[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.

[DennisP]

That last quote is essentially asking them to make the assembly artificially complicated to make it look more honest.

> Zammit realized then that the truck’s DeLorean-mated-with-a-Pontiac-Aztek aesthetic might be an effort to streamline the manufacturing process. “By being philosophically so pure and so functional, Tesla has completely eliminated a very large part of what is the traditional automotive assembly."

https://www.wired.com/story/why-tesla-cybertruck-looks-weird...

> The plusses for a folded stainless steel, origami truck are compelling: no paint shop and no expensive tooling. No Godzilla-scale stamping machines stomping it with multiple strikes. Without all that, the capital and environmental costs of using stainless steel body panels are small. And big attractions for a company that's sensitive to both types of green—cash and environmentalism. Just groove the steel where it's supposed to fold (avoiding cracks) and bend it on simple, cheap machines (like I was actually doing last week with my garage vise!)

https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-cybertruck-electric-pi...

[mcv]

Do brutalist buildings have their wiring exposed? I'm not so convinced that having everything open and exposed is all that essential to brutalist architecture (though I'm no expert on it).

> "The truck is consumerist, whereas brutalism’s monumentality is civic."

Does making transportation less polluting not serve a civic function?

> "[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."

They might be on the inside. Again, do all brutalist buildings have their wiring exposed? Function still matters. I'm no expert, but I would assume that brutalism does not require being an idiot about such things.

[spectramax]

I slightly disagree: Go Karts are not used for daily use. When coverings and such are meant for functional use, such as to prevent dust build up or water ingress, they are required and not purely decorative.

We may be mixing Brutalism with functionalism though. Brutalist architects did stuff to just be ugly - just google some Architecture. Besides leaving concrete unpainted, they made expensive choices to "uglify" and push a particular type of aesthetics.

[Dylan16807]

A lot of those points are iffy, and the politics one is dumb, but the last one strikes me as just flat-out wrong. Brutalist buildings aren't festooned with exposed connectors either. It's all buried inside the concrete.