Brutalism, a muscular and monumental architectural style known for its unsparing use of cast concrete, has grown old enough since its heyday in the fifties, sixties, and seventies to have aged badly, but not old enough to inspire much sympathy. The austere, domineering artifacts of its philosophies now face widespread enmity; a number of institutions, with varying degrees of exertion, have sought in recent years to replace their Brutalist inheritances with practically anything else. — theawl.com
22 Comments
They where never built to be loved, but compared to yet another sterile glass box, it's no mystery why the style became popular, at least with architects condemed to international uniformity. This was the era the middle class abandoned cities en mass for all the reasons everybody knows. This fortress like archtiecture spoke volumes about the prevelant additude towards the city. That being said, there are some incredible examples that deserve preservation.
The internet 2.0 is creating a new breed of idiotic debates. This year it's modernism, last year Brutalism, next year ... Regionalism? What other brand name straw men will be dug up before we realize each building is a particular, separate experience, not to be classified, branded, and debated as if it were a soft drink.
Some brutalist buildings are beautiful, and some aren't. Perhaps we need a new media system of judging buildings by their merits instead of what media name they have been placed in.
Thayer, they were built to be loved, and they are loved. If they're not loved by you, that's fine.
Fred. I respect that you like the style. I don't have anything against it per say, at least in the sense that Darkman is refering to. But Modernism, in general, and Brutalism in particular, wasn't about such emotional issues as love but rather cold hard science and functionality. At least that's the way it was marketed, I can love a really functional hammer as much as I love a purely decorative object.
Like I said earlier though, I like some brutalism. I know it's harder to pigeon hole me this way, but that was Darkman's point. So if you're ok with my noting the historical record while expressing an admiration for some examples of this style, that's also fine.
You can have them, Fred.
You get to have an opinion, Thayer, but you don't get to throw around unsupported assertions like "They were never built to be loved."
Richard Rogers, on Johansen:
"My interest in John Johansen's work transcends his architecture: it is his energy, curiosity, and approach to design and life which I share and admire. And it is this energy, curiosity, and enjoyment of life that still provides inspiration today as it did thirty years ago when we first met. When I consider the lack of vision and inventiveness of most current architecture in America, I am reminded of the period of intense creativity, innovation, and research (that has all but disappeared) synthesized by John Johansen's career."
Fred, Just to remind you what's happeing here. It's called giving one's opinion, so I do get to make assertions, either supported or not and you get to agree to disagree unlike last time when you took upbrage with my opinion and asked to communicate with me off line. This kind of free exchange of ideas that architect provides is wonderful. Let's keep it that way.
when you say "They were never built to be loved," aren't you stating the intent of the designer? wouldn't you say that stating the designer's intent is not, in fact, an opinion, but rather a statement that declares what somebody else's opinion is? if you have to make stuff up like that to support your ideology, you might want to start considering a different ideology.
It's appropriate to speculate about and question the intent of the designer, no? I think that's the kind of thing that a discussion forum on architecture is all about.
Here's my speculation. I agree with Thayer. I think that creating buildings that people would find loveable and beautiful was probably pretty low on the hierarchy of values held by the architects of most of the Brutalist buildings. I think creating abstract expressionist sculpture, expressing function in a plain, raw way, and creating a sense of awe through dramatic structural expression were much higher on the list than beauty.
no, i would disagree with that. leave the intent to the paper architects.
expressing the building as a place where people live and work and interact isn't 'souless' and doesn't 'lack love.' expressing the building as a building where people interact might be what a person thinks is 'beautiful' if the person gave a shit about buildings. the structure of a building can be beautiful, especially for those that like buildings.
seems to me you're transferring your opinion onto another architect so you can pursue an ad-hominem attack against them instead of their work. that's just weak. not everyone thinks gluing some glitter on a facade is beautiful. in fact, if you were to speculate on the intent of an architect, you might speculate that classical architects don't design buildings to be loved as buildings, but rather to be loved as objects to be viewed from afar as historic reenactments or memories of a fictionalized and romanticized past. but that's just me transferring my opinion, and i know the value of an opinion.
I made no ad hominem attack on anyone. I was merely speculating on the motivations behind a certain trend in design. Ad hominem means attacking a person. I mentioned nobody.
Since no "brutalist" architects have joined us in this conversation, speculation on motivations are just that...speculation. I'd love to hear from one of the architects what inspired them. However, as a classical architect, I can speak directly to my motivations, and I will say that your speculation is nonsense. Nostalgia or "historic reenactments" couldn't be further from my mind.
I'm perfectly happy to stop speculating on motivations, and offer my opinion about the work directly. Most "brutalist" buildings are cold, dehumanizing and ugly. They haven't aged or weathered well, and few people besides some architects like them. This is why they are being torn down all over the world. There are exceptions, and some particularly important examples should be preserved. But there are very good reasons why it seems a week doesn't go by that we don't see a news story about one of these buildings being slated for demolition.
curtkram. You're getting a little lost with this whole "opinion" thing and what it means for a discussion. If you are familiar with modernism's copious manifestos, it's clear that in the old mantra..."firmness, commodity, and delight", the delight part was demoted to secondary status at best. Eitherway, your world view on architecture is perfectly clear and far be it from me to question your personal desicions. As for architectural history, I think we can all agree on the record, regardless of our personal opinions. Then again, if your intention is to deconstruct things to the point of nihilism...good luck.
Brutalism has to be the worst leading architecture brand name ever. It's critics hate it so much and yet never cite a single building..... Go figure.
I always thought that this trend was an attempt to humanize modernism through the rough concrete--thinking of late Corbusier, who always looked for the art in machinery (also lost in the branding of modernism). Again, this is what happens with every architecture movement when it transitions from art to mass production. Everyone forgets the artistry of the particular. Yeah Brutalism is pretty terrible in your mind, but when you think about specific examples, the world is more interesting because of them.
That's a great point darkman. I think you're right about this being an attempt to correct for the sterility of modernism, although I've always considered it in the stable of modernist styles. And it's the physicality of these buildings that I always appreciated over yet another inscrutable glass box. There had been raw concrete buildings at the turn of the 19th century with a lot more artistry than those of the 1960's though. What kept this "artistry" at bay or at the least so muted and constrained is an endless source of fasination.
Thayer, you're the one who's getting lost.
First you present an opinion as fact: 'these buildings were never built to be loved', which is demonstrably untrue. Then you try to say that you meant that to be an opinion, and all opinions are valid because, hey, it's the internet! Then you go deeper by equating Brutalism with Modernism. And then you say that neither is concerned with emotion and delight.
Go back and read (I'd say re-read, but it is my opinion that you've never read it) Reyner Banham's article 'The New Brutalism' from 1955. Banham distinguishes between Brutalism and Modernism at exactly this point, saying that Modernism was not explicitly concerned with the emotional reaction and its connection to an image, but Brutalism tries to address this issue head-on. Banham even quotes Thomas Aquinas.
Again, you're welcome to your opinion. Please, by all means, tell us "I don't like it". You might even tell us why you don't like it, and we can disagree on those terms. But don't pretend that you have facts at your disposal to back up your opinion. I think it was Kant who first pointed out that we can discuss aesthetics independently of any discussion about whether or not we "like" something, and that that discussion can have many more dimensions than simply determining how pretty something is.
It is easy to forget the early Bauhaus was a sort of mystical art school, with Gropius more influence by artists and Bruno Taut, famous for the Glashaus and crystal colored glass fantasies. When things shifted to machines and industry as inspiration, the mystical element was lost, but it think these architects were always searching for some kind of balance. Obviously Rem is still looking ......
It seems like the rhetoric and techno Utopianism of modernism as a kit of parts seduced Gropius and his ilk. What was lost was the artistry that Corbusier looked for, which he himself forgot about in his city planning.... Nevertheless adopted by many. Still, modernist hearts were in the right place, as were brutalists if you read their texts..they were concerned with individual quality of life, though though light, air--obviously an antidote to urban slums of the time. There is a heroic drive that is nonexistent today. Though if you look around, modernism is still the dominant style or new developments.... Still associated with a betterment of life,
Then again, you have to see modern design as sprouting out the the German psyche of Weimar Germany, a humiliated people with PSD, in debt looking to start over.
I see the same drive, oddly in the techno utopianism of Silicon Valley, which is a scary if the dream turns sour as it did in Weimar. And so, like every internet conversation, this will end with Nazis.
Thanks Fred, but I'll let you re-read "the New Brutalism by yourself. I'm sure Mr. Banham's analysis is spot on, at least that's what they told me in school. As for what Kant thinks about aesthetics, I think that's where it all started to go so wrong for the modernists. I don't require reading to get excited about architecture.
i can see how eliminating school and books and probably any other form of education has helped you develop a broad understanding of architecture
"Still, modernist hearts were in the right place, as were brutalists if you read their texts..they were concerned with individual quality of life, though though light, air--obviously an antidote to urban slums of the time."
I think the communist's hearts were in the right place also, but at some point one has to be judged by their work rather than thier words. Personally, the dictatorial quality of the manifestos, regardless of intentions, was enough to make me choke. There is no end of insane quotes one can pull from them, but that is also a product of a revolutionary youth, one that thought they could re-invent European society in an image that would help prevent another world war (oh well!). If one ventures beyond the school text books, the actual state of the debate is clear, but then again, restricting access to information standard practice for this approach. One can claim they are for anything if they re-define the requirements one must aspire to. In the modenrist's case, "quality of life" was boiled down to light, space, and a lack of decoration. Sounds like a place for plants.
"There is a heroic drive that is nonexistent today. Though if you look around, modernism is still the dominant style or new developments.. Still associated with a betterment of life,"
Thank god we don't have that kind of heroism in architecture today. As for wether modernism is the dominant style, you'd have to overlook the vast majority of work that never finds its way into the hermetic world of academia. Much like the modernist masters, deny human nature and the world will be as you wish.
The end quality of building is what is most important....but I would guess that trying to make a good building leads to better architecture than not caring. Radical comment there.
The biggest problem in architecture is that we are debating past styles--a nasty, cynical European curatorial mindset has infected the optimism elsewhere. Instead of asking what we could build tomorrow, we think it's all been done so why try. Economic collapse to follow.
In reference to last comment and much of modern era, many now seem to design for PR and media, look at OMAs work which is preening for the camera (see progression of their work). That is the major problem for architecture in the future: media vs. users.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.