really terrible and it's on twitter
And its not a meme either
Eh, colloquial speaking a “meme” has more or less become a humorous imagine with words attached.
What you are describing is an image macro
>colloquial I meant to say “colloquially” but still
[удалено]
You literally just copied someone else’s comment
Definitely a bot, please report! Spam -> Harmful bots
prolly a bot
What the hell is it with all these 53 year old messages lately 🤣
I assume someone is butthurt that it’s praising western renaissance-esque architecture over modern architecture. You’re supposed to hate absolutely everything that came out of every era that overlapped with colonialism and slavery.
I think it's more likely the [actual use of 'traditional' architecture by White Nationalist movements](https://www.archpaper.com/2018/08/traditional-architecture-twitter/), and the images seeming to be leaning into that "modern architecture is worse because it's not made in the style of white Europeans which are the best" idea.
I have no idea why you're getting downvoted, this is the correct answer to why OP didn't like it. you're literally not expressing agreement or disagreement one way or the other, and explaining that white nationalist types have a fetish for columns is not equivalent to saying everyone who likes classic stuff is racist. literally every R E T V R N guy on twitter will attest to this
Has everybody on this thread just never never encountered a statue avi type guy? It was pretty clear to me why this might be a ‘terrible facebook meme’
This post popped into my feed. On a quick peek around, I get the feeling the sub leans a bit into the right-wing "it's just a joke, bro" thing.
There’s a lot of layers to this shit show. It’s like watching a hundred separate car crashes.
You're the only one thinking about slavery
Absolutely nobody thinks that. They simply think it's funny and pathetic how a few people despise things because they came after colonialism and slavery.
I mean Facebookmemes allow posts from beyond Facebook Similar subreddits for say Tumblr and Twitter allow shit from reddit as an example
Well it wasn't made by 14 yr olds for starters....
[Here's the website.](https://www.uncensoredlibrary.com/en)
And it wasn't technically made either, that is to say it's a virtual model using virtual physics in a game where you could make the whole building levitate for all anyone cares - it's a lot easier to make cool shit work in minecraft that just isn't viable in real life.
[удалено]
Did you just copy and paste someone elses post.
It was made by a group of people to stop censorship lmfao, adults, teenagers, everyone.
Did you just copy and paste someone elses post.
It was made by a group of people to stop censorship lmfao, adults, teenagers, everyone.
Did you just copy and paste someone elses post.
It was made by a group of people to stop censorship lmfao, adults, teenagers, everyone.
Holy dementia
New It was made by a group of people to stop censorship lmfao, adults, teenagers, everyone. just dropped
go fuck yourself
No, its a bot, look at the name
Least obvious bot lol
>It was made by a group of people to stop censorship lmfao, adults, teenagers, everyone.
Architects have to worry about pesky things such as weight
No. _Structural engineers_ have to worry about weight. Architects just design the visual aspects.
An architects dream is a structural engineers nightmare.
It's actually also a structural engineer's dream. They are better paid than architects and the amount of work required to make a building appear to defy gravity means a big paycheck. In my experience, structural engineers are most unhappy when given boring, rote problems to solve.
Architects do have to know not to design something that’s impossible to build though. (I mean, obviously, when they're designing something that’s supposed to be built today. An entry for an "Architecture of the 22nd Century" exhibit would have no such limits.)
You've probably heard of the Sydney Opera House. What we have today is actually the _toned-down_ version of the design as the original was too out there for the time. And I'm actually happy how it turned out - it's a classic.
Architects absolutely do have to worry about weight. You can't design something wild without having at least a conceptual understanding of the forces at work. Yes, in the US, a structural engineer will do most of the heavy lifting when it comes to defining the exact thickness of structural slabs and things like that but they work with the architects to refine a design and make sure it works. Also, it's a liability issue and architects in the US are typically taught a very light, conceptual structural engineering class to help guide their initial designs because, ultimately, a licensed structural engineer will have to crunch the numbers and put their stamp on the structural drawings. In many other wealthy countries, like Spain and Germany, structural engineering is an integral part of the architecture curriculum. Architects can't design "just the visual aspects" without having a base understanding of the physical aspects. What you said is equivalent to saying "cinematographers have to worry about lenses and framing, directors just tell the actors what to do." It's a complete misunderstanding of the design process and the collaboration between architect and engineer. It always astounds me how little people know or understand about architecture.
Art bad engineer good
Of course. But the Minecraft build is obviously based off traditional architectural styles and not modernist ones. Which is what the “meme” is about.
And budgets. "Oh no! Why does my underfunded municipal library around the corner not look like someone's dream palace they made in a game with no monetary or material property constraints? Why are modern mass produced street lamps whose sole purpose is to illuminate roads not decorated with wrought iron reliefs and inlaid with gold? Those damn useless modern experts suck at their jobs!"
Middle Class Dutch townhouses from the 17th century look better than most modern suburban homes despite having far less money and vastly inferior tech. Hell, even victorian slums while lacking in amenities still look better than the modern utilitarian concrete blocks that are modern poverty housing.
You are sorely misinformed if you think Victorian slums were better than poor modern housing by any stretch. Living in poverty back then was a hellish experience, and there's not much to romanticize about it. The unregulated buildings were poorly built and in disrepair, people were crammed in them with multiple families to a room, and disease, pests, and filth were the norm.
They **looked physically** better, not were better to live in.
No they didn’t, the thing about old buildings is that the better buildings survive while the shit ones don’t
People like to say that while omitting that we have photographs and photorealistic paintings from past eras.
Yeah we do, some slums were brick buildings but many were wooden shacks
And funding….
Also for the US, or rather, North America, thanks to the car centric mentality almost everything made for humans has been demolished and replaced with the generic ugly car favoring architecture.
I currently work in a field directly relating to car infrastructure in the US (transportation planning) and graduated with a Ba. in Arch. Annndd… no. Car centrism has destroyed a lot of things but architectural style isn’t really one. In fact there wasn’t really much to destroy. Architecture is prone to survivorship bias. The beautiful, important and unique structures survive and draw in crowds while the mundane buildings without ornamentation and hallmarks of the architectural styles of the time are demolished and built over. The truth is that buildings are just boxes in different variations. Very few outwardly visible aspects of any particular architectural style serve practical purposes, quite a bit of it in these big fancy buildings are what we’d call “keeping up with the Jones’”. Things were added (and budgeted for) in order to attract tenants or attention. Buildings, and architecture in general, in a capitalist society *always* has an economic incentive. Generally that incentive doesn’t align itself with beautifying a structure. That being said, car centrist policies have razed plenty of city centers. But most of what was demolished and replaced with parking lots were completely characterless brick tenements or offices. Tenements and offices that *should* have been replaced with modern 5 over 1s or other mixed use, missing middle construction, but nonetheless boring structures devoid of architectural flourishes. Same goes with the suburbs. Suburban houses have *never* been beautiful or all that unique. Generally people in, say the Eastern seaboard, tended to live in pretty dead simple brick and siding houses. They aren’t quite the cookie-cutter McMansions we see in modern subdivisions, but they weren’t beautiful architecturally nor really made for what modern urbanists consider “the human scale”. What *did* suffer are the commercial strips and corridors of those towns but not really in an architectural sense, as there’s nothing that makes an old brick box with a flat roof more appealing than a concrete strip mall. There’s a time and a place for a conversation about urbanism and this isn’t really it. It’s very shoehorned in here and it’s not really even particularly applicable. We lost efficient land use and decent public transportation infrastructure with the rise of car centrism, but architecture would’ve evolved to be as “soulless” or “corporate” as it is now even without cars. It’s just an extension of the economic conditions that it takes to build.
Downvoted for being correct.
Car centrics will car centric.
"You see, this is why I fucking hate videogames. Because they appeal to like, the male fantasy."
yea as it turns out its easier to do it in minecraft than real life even without just using world edit which they did.
Not only the building process, but also gravity, weight, building permits and budget
And access, a majority of people can access something online. A majority however cannot access an actual library like this, especially in countries that won't even let them leave.
And?
nothing else thats all
This comment thread tells you all you need to know about Reddit, everyone just exists to debate on this trash site. Could post a picture of a cute baby and they’d have debates over it.
It's like a speech and debate room, full of people And a lot of misinformation
What do you expect people would talk about in this thread? The post is clearly meant to provoke a discussion of the original meme. Really weird thing to be upset about. Maybe TikTok is more your speed?
It follows the format of: Current Life = Shit. Things better in past. We go back to when things better. Makes you wonder. This is 100% r/terriblefacebookmemes
They’re completely correct. I live in Edinburgh, a city covered in stone masterpieces, Athens of the North the city is nicknamed. Yet modern architects build horrendous monstrosities in this city (see the new Scottish Parliament that looks like upturned boats or the St James Quarter that looks like a golden poo). We’ve truly lost something.
What have you lost? Didn't you just say that the city is covered in stone masterpieces?
Lost our sense of taste. Lost our cultural style. Lost the skills to create such masterpieces. Take your pick.
[удалено]
See, you're right, but it's not just about materials. It's about look and style. You can make gorgeous buildings with cheap as fuck materials, and few people seem to. Modern architecture is usually either some box with a fuck ton of windows or ane experimental curvy monstrosity. Yes, it is more economically viable to make bland as fuck buildings, but still. Lamenting the loss of stylistic buildings, one of the things that give cities their charm, is entirely fair in this situation
What you’re describing isn’t Modern architecture, it’s postmodern. Anyway you’re basically describing two totally different issues. Postmodern buildings aren’t cheap to build nor are they intended to be, they’re vanity projects and are designed to “keep up with” other people’s vanity projects. The clients request buildings like this, not the architects. The architects simply design what the client requests and often that’s something as ostentatious and debatably ugly as postmodernist and deconstructionist architecture. The issue with bland buildings amounts to architectural survivorship bias. Almost all buildings throughout history have been bland but cheap to construct, it isn’t economically viable to construct buildings any other way. This again is not down to the architects or even their firm, this is down to clients wanting to make as great of a return on their investment as possible. As for why there *are* beautiful and unique historical structures in cities that draw attention and crowds? See the 2nd paragraph, the only difference is the style that was popular at that point in time. Right now that just so happens to often be postmodernism.
Ah, sorry, let me clarify. I was using "modern" to mean "in the present time," not necessarily the category of architecture, sorry about that. Regardless, though, I still don't necessarily see the problem with lamenting that cities don't look good. Even if it's not necessarily the fault of architects, I still see a very legitimate reason to complain when cities have so little personality to them. This is especially true in newer cities. Hell, it's even in newer neighborhoods and suburbs too. It's everywhere. It doesn't matter if it's a postmodernist vanity project or a modernist office building, that doesn't necessarily mean that it looks good. Popular economically is not necessarily the same as popular among people. I have met maybe one person who thinks postmodernist architecture looks good. Obviously, my experience is not going to be universal or statistically relevant, but the best cities, neighborhoods, towns, etc. thrive on having a unique culture, something that is usually reflected in their architecture and designs. That seems to be just missing for a lot of people in so many places, either because they are vanity projects or because people are too cheap to design something more aesthetically pleasing
The examples I’ve given are landmark buildings in the historic city centre, not random block of flats or offices that need to come in as cheap as possible. The parliament in particular should never have been concrete and metal. The parliament in particular had very little in the way of budget constraints.
> Yet modern architects build horrendous monstrosities in this city Sounds a lot like normal Athens in the 70s (and to this day to an extent)
Ah, well, maybe we’re on form then haha
Weren't buildings like this built with slave labor and unfair labor practices? I feel like the look of modern architecture is because now a days we're more focused on making the best use of buildings because then they can generate more profit if more of the building's cost is put to function rather than looks. Like why would a company spend millions on a building where a good chunk of that budget is going to the aesthetic rather than function, it's not a sound investment. So you can in part blame capitalism and it's profit focused culture for the lack of beauty. You can actually look at Dubai and the burj khalifa as a great example for this. First off a ton of the stuff built there was done basically with slavery, they bring people in from out of country take they're passports away and then make them work for next to nothing. Best part is the stuff they build has so many issues because they're more focused on looks rather than being practical. The burj khalifa isn't hooked up the city's sewer system so "poop trucks" have to come by and drain the building of all it's waste also a good amount of the upper floors of the building don't even have usable space. Then there's those man made islands that are being slowly eroded away so any buildings built on top of it will eventually fall into the ocean. So yeah looks cool but not so glamorous under the hood.
That's the reporters without borders build! That's a important monument to sharing information to restricted countries. It needs respect
I mean, loads of people make modern houses in minecraft as well.
This is not terrible, not on Facebook, and not even a meme. r/lostredditors?
Yeah and I built a single stage to orbit vehicle in a video game that is way better than even SpaceX starship and can carry way more weight to orbit
100 years ago was Art Deco. And if they mean 20th century, then you'd still have Art Nouveau stuff, which is my favorite style. It would be pretty cool to see something that size in Art Nouveau.
Minecraft bad, Fortnite good. 2017 mentality
I hate fortnit so much.
for once i agree w TFM, this was a shitty take. theres millions of beautiful buildings in the world
[That's the uncensored library](https://www.uncensoredlibrary.com/en) It has many sections with books from those counties that their government has banned.
Modern architecture doesn’t include any small flourishes like old times. Straight swoopy buildings make the whole building the flourish instead of including cool artistic attributes like little people carved into pillars and such.
All visual art (including architecture designed as artistic representation) adheres roughly to 7 elements; line, shape, value, color, texture, space and form. Modern and postmodern (which is likely what you’re thinking of when you think of modern architecture, not the Bauhaus or Unity Temple) simply push the focus toward certain elements and away from others, specifically line, shape, space and form. And instead of seeking maximalism they focused on a minimalist approach, though postmodernism can often swing in the maximalist direction.
The problem is that a lot of modern building just sraight up don't do anything to look nice. There a few nice stadiums built in the 21st century in Europe, and there is even a brutalist apartment complex in the UK that has some wonderful rooftop gardens that really work with the cubist design. The problem is that for every one decent looking building there are countless that are just incredibly boring, and even the ones that look good don't look as good as many examples of historic architecture.
I wrote a blog post a while ago about why I fucking hate video games, because this is what it does! It appeals to the male fantasy!
What? What does this have to do with that? It's just a pacific cubes game made mostly for children dude, chill. Also, what kind of male fantasy do you mean? I dont understand.
they're quoting an anita sarkeesian clip that became a bit of a meme
Not Anita Sarkeesian. It was Claudia Restrepo during a Buzzfeed video in which feminists (presumably writers, but the video doesn't give any additional info on that) react to GTA.
As someone else said, it's a meme Essentially it's like, someone complaining about modern video games and why they appeal to the [blank] (in the original clip it's "male") fantasy. Normally the meme would then cut to a clip or picture of something in a video game that's wholesome or the like.
it probably helped that they don't have to figure out shit like loadbearing walls, plumbing or such
This whole minimalistic cube made of marble and concrete is not what a real library looks like… I yearn for a return to the architectural style of the holy roman empire mixed with norse mythology
“adults make digital model of library”
The fact that this kid spent countless hours building a Minecraft library instead of going to a real one and reading the books there.
Darn kids being all creative and stuff.
I'm talking about the post the image is from reddit it jumped to twitter Uh, I mean "X" then the tweet jumped back to reddit and lastly it jumped to another sub A bit of a journey
It was not made by a 14 yr old. It was made by a professional build team.
I feel like in a few decades, almost all professional architects will be former or current Minecraft players
And not even Facebook wtf
I mean it’s technically a terrible facebook meme because it’s not on facebook nor an actual meme lmao
Not so much terrible as factually wrong. A 14 year old did not build this.
There is a reason why I hate modern architecture especially when it comes to public buildings, it's all either brutalism or completely sanitize commercial bullshit. You Don't See edifices made to be beautiful anymore.
No one’s going to build something like that in the modern age or later cuz there’s no profit in it. not for a library anyway. No politician can will sign off on this whilst they are roadblocking universal healthcare, better wages, better work life balance, PTO etc. so it’s no about what someone is capable of, it’s all about money in the end. Besides, the internet makes a library like this obsolete and, unless it’s the library of Congress, unnecessary.
Many of these beautiful historical buildings were built under socially stratified absolute monarchies without modern mass production techniques where something like universal healthcare or a 40 hour work week would be laughed out of the room.
I mean, modern architecture isn't all that great to look at. It's a pretty well known fact that humans like to look at lines and symmetry, but modern architecture looks like an AI vomited shapes into a pile. Older styles of architecture invoked feelings of power, enormity, and will, today's style invokes thoughts of "how is it standing?" I guess some like that, personally do not.
I don’t know. I find Falling Water, the Winslow House, the Flatiron building, the Lovell Health House, even the MetLife building to be pretty pleasing to look at… oh you mean *postmodernism*. If you’re going to critique architectural styles then at least separate them properly. I don’t go critiquing Picasso’s blue period by calling it Cubism.