Plastic Plants Are Brutalism at Its Worst: A Critique of Hyperreality, Fetishism, and Institutional Control

Brutalism, an architectural style once celebrated for its stark honesty, material integrity, and functional design, has long inspired both admiration and scorn. Originally conceived as a democratic movement to create utilitarian, accessible spaces, Brutalism aimed to strip architecture to its bare essentials, often exposing raw concrete, steel, and glass. Yet today, the influence of Brutalism has manifested in unexpected ways, perhaps nowhere more insidiously than in the phenomenon of plastic plants. Though plastic plants may seem like a trivial choice of decor, they represent a perversion of Brutalist values, embodying a hyperreal, consumerist distortion that replaces authenticity with an empty symbol of nature. Through the lenses of Baudrillard’s hyperreality, Marx’s commodity fetishism, and Foucault’s critique of institutional design, plastic plants reveal themselves as “Brutalism at its worst”—an imitation of life that ultimately degrades our relationship with the real environment.

A close-up image of a plastic plant in a corporate setting, placed next to a real plant. The plastic plant could have exaggerated features (glossy leaves, perfect symmetry) that make it seem almost cartoonish, contrasting starkly with the natural imperfections of the real plant. The background could include a cityscape through a window, representing the hyperreal world of synthetic environments.

Plastic Plants as Hyperreal Simulacra

Jean Baudrillard’s concept of hyperreality provides a crucial framework for understanding the plastic plant. According to Baudrillard, hyperreality is a state where representations become so pervasive that they replace or distort reality itself, ultimately creating a world of simulations detached from any real referent. Plastic plants epitomize hyperreality: they simulate the appearance of greenery but lack all the substance of actual plants. While real plants breathe life into spaces, purifying the air, engaging our senses, and connecting us with nature, plastic plants are inert, synthetic objects that merely signify “nature” without embodying any of its qualities.

In hyperreality, objects lose their original function and become symbols divorced from substance. Plastic plants are a simulacrum of life, evoking the idea of greenery without the essence. This empty imitation of nature plays into our postmodern detachment from authenticity. Where Brutalism was intended to reveal the raw truth of materials, plastic plants hide behind a false image, reminding us not of what is real, but of our collective acceptance of synthetic convenience over genuine experience.

An exaggerated, factory-style assembly line producing identical plastic plants with price tags attached, emphasizing their mass production. Workers or machines could be polishing or “worshipping” the plants as a nod to commodity fetishism. Alternatively, the plants could be placed on pedestals or altars, illustrating the ironic elevation of a lifeless object as a desired commodity.

The Fetishized Commodity: Plastic Plants and Marxist Critique

From a Marxist perspective, plastic plants exemplify commodity fetishism at its peak. Karl Marx’s concept of commodity fetishism describes how products in a capitalist society become objects of obsession, valued not for their actual utility but for the abstract, aesthetic qualities we ascribe to them. Plastic plants are fetishized objects that prioritize appearance over function, manufactured en masse to satisfy a superficial desire for nature. Unlike real plants, which produce oxygen, filter air, and require nurturing, plastic plants are static, lifeless commodities that do nothing for our well-being. They are imbued with a false sense of “nature,” allowing consumers to indulge in a sanitized, maintenance-free version of the natural world.

Plastic plants commodify nature itself, presenting a version of greenery that is severed from its ecological and biological functions. This is nature reduced to an image, stripped of its power, life, and complexity. From a Hegelian perspective, we can see this fetishism as a dialectical inversion: plastic plants signify an antithesis to nature, embodying death and sterility while posing as life. They are a subversion of nature itself, commodified into an endlessly reproducible object for consumption.

Institutional Design and the Genealogy of Control

Michel Foucault’s genealogical approach to institutions illuminates another dimension of the plastic plant phenomenon. Foucault analyzed how institutions—from hospitals to prisons—are designed to control bodies and manage perceptions through architecture and environment. Plastic plants serve a similar function in institutional spaces. Hospitals, corporate offices, and even prisons use plastic plants to simulate a comforting “natural” environment, concealing the sterile, often oppressive reality beneath a shallow veneer of life.

Plastic plants, like other features of institutional design, represent an extension of biopower, Foucault’s concept of societal control over bodies and populations. By incorporating these artificial symbols of nature, institutions use the semblance of greenery to create a sense of calm and well-being without actually offering the benefits of real plants. This simulated nature functions as a biopolitical strategy to manage how we experience space, masking the coldness and sterility of institutional environments with a hyperreal decoration that pretends to be natural. It is an illusion of care, a signal to the occupants that nature has been incorporated into these spaces, while the actual environmental qualities of nature are entirely absent.

A plastic plant releasing a faint wisp of toxic-looking vapor into the air, set against a real plant that appears to be emitting clean, fresh air or tiny, floating oxygen symbols. The plastic plant could be surrounded by discarded wrappers or a “warning” sign to symbolize environmental hazards, contrasting with the healthy, vibrant real plant beside it.

Environmental Irony: Plastic Plants as Toxic Simulacra

The irony of plastic plants is stark. While real plants purify air, plastic plants leach toxic chemicals, contributing to environmental and health hazards. Many are manufactured with chemicals like phthalates and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can release toxins over time. Thus, these plants embody an inversion of their intended purpose, introducing pollutants rather than mitigating them. This ironic twist reinforces Baudrillard’s concept of the toxic hyperreal: a representation that is not only false but actively harmful. In this way, plastic plants represent not just the absence of life, but an active contributor to environmental degradation—a reflection of our contemporary estrangement from nature.

This irony reveals a fundamental contradiction in the synthetic garden. The more we rely on plastic plants to simulate nature, the further we drift from genuine ecological connections, contributing to pollution rather than participating in the cycles of life. Plastic plants become the symbols of a world that has forgotten the actual value of nature, a hyperreal decoration that mocks the true environmental impact of its presence.

A somber, institutional setting (e.g., a prison yard or hospital waiting room) with plastic plants installed in place of a garden. The scene could include barbed wire or tall, featureless walls, while the plastic plants attempt to mimic an outdoor garden but end up looking eerily unnatural. This could symbolize the alienating effect of “fake” nature in spaces designed to confine or control.

The “Sick Architecture” of Plastic Gardens

Our institutional environments increasingly reflect a “sick architecture,” where symbols of nature are used to mask spaces that are, in reality, inhospitable to life. Just as Foucault described the “architecture of the clinic” as a form of control, the presence of plastic plants in sterile, confined spaces like hospitals and offices mirrors this logic. These “gardens” of plastic are prisons of hyperreality, designed to distract us from the sterility and toxicity of modern architecture. By presenting these spaces as “natural,” they obscure their reality: environments that make us sick, alienated, and disconnected from nature.

This deception ties into Hegel’s dialectic of freedom and confinement. The plastic plant embodies a dialectical inversion, a symbol of “freedom” that ultimately represents confinement within a sterile, controlled space. These plants appear to bring nature into our lives but instead reinforce a culture of detachment from the real natural world.

Toward an Authentic Environmental Aesthetic

Plastic plants represent Brutalism at its worst—not just for their inauthenticity, but for their embodiment of hyperreal, toxic commodification. They offer a hollow experience of nature, a fetishized commodity devoid of life. This is a radical departure from the Brutalist ideal of honesty and material truth, and a grim symbol of our willingness to accept synthetic replacements for genuine natural connections.

To counter this trend, we must rethink how we design our spaces and choose our materials. Rather than embracing these hyperreal imitations, we should strive for authenticity, incorporating real plants and natural materials that offer true environmental and health benefits. This is not just a call for better aesthetics but a plea for spaces that reconnect us with the living world. Real Brutalism was about integrity in form and function; plastic plants, in contrast, reveal the hollowness that emerges when we abandon authenticity for convenience. Let us return to the values of genuine Brutalism, creating environments that honor life and embody a true connection to nature.

This essay is intended as an explanation of how AI can extend a person’s ability to write well, but not necessarily write well on its own without guidance. It isn’t going to write a good essay for someone who doesn’t know how to write a good essay AND how to manage a semi-trustworthy teenage intern who is actually doing the writing.

That’s how we should think about working with LLMs; we are project managers and LLMs are semi-trustworthy teenage interns. They will make mistakes, they may not know what they are doing or what they are talking about. We need to start with definitions and a clear set of goals and then discuss different strategies before settling on one and breaking it into pieces which are addressed separately.

Click Here to see the chat conversation which produced this essay.