Solar-punk feels like of like an inversion of socialist realism to me. Socialist realism celebrates the worker as creator with muscles straining, tools in hand, actively building the world. Labor is heroic, collective, and visibly transformative. The aesthetic screams: WE made this. On the other hand, solar-punk envisions society after the work is done with comfortable citizens enjoying green tech built by unseen hands. The aesthetic whispers: Look what grew while no one was laboring.

[–] Barabas@hexbear.net 22 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (15 children)

So all art featuring architecture that doesn't have it actively being built or features someone holding a hammer in the foreground is fascist?

Is this fascist?

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 3 points 19 hours 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.

[–] Dessa@hexbear.net 3 points 14 hours ago

Also, the grass lawn monoculture is bad

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (13 replies)

load more comments (20 replies)