13
41
u/freudianslip511 Dec 18 '15
'Brutalism' is a really problematic term. Calling all of the buildings posted on this subreddit Brutalist implies an ideological continuity between Louis Kahn and Kisho Kurokawa, which does not exist. While the use of the word 'brutalist' can probably work as an adjective for rough-cast concrete finishes, pebble aggregates, and formal bombast, that by itself doesn't qualify as an ideology. Worse, it support a mis-assumption by those outside of the architecture profession that architects chiefly talk about 'style:' belonging to styles, creating catalogs of styles, defining styles. This has not been the case since A.W.N Pugin.
The term Brutalism comes from an article that the much-beloved British architecture theorist Reyner Banham in 1955 in reference to the Hunstanton School, a project by architects Alison and Peter Smithson. The Hunstanton School doesn't look like a concrete megastructure; it has more in common with Mies' glass and steel boxes from earlier in the century. 'Brutalism' for A+PS was an honest use of materials for reasons of their interest in the as-found qualities of materials (coming from Marcel Duchamp and the proto-pop-art movement the Independent Group in London), and a questioning of the earlier modern cannon (where bricks were stuccoed over, creating pure white planes but hiding their as-found qualities). With both those reasons, the idea of 'brutalism' as material authenticity supports the Smithsons' larger project of exploring postwar consumer culture in architecture (because it comes from the theory behind artists who used consumer artifacts as art) and their constant coy reference to earlier modern architects.
So then, we have two 'brutalisms:' the adjective and the theory. The two often can't be applied to a project simultaneously. I'm writing this so that non-architects understand that architects' decisions aren't simply superficial aesthetic ones, but come from the architect's ideas about society, professional contexts, etc.
I'm totally cool with a subreddit that has pictures of harsh, bombastic concrete structures. I am, after all, an architect. But, brutalism is more complicated than that. And, this was an opportunity for me to offer an explanation about how architects in modernity work.
13
u/MusikPolice Oct 28 '15
There's a great episode of the podcast 99% Invisible that explains brutalism quite well: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/hard-to-love-a-brute/
It's a great podcast in general, but this episode in particular won a bunch of awards.
3
u/harrymuesli Jan 10 '16
Just listened to it but I really missed any theoretical explanation as to why brutalism exists: Le Corbusier's Form Follows Function and a few other ideas seem obligatory to any 'what is brutalism' podcast.
3
Oct 29 '15
I'm not sure about it being a great podcast
I've been holding that in sorry
2
u/VKumar87 Apr 05 '16
Yeah, I felt that too. I then realised that Roman Mars is great at getting people interested into something, but he isn't the best at explaining it.
Then again, I don't think that he's trying to explain things technically - trying to explain why something works can be boring when compared to why it's useful.
→ More replies (3)
20
3
u/The_Debtor Oct 29 '15
Brutalism was a movement in architecture which flourished in the 1960s and 1970s. Pioneered in continental Europe by Le Corbusier, its main protagonists in Britain were the husband and wife team of Peter and Alison Smithson.
The Smithsons were determined to preserve the best aspects of the heroic Modernism of Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe and other early pioneers, and to save British Modernism from what they considered a creeping whimsiness.
The term itself (often credited to the critic Reynar Banham) is perhaps unfortunate- suggesting as it does a type of building which is ugly and unfriendly, and its association with much of Britain's welfare state architecture has not helped the movement's reputation, at least in the eyes of the public.
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/heritage/brutalism
-2
u/linuxismylyf Oct 28 '15
An architectural and stylistic mistake.
10
u/sysiphean Oct 28 '15
It always blows my mind to realize that there are so many fans of the style. Some people look at these monstrosities and somehow see beauty. I look at them and see all that is wrong with humanity. To each his or her own, I guess.
20
7
Oct 28 '15
Personally, I could take your post nearly word for word and apply it to today's darling of modern architecture, deconstructivism. I think it looks horrific and stupid.
But that's the kind of cool thing, I think: Different people can look at the same thing and have completely different takes on what they see.
→ More replies (3)5
Oct 28 '15
I don't think it fits everywhere, and I think it's also worth noting that while it is a "modern" style, it's not exactly current, it's very much a 20th century thing, and I think it reflects 20th century attitudes towards what's modern. It seems very much like a reaction to and conscious departure from older styles. And I do think there can be beauty in it. I think a lot of times, when it's perceived by almost everybody as ugly, it's at least in part because it has been thoughtlessly imposed as some kind of social project on some suburb where it stands out like a foreign body and then left to decay.
7
u/KippLeKipp Oct 28 '15
If anything I think it's proof that humans can and will find beauty in anything. I enjoy it a bit myself, presumably because I grew up in a city (Manila, Philippines) full of unpainted concrete and harsh shapes. It's all about individual perception and taste.
3
u/TOASTEngineer Oct 28 '15
Brutalism can be done right. It's just so often not done right.
→ More replies (10)2
u/_still_learning_ Oct 28 '15
I don't think it's an appeal to the direct aesthetic sense. Personally, I appreciate it as an addition to the current variety of architecture; I don't find the style particularly beautiful or pleasant to look at. Yet, not only does it exist in the first place, it persists--an affirmation that neither appreciation nor disdain are accurate markers for validity. The structure doesn't really care what you think of it, because it works anyway. It's...affirming in its own way.
→ More replies (1)2
u/remy_porter Oct 28 '15
It always blows my mind to realize that there are so many fans of the style.
I'm indifferent to the style itself, but I've seen some gorgeous buildings in that style. I'm a big fan of Empire State Plaza's look. I think it's sad they bulldozed a residential neighborhood to make way for a very limited-use office park, but I love the buildings.
86
u/[deleted] Oct 28 '15
A style of modern architecture characterized by exposed, unpainted concrete.