IMO, the cited examples are minimalist but not brutalist. When I think of a brutalist website I think of the design elements being exposed as part of the presentation. Frames and tables with exposed borders and ugly html buttons -- not, as suggested by the OP, clean layouts driven by an invisible style sheet.
A typical JavaDoc page for example, rather than Hacker News.
I don't know that it has to be ugly. I think the good brutalist architecture is quite beautiful, as well as very pleasant to use (it's a misconception that brutalist design is meant to be _brutal_ towards it's users, although the bad stuff is -- and I think, maybe heretically, much of Le Corbusier is pretty bad).
When I think of brutalist, I think no frills, and putting the infrastructural elements forward, not covering them up with any surface-level aesthetics. Exposing the infrastructural bones, hiding nothing.
I don't think it's at all obvious what this means for a website. The very very abstract nature of all software makes it perhaps impossible to put the 'concrete' forward (double meaning intended, but primarily here as the opposite of 'abstract'), there's no there there. But I think it's interesting to think about, and the candidates listed there are contenders worth considering.
But there's a link to submit more, you should submit a JavaDoc page, I'm sure they'll list it too.
I agree with other posters that this is a kind of minimalism. Brutalism comes from a literally concrete (the material) form of minimalism known as "Béton brut"[0] which led to Brutalism[1] - there is nothing brutal about these examples.
In addition the page seems to be somewhat fixated with monospace fonts. Deliberately being 'edgy' by showing non-code in monospace isn't brutalist: Times New Roman is.
To piggy back off your point, the implication that the design of the Drudge Report (which I remember my father reading a decade ago) is almost certainly not "a reaction by a younger generation to the lightness, optimism, and frivolity of todays [sic] webdesign."
If borrowing the term from Architecture, then a brutalist website should be one that (only) uses the 'raw' (original) elements of design and functionality (cannot separate both in web design), namely: page layout + font face + color palette for the graphic design component, and links + media for the functional (hypermedia) component. As such, I do not see how modernizing the style through functional paradigms, like a flat design UI, breaks the original canon. However, we could argue that anything else, like flashy add-ons such as element transitions, drop-downs, fades, etc, do break the canon and are just a response to trends, just like a bunch of useless zippers and pockets do not add functional value to a trendy jacket but definitely help sell it.
Efficient use of resources and fast loading is a entire different subject. Enter the engineer, leave the architect. It is absolutely possible to program any design paradigm to perform fast and efficiently.
I wonder what the website equivalent of concrete is.
"There is often an emphasis on graphically expressing in the external elevations and in the whole-site architectural plan the main functions and people-flows of the buildings."
This might suggest ways to express navigation that are explicit and not hidden
That's what I was thinking. Not all the websites look "brutalist" to me, some are okay. But some websites are really brutal and a pain to look at, like this one: http://kioskkiosk.com/ This one is a joke.
drudgereport.com seems hypocritical to me because they don't have many images for their own news stories, but make room for images that advertise other products. Advisments are counter-brutalism because they're very much frivolous and attention grabbing.
Just showed some of these to a generally non-tech-savy friend who said he didn't like them because they looked "too 90s." Personally I love them because they load fast, are easy to read, and don't require a knowledge of a bunch of different frameworks to write.
I have been fighting for years to get people used to "90s aesthetics." Then again, I think (bitmap) aliased fonts, bitmap gif patterns, classic bitmap icons (susan kare, early KDE, IRIX, BeOS, Plan9, Mac OS 9, etc.), Netscape, CDE etc. were all incredibly beautiful. I have railed against complexity since as early as I can remember.
It's even more important for web design. Give me simple HTML with a touch of css, and javascript only if it's absolutely necessary. I can think of hardly any websites that I would consider "beautiful" these days for exactly this reason.
You can make something that doesn't require tons of frameworks and loads fast while NOT looking like a relic of the days of Kazaa. The fact that so many developers are too lazy to do so does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and go back to times new roman black-on-white.
No surprising, for the most part it is bad design, and have 0 thing to do with brutalism. And good design doesn't require any framework or even loading a third party font aside from the "websafe" ones.
"Brutalism can be seen as a reaction by a younger generation to the lightness, optimism, and frivolity of todays webdesign"
...except the links include FFFFOUND, Pokey the Penguin, Craigslist, and The Drudge Report - a website almost old enough that it could vote in an American election.
Some of these sites are so refreshing. I'm starting to get tired of seeing the same "minimalistic" landing pages for every website I go to. This reminds me of a time when the web was younger.
> I'm starting to get tired of seeing the same "minimalistic" landing pages
I can't take enough minimalism. I hate complex websites from 10 years ago. I do have a little problem with all the new sites that make you scroll down forever but I'll take that over a site with a hundred graphics on the front page.
I'm in Boston, pretty much the epicenter. I can't think of many redeeming qualities.
My sense of the genre is that it was an attempt to copy Eastern Bloc architecture by architects who were warmly disposed to the Eastern Bloc, and had either disabused themselves or wanted to disabuse us of bourgeois notions of aesthetics and good taste.
IMO, although it has definitely improved over the last 40-50 years, architecture peaked aesthetically circa the turn of the 20th century (Art Nouveau[0], Gaudí).
It reflects the outsized influence Le Corbusier had in the architecture circle. Many people imitated him and built piles of concrete mostly for government and college projects.
I'll have to agree it's not a good fit. Seemly the only advantage brutalism has is ease of construction. Given that a site, just like a building, usability and aesthetics will pay off in the long run.
Wanna analogy between brick & mortar and webdesign? Here's one:
In both there are ego-driven movements that result in useless, showoff designs. Wanna send a message, make a statement or make a mark? Go paint a picture and hang it in an art gallery.
But websites and buildings are something that real people actually use, so fuck off with your -isms. Make websites where content is readable and easy to navigate. Make buildings that are great to live and work in as opposed to those whose mockups look unique and stunning in "Architectural wankery monthly".
A couple of comments in response to other comments:
> I can't see a consistent trend here
My guess is that's because we're talking about a meta-aesthetic that borders on anti-aesthetic.
Particularly for the last 10 years, design on the web and in software in general has been especially trend driven and strongly aestheticized. And arguably in a way that moved outside of consciously or conscientiously chosen and well into either ostentatiousness or default.
When people become aware of a trend, they also become aware there's an area of creative opportunity that a lot of people aren't working in. The move from high-relief/"lickable"/skeuomorphic design to flat design is an example everyone here knows.
This might be a meta-trend away from strongly aestheticized. Whether or not you can actually have an anti-aesthetic is probably a good philosophical question, but I think as a practical concept.
> Just showed some of these to a generally non-tech-savy friend who said he didn't like them because they looked "too 90s." Personally I love them because they load fast, are easy to read, and don't require a knowledge of a bunch of different frameworks to write.
Like you, I like a lot of simple pages (sometimes I use Lynx for simplicity!).
But as you observed for in your friend, for a general audience, I do think an anti-aesthetic is likely to have an uphill battle; visual communications isn't a science but it's real, and some people make judgments on visuals (and almost everyone is influenced by them).
Warren Buffett's holding company, Berkshire Hathaway, could go on this list. Berkshire's operating subsidiaries (Geico, Duracell, Heinz, etc) have fancy modern websites but the investment company's looks like it predates Geocities. IIRC this is because they don't want to spend money on an already functional website that isn't really selling anything.
Most of these websites have zero load time, compared to their fancy non-brutalist counterparts. I's say, let's have more brutalist websites.
I know it's because the fancier counterparts are JS-intensive, but it's still a question worth asking: "Why are we in the time where a nice website should take seconds to load?"
As an overt visual design paradigm, meh. But hallelujah to the idea of a page that just has content, without the trendily de rigeur fucktons of overblown css and pointless javascript that adds 0 and only serves to crash my crappy mobile browser.
Of course you can have rich and highly functional design, as well as very functional, minimalist barebone design.
It's always harder to come up with a design that's simultaneously pleasing and feels easy to use, but throwing design out of the window altogether is nothing but a copout. It's the easiest thing to do, but is it a solution, or just an attempt to make some sort of a point?
To me it's the equivalent of shaky camera and black-and-white filming: every film student's act of rebellion against James Cameron and the like ; )
I can't see a consistent trend here. Whereas, I'm reminded of something else that seems similar but makes more sense. Here's a web and software example of that other philosophy.
[+] [-] gradstudent|10 years ago|reply
A typical JavaDoc page for example, rather than Hacker News.
[+] [-] jrochkind1|10 years ago|reply
When I think of brutalist, I think no frills, and putting the infrastructural elements forward, not covering them up with any surface-level aesthetics. Exposing the infrastructural bones, hiding nothing.
I don't think it's at all obvious what this means for a website. The very very abstract nature of all software makes it perhaps impossible to put the 'concrete' forward (double meaning intended, but primarily here as the opposite of 'abstract'), there's no there there. But I think it's interesting to think about, and the candidates listed there are contenders worth considering.
But there's a link to submit more, you should submit a JavaDoc page, I'm sure they'll list it too.
[+] [-] officialchicken|10 years ago|reply
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9ton_brut [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture
[+] [-] minikomi|10 years ago|reply
.. which is great & I wish more sites had a "thin" version.
[+] [-] nailer|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrismealy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] faraggi|10 years ago|reply
I've always associated craiglist and 4chan with the brutalist movement.
[+] [-] pc86|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crispyambulance|10 years ago|reply
There may be some similarities but, really, perhaps we need new terminology to describe these things ?
[+] [-] bikamonki|10 years ago|reply
Efficient use of resources and fast loading is a entire different subject. Enter the engineer, leave the architect. It is absolutely possible to program any design paradigm to perform fast and efficiently.
[+] [-] platz|10 years ago|reply
"There is often an emphasis on graphically expressing in the external elevations and in the whole-site architectural plan the main functions and people-flows of the buildings."
This might suggest ways to express navigation that are explicit and not hidden
[+] [-] Trufa|10 years ago|reply
Because you can't compare some to others:
https://context.co.de/ pretty nice, reminds you of man, nice and simple, one could even call it minimalist or whatever...
http://ethanbond.com/ not a bad idea for a simple resume page. it's clean cut.
http://drudgereport.com/ I will never go through that.
http://trendlist.org/ just looks like css is not loading.
http://laurelschwulst.com/ I want to tear my eyes out.
[+] [-] userbinator|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekianjo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryan-allen|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jxy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azazqadir|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaywunder|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chezhead|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jd3|10 years ago|reply
It's even more important for web design. Give me simple HTML with a touch of css, and javascript only if it's absolutely necessary. I can think of hardly any websites that I would consider "beautiful" these days for exactly this reason.
http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm
http://www.webdirections.org/blog/the-website-obesity-crisis...
PS: I'm not sure I would classify these sites as brutalist; perhaps 'utilitarian' or 'functional' would be better descriptors.
[+] [-] FussyZeus|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spriggan3|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ben_jones|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leviathant|10 years ago|reply
...except the links include FFFFOUND, Pokey the Penguin, Craigslist, and The Drudge Report - a website almost old enough that it could vote in an American election.
[+] [-] azazqadir|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sawyerjhood|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mchahn|10 years ago|reply
I can't take enough minimalism. I hate complex websites from 10 years ago. I do have a little problem with all the new sites that make you scroll down forever but I'll take that over a site with a hundred graphics on the front page.
[+] [-] rtpg|10 years ago|reply
Is there something appealing to building a dystopian building?
[+] [-] smitherfield|10 years ago|reply
My sense of the genre is that it was an attempt to copy Eastern Bloc architecture by architects who were warmly disposed to the Eastern Bloc, and had either disabused themselves or wanted to disabuse us of bourgeois notions of aesthetics and good taste.
IMO, although it has definitely improved over the last 40-50 years, architecture peaked aesthetically circa the turn of the 20th century (Art Nouveau[0], Gaudí).
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=art+nouveau+architecture&tbm...
[+] [-] evanb|10 years ago|reply
http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/hard-to-love-a-brute/
[+] [-] sgw928|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pippy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swah|10 years ago|reply
I liked some of those buildings, but I'm not sure why. Probably just the loneliness feeling.
[+] [-] praptak|10 years ago|reply
In both there are ego-driven movements that result in useless, showoff designs. Wanna send a message, make a statement or make a mark? Go paint a picture and hang it in an art gallery.
But websites and buildings are something that real people actually use, so fuck off with your -isms. Make websites where content is readable and easy to navigate. Make buildings that are great to live and work in as opposed to those whose mockups look unique and stunning in "Architectural wankery monthly".
[+] [-] wwweston|10 years ago|reply
> I can't see a consistent trend here
My guess is that's because we're talking about a meta-aesthetic that borders on anti-aesthetic.
Particularly for the last 10 years, design on the web and in software in general has been especially trend driven and strongly aestheticized. And arguably in a way that moved outside of consciously or conscientiously chosen and well into either ostentatiousness or default.
When people become aware of a trend, they also become aware there's an area of creative opportunity that a lot of people aren't working in. The move from high-relief/"lickable"/skeuomorphic design to flat design is an example everyone here knows.
This might be a meta-trend away from strongly aestheticized. Whether or not you can actually have an anti-aesthetic is probably a good philosophical question, but I think as a practical concept.
> Just showed some of these to a generally non-tech-savy friend who said he didn't like them because they looked "too 90s." Personally I love them because they load fast, are easy to read, and don't require a knowledge of a bunch of different frameworks to write.
Like you, I like a lot of simple pages (sometimes I use Lynx for simplicity!).
But as you observed for in your friend, for a general audience, I do think an anti-aesthetic is likely to have an uphill battle; visual communications isn't a science but it's real, and some people make judgments on visuals (and almost everyone is influenced by them).
[+] [-] vog|10 years ago|reply
https://blog.fefe.de/
Also, the HTML versions of RFCs seem to qualify, such as:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
And of course the HTML versions of manpages are usually renedered in a minimalist style, too:
https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=du
[+] [-] mirimir|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quotemstr|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fludlight|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jiiam|10 years ago|reply
I know it's because the fancier counterparts are JS-intensive, but it's still a question worth asking: "Why are we in the time where a nice website should take seconds to load?"
[+] [-] tragomaskhalos|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] V-2|10 years ago|reply
It's always harder to come up with a design that's simultaneously pleasing and feels easy to use, but throwing design out of the window altogether is nothing but a copout. It's the easiest thing to do, but is it a solution, or just an attempt to make some sort of a point?
To me it's the equivalent of shaky camera and black-and-white filming: every film student's act of rebellion against James Cameron and the like ; )
[+] [-] Morantron|10 years ago|reply
shameless plug
[+] [-] ekianjo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kennywinker|10 years ago|reply
If brutalism is favouring functionality over "design", then they are some of the most popular examples I know of.
[+] [-] undoware|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickpsecurity|10 years ago|reply
http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
http://suckless.org/philosophy
[+] [-] smegel|10 years ago|reply
I am quite fond on this one in Sydney that was in the news recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_building