Chapotraphouse

hideshow 15 child comments

parent

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Hard to say; it is very silly-looking though. It's like someone threw a couple shapes together, traced random lines between them, and called it a design.

The building in the background is a sqrt(x²+y²+z²) model, instead of weighting the Z axis by a factor of 2 or more because of the higher energy cost of going up elevators or stairs.
Instead of being earth-bermed, the cylindrical buildings hang above (?!?) the terrain.
The bridge that tunnels in and out of hills doesn't seem to be meaningfully linking anything, and doesn't really need to exist.
Everything is made of concrete (renderite?) and glass. There's no brick, cob, wood, or stone.

It does have green roofs and open parkland and integrates terrain. On the left side, the sidewalk traces the contour, and that's the most solarpunk part of the image. But if it doesn't have deep principles of sustainability, it's more futurism/cyberpunk than solarpunk.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Barabas@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

It is an actual train station that is currently being renovated in China. Which is kind of my point, we have the kind of stuff being derided as idealistic actually being made in China, with the kind of images promoting it that are being derided for being fascist. Is the topic at hand here that some people who promote solarpunk that are fascists and that we then work backwards from that to see the same in the art, or is it that solarpunk is inherently fascist aesthetically speaking (which I assumed the post was about)?

What is the substantial difference between this render and a solarpunk render of a forest city? (Or the renders of forest cities being built or sponsored by China)

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

That makes sense, I stand corrected. I still think it's silly to not have the cylinders any higher, and to have them looking like they're haphazardly laying on top of the terrain, instead of anchored inside it.

parent

[–] Dessa@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

Also, the grass lawn monoculture is bad

parent

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml [S] 3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I think I explained myself clearly above.

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] Barabas@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

So is that a yes or a no? If we were to assume that no aesthetics exist other than solarpunk and socialist realism your argument would be sound, but as it is now you defined pretty much everything that isn't socialist realism as fascism.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml [S] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

We're not talking about art of the sake of art here. We're talking about a political ideology and the art associated with promoting its values. The issue I have is that solar-punk sells a vision of a comfortable society while ignoring the labour that underpins it. In my view, the recognition of the central role of labour in society has to be part of any genuinely socialist aesthetic.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] Barabas@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

You are the one coming out with a topic stating that the art doesn't show the workers building it and is therefore fascist by default. Virtually no art other than socialist realism features the builder, and even most soviet architectural art doesn't feature any people to any significant extent. It is the same kind of tea leaf reading that you get when westerners call Stalinist or Chinese architecture totalitarian and evil by imagining the people who were enslaved to build it.

I wonder since the majority of the real world muscle behind the actual movement with forest cities and expanded solar power automation is currently in China. Like, another topic you just posted completely fits with the whole aestetic, but I assume it wasn't meant to be seen as terrible news.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think I was pretty clear in what I said above. Feel free to actually address that.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Barabas@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

I did. You have blankly refused to answer any of my questions though, and instead decided to change the subject to the ideology that some proponents have so further interaction seems pointless.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago

I love how you're upset that you didn't get the answer you were very obviously fishing for. Given that you don't care for what I actually have to say, you're right that further interaction is pointless.

parent

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

quoting for posterity

We're not talking about art of the sake of art here. We're talking about a political ideology and the art associated with promoting its values. The issue I have is that solar-punk sells a vision of a comfortable society while ignoring the labour that underpins it. In my view, the recognition of the central role of labour in society has to be part of any genuinely socialist aesthetic.

The problem is that solar-punk is entirely compatible with social fascism. It sells a vision of a comfortable society that sweeps labour that underpins its functioning under the rug. This is largely how the west functions already. We outsource labour to the global south where it's brutally exploited, but then peddle the whole Nodric "socialism" where the exploiters live in comfort.

The recognition of the role of labour in society has to be part of any genuinely socialist aesthetic.

Wow, all the images of Shibam have no people in them. Yemen is cancelled for being fascist.

Maybe if we inserted some Western consumerism and planned obsolescence, they could be perpetually engaged in construction work like we are in the West.

All you have to do to not be fascist is build things that are not made to last, so you always have a need for more glorious labor that replaces what has already been built. Easy.

20-hour work week? 10-hour work week? But then where are all the workers going to be appearing? This economic projection of a reduction of socially necessary labor input, to maintain an objectively decent quality of life for a stable number of people, is fascist.

And FALGSC must be the most fascist thing there is. Everybody has the cool cosmonaut avatars and the banner images of people flying through space alongside rockets, but no one has a banner image of people working in the factories to make the space suits and the rockets, or mining the metals for them.

'oh but he has a hammer and sickle symbol in his fist'

If I slap some ivy on a brick wall in a hammer and sickle shape, would that make you happy? But I still wouldn't call that solarpunk to much of a coherent extent, though. Certainly, the aesthetic does blend with others, but solarpunk distinguishes itself coherently from cyberpunk and futurism to the degree that it incorporates human-scale, appropriate technology, and living systems. Putting a couple trees on the outside of the Burj Dubai is a strawman.

The only way it's not fascist is if *checks notes* you constantly have a massive number of labor hours being invested into something.