"If there was any lingering doubt that Brutalism — the architectural style derided for everything the name implies — was back in fashion, the “Atlas of Brutalist Architecture” quashes it with a monumental thump. At 560 pages representing some 878 works of architecture in over 100 countries, the outsize volume is part reference tool, part coffee table book, and certainly part of an ongoing design trend favoring big, big books." — Los Angeles Times
It has been remarkable to see the dramatic change in public opinion towards brutalist architecture in the last few years. Not only has the style shed its identity as a blight on the majority of modern cities, but dozens of products have recently entered the market in honor of these monumental edifices.
Mimi Zeiger's review of 'Atlas of Brutalist Architecture,' the 560-page treatise to the movement now carried at Archinect Outpost, is a reflection of this recent phenomenon. "Today," Zeiger writes, "the architectural ugly duckling is a swan with an Instagram following. The monolithic and blocky design of Kanye West’s Yeezy headquarters in Calabasas was inspired by Brutalism. And this fall, Archinect, a digital platform for architecture based in Los Angeles, launched a line of coffee called Brutal in partnership with Yeekai Lim, a former architect and founder of Culver City’s Cognoscenti Coffee."
Though Zeiger finds the atlas a bit loose with the qualifications for Brutalist architecture, she finds the presence of the tome and similar publications a positive sign for the field, as the similarly spirited Concrete Los Angeles Map "reminds us to disconnect from the online culture... and go tour concrete architecture in our own backyard."
63 Comments
Do people really think that there has been a "dramatic change in public opinion" about Brutalist architecture? Is there some kind of poll data behind this assertion? Or is it just that the avant garde architects and art press like it, and are pushing it because it's a way to thumb their nose at the taste of the public, who generally think it's harsh, ugly and inhumane?
Just because Phaidon publishes an expensive coffee table book for architects, or Archinect names a boutique coffee brand "Brutal", doesn't mean there has been some shift in general opinion about it.
And exactly what is the general opinion? Please provide references.
Of course, I have none. Just my perception. Most people I know who aren't architects hate those buildings. Ask Bostonians on the street what they think of City Hall, or New York people what they think of the MetLife.
It has been said that Brutalism is the best architectural style. People are saying it.
... or what they think of Bruer's Whitney, or Saarinen's TWA terminal.
I think the TWA is beautiful. I'm not sure I'd call it Brutalist, although it is made of concrete. I think that the old Whitney is an ugly lump.
The cover should be wire mesh reinforced small-aggregate concrete.
"...dramatic change in public opinion." I'm waiting for that reference.
If the author means "increase of mentions in popular media," I'll buy that. But those two aren't the same thing.
There HAS been a clear increase in press about Brutalist architecture, but nearly all that I've seen has been fans of the style trying to convince us it's awesome.
Because (some of) it is awesome ;o]
My hunch is that this specious statement is more an example of (no offense, but) lazy writing than verifiable claim.
Media constantly needs product (filler) to sell advertising.
I think that from a vantage point inside the architecture echo chamber, it DOES seem that opinion has shifted in favor of Brutalism. I just question whether that's indicative of a general shift in public opinion.
The biggest hurdle is digging up all of those corpses of adults who were around during the Brutalist heyday and reanimating them so we have something vaguely scientific to compare to.
This is exactly why the zombie plaque is so helpful. ("Grunt once if you hated Brutalism, twice if you liked it.")
Forever trying to hype the popularity of this kind of architecture with academia and architectural media on your side. What's it been, 50 years? 100 if you want to take it back to the Bauhaus. Modernist minimalism, be it glass or concrete will always be in the minority for the same reason that few people like the aloof person.
Traditionalist architects on the other side of the coin are wrong to relentlessly attack modernism as it is one of many styles people like, but it will never be more than a small minority. In the mean time those who like something that feels more humane will continue to flock to those shrinking neighborhoods that speak to the passerby, regardless of style.
It's because most Brutalist architecture is good architecture done by people who had proper skills, vision and a truly optimistic view of humanity. We could use more people like that today.
I REALLY think that, for the CORRECTLY UNDERSTAND about the Teme, everyone MUST have had an ACCURATELY read of these two articles:
•
October 31, 2017
Why You Hate Contemporary Architecture
And if you don’t, why you should…
by Brianna Rennix & Nathan J. Robinson
(in) https://www.currentaffairs.org...
AND
•
Why It's Time to Give Up on Prefab
01:00 - 4 December, 2013
|by Chris Knapp
(in) https://www.archdaily.com/4532...
... and, JUST AFTER those readings, come back to this one.
That arch-daily piece is pretty rough... and not in a good way.
The arch daily piece is highly ironic, bashing prefabrication then embracing high tech parametrics as "bespoke" (an obnoxious marketing term).
The cultural affairs article is excellent but I will take issue with the discussion of Boston City Hall (as I have repeatedly here) because very few seem to get it: it is a fabulous metaphor for bureaucracy.
It is fantastic for all the wrong reasons, which is what makes it great. Barren (originally) plaza, no defined entrance, overwhelming repetition - this is everyone's experience of government (or corporate bureaucracy, which are pretty much one and the same thing in all too many ways).
An occasional 'uncomfortable' work like this provides - among other things - a contrast to all else - but only when it is occasional.
"very few seem to get it: it is a fabulous metaphor for bureaucracy"... and that's one of the reasons most modernism fails to please. It relies on an over intellectualized understanding of the built environment, one most people have no interest in developing because it so often in conflict with what people feel. BTW, the same can be said for any other art form which ignores the basic wiring of our human nature. There will always be a market for this kind of work, and students should be taught metaphore and theory as it can enrich most buildings, but not without first teaching the craft of design which addresses the building as understood by people regardless of culture.
Classic (Bauhaus) modernism was the integration of craft and technology in a social movement that was a response to the mechanized horrors of WWI. It was immediately adopted by the 1% as an avant-garde style and watered down to be nothing more than a statement of wealth style.
The concept of integrating art and craft into human production of basic needs is wondrous - the evolution of it into the economics of human society disastrous.
Completely agree. The ideal of merging craft, technology, and design is one I pursue when given a chance. When not, I just try to exercise the one most in my control. Design.
As with any style there's going to be a lot of diluted junk. But many Brutalist buildings are solid and wonderfully expressive, and I find them a good corrective for the flights and flightiness we're seeing today. We need to be brought back down to earth, maybe grit our teeth.
I hope, however, there's a good definition of Brutalism in the book (out of my price range). Just about everything with exposed concrete has been called Brutalist.
I was deeply impressed by Eduardo Catalano's county government complex back in the '70s, in Greensboro, NC, my hometown. Compare it with the older traditional courthouse across the street. There should be a debate here about the virtues of the old and new, but Catalano's building was designed to complement the courthouse, which it does well.
There are more facets to the Catalano, not shown here. He also designed the Stratton Student Center at MIT.
I agree the brutalism trend is a weird publishing phenomenon. When I hear people with a strong opinion of it, it seems to be a translation of a particular building they have experienced in their lives -- good or bad. Nobody can argue that it was a massively successful global civic movement on par with the greats -- I'd call it Civic Modernism, after the earlier Classic Modernism. It has the same problem every movement has -- eventually being watered down by developers over time, maintenance issues, etc -- then the public develops an attitude based on this.
What I like about the atlas is is provides a compressive view of the scale (amount and size) of impact on the built world.
It also reminds me that Brutalism (civic modernism) is particularly malleable to new renovations, if only our current civic leaders has more imagination.
* Nobody can argue that it wasn't
Seems like a lot of weight and value is being offered to "what people think". The "people" being the public at-large. Who cares what uneducated people think? Public opinion? Ugh. HAve you been to one of these houses with the "Open Concept"? "Public Opinion" says that's a great idea. Half of the populace is of below average intelligence. Half of the population is below-average... everything. There are great brutalist buildings, and there are horrific brutalist buildings. As there are great "classical" buildings and horrific classical buildings.
Brutalism is a tool for an architect. It's a stylistic tool. If you know how to use it, then you can make a great building. And no one will be able to deny it. The problem arises when Larry steps up to the table saw, and Larry doesn't know how to use the table saw properly. Then, the next thing you know, there are fingers everywhere and we're all left to lean up the mess. Or at least explain to everyone, "just what happened here."
The biggest problem with true brutalism is that it's so difficult to manage the thermal action of concrete on an exterior.
Which half of the populace are you in?
I think that is readily apparent.
I'd wager if a poll were taken that 95% or more college educated people could not name a dozen architects from all time. They would also be hard pressed to name many more buildings, outside those where they live. Of those, most would be buildings that have stood out for reasons outside their esthetic quality or been made known by pop and general culture. The Empire State Building, for example, would be on their list, the tallest for a while, with its hairy ape. In all cases, their understanding of style, of movements, of basic architectural expression would be rudimentary at best. More generally, they aren't sensitive to the expressive potential of space and volumes. Popular opinion is thus suspect, as are people who claim its approval, though more likely the public has little to no opinion at all.
The reason is obvious. We're not exposed to architecture in school, those of us outside the field, unless we make a special effort. Architecture would benefit from being made part of the general curriculum and could use a good public critic.
Architects, however, aren't very well informed about people. I find highly dubious, maybe precious, the New Brutalists' "fascination with the toughness of British working-class existence." (from Raynar Banham, via Will'm Curtis)
Gary- Do you think that people need to go to architecture school to be able to appreciate architecture?
Not at all, Erik, though of course that experience would qualify and enhance understanding. It's my experience, at any rate, that most literate people I know can't respond to architecture or writing about architecture much at all. From grade school up, general students are asked to read and understand literary texts in terms of theme, plot, character, etc., and are approached in accessible language. I did the same at the college level for some 40 years. There's nothing comparable with architecture. It would be useful for students to do something similar in their educational career, "read" buildings over an extended period of time. This would be a good project for Archinect writers, btw, try to reach a literate but unschooled audience, thinking about very basic things they just aren't sensitive to. Such an effort can lead to beautifully illuminating work, no matter how basic it seems. Pros need to review the basics themselves, if not relearn them.
Very strong argument here for broad education in liberal arts and the humanities.
The idea that people don't have an opinion or a bad opinion of architecture is ludicrous. Everybody lives in and around buildings as much as architects do, they simply don't have the tools to express themselves as architects do. One may not like how people speak about buildings, but if you've ever worked with clients and learned how to listen, you'd see they have all sorts of opinions. Like a good psychiatrist, our job is to tease out how people feel, not tell them how they should feel. What we don't teach in our starchitect obsessed media culture is humility, and how to serve others.
.
The context is Brutalism, and whether the public likes it. I'm highly skeptical the public has any opinion at all, or, if it did, it would be valuable, whether favorable or not, again because of limited exposure to the kind of work that drives architectural change. I would think that most local architects and the people who hire them work with a limited—but very valid and valuable—repertoire and range of options, typically based on the homes and offices around them. But you're the architect and know more.
For example, I would bet most people who pass by the old courthouse I posted above aren't aware of the spirals in the volutes or know these cap Ionic columns and literally may not even see them, that they don't know what they might express, that they are not aware of the style's long history and rich associations, from the Greeks through the many revivals, or are informed enough to decide whether or not they are appropriate for their contemporary way of life. I do know Southerners loved columns and put them everywhere they could, for better and worse. Thus they knew them. I would argue the courthouse is successful and I'm glad it has been preserved, but that the classical influence is diluted and waning here and lacks expression and relevance to its times, that another such attempt in 1970, when the Catalano was built, would fail.
Your right, as architects we do know more. My only point was that regardless of our knowledge, it doesn't negate how something makes one feel. You can teach anything, but you can't make someone feel something they don't. If you are curious about the public's opinion, just ask. If you ask the right questions, you'll be surprised what people say.
To your example, do you think it's important for the public to understand the meaning behind classical columns or concept behind a brutalist building? Do you think all Renaissance, Baroque, or Beaux Arts architects understood the meanings? Michelangelo mixed and matched as his eye saw fit, and we're all the better for it. I'm not saying that meaning in architecture doesn't mean anything, it's just that people will never care to the degree we are taught in schools. Why would I travel to foreign countries to appreciate their towns if I didn't know there culture?
I just finished Joseph Rykwert's The Dancing Column, my inspiration. An amazing book, and a tough haul. But he answers your questions about what Michelangelo et al. thought and understood—and what their culture thought and understood. One quote: "The mute Greek example has for too long and far too effectively been invoked to sanitize the building process and to present its products as incurably dumb." A vitality has been lost that he'd like to restore. We won't be able to repeat the style and orders, but can learn from their spirit.
I have all the respect in the world for those who study the 'genera' and 'modi' of the orders, but there are various human temperaments, they've never held that kind of interest for me. Michelangelo also bypassed that aspect and simply drew from them the formal qualities that impressed his eye, 'giudizio dell'occhio' and what he might then be able to do with it has always been m
If the Greensboro brutalist building was inverted at least some light could get in the interior. Might even have an outdoor café on one of the ceilings (now floors). Would not need the columns in front either. Several other brutalist buildings that have this sub-style could benefit also from a vertical flip. But who is ever actually thinking of the occupants of a brutalist building?
I'm really after something more basic. I don't think we're trained to think visually much at all, and it's a loss. Are shapes well proportioned? What are the virtues of proportions? What are the values of symmetry and asymmetry? I don't think we are equipped to decide well. This takes practice, practical experience. It's is also why we have architects who can decide. I'll put myself on the line. In the old courthouse, above, I can't decide it it's well proportioned and sufficiently energetic (for a courthouse) or is off and rigid.
Sorry, I was cut off. I think we're on the same page, all though it would be fine if we weren't. That was Erik's point though, that we are not trained, and yes, it does take practice, patience, and humility, something which our novelty driven culture doesn't prize. Our schools create artificial boundaries to what we can study, impoverishing our "eye" and making us believe that only originality will lead to something worthwhile. I just finished an essay by Bruce Price from 1893 where he writes "In architecture more than in any other art, the work must commend itself for some other reason than its cleverness or originality, or it will very early wear out its welcome." As for the courthouse you posted, always offer an opinion, knowing it's harmless. It's the best way to learn how you and others see. My opinion, its a fine piece of civic architecture and well proportioned. My only fault would be with the articulation of the pilasters on the wings. They're too flat in contrast to the portico. Another aspect of originality, for the person who's never seen a classical court house, it might sing to them as a 100 year old blues riff would, or a cool Kraftwerk tune while blazing on a highway. Appreciation of good composition is not bound by culture or history, unless you want it to be .
You've omitted function, the primary purpose of architecture.
Function goes without saying, unless you're a sculptor, and even then, beauty has a function also, just harder to quantify, which is why the early modernists abandoned it from the traditional trinity, Firmness (construction), Commodity (function), and Delight (beauty). Yes, they said there was beauty from honest materials and a direct expression of function....... just not enough to make an Amazon distribution center worth visiting. And even then, who says that's the most direct and rational disposition of function and material?
Aesthetics are bullshit if the basic purpose of architecture is ignored. Sculptors are not architects, architects are not sculptors.
Who doesn't know that architecture solves a problem first? 99.9 % of architects know that, or they wouldn't get paid. Why so many also don't also try to make their solutions beautiful as had been done for thousands of years, now that's a problem worth solving.
The under-educated public and architects trained to be innovative artists instead of practical designers by a thoroughly dysfunctional educational system. Aside from the fact that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, much like the taste of food, the sweetness of melodies, or the poetry of a writer. When we share these opinions, try to understand each other, and sometimes find things in common, that's when we we create community and culture .
Nicely said.
I would say that function is the primary purpose of "Building". Architecture only really begins once all the function has been satisfied, yes? And I have to say I don't believe Michelangelo just mixed and matched as he saw fit. Yes he was taking things, recombining, and playing games with them, but that's because he was inventing Mannerism. And that's a different creature. That's discipline. Yes it's jazz, but it's not a willy-nilly kit of parts.
Engaging the public in a discussion about the subtleties of architecture is pointless. I had a discussion once with a very educated woman who grew up in DC, and kept referring to Mies's MLK Library as "Brutal", and "Brutal" and "Brutal". Because she heard "Brutalist" somewhere and thought it applied. She was obviously incorrect. She didn't like being softly educated, and is probably still calling it a Brutal(ist) building. Ugh.
Ask people what their needs are. Ask them what their wants are. Sure. But giving the public's opinion of Brutalism any genuine merit should not be done. They'll say, "I like Bricks!"
The reason they like bricks, is because they're familiar with them, and bricks are the size of a human hand (for a reason), and there's a corporal-scale-resonance that people feel when they encounter bricks due to their size. People don't understand this. That's where the artistry of architecture comes in. The reason that so many brutalist buildings are bad is because they were done by artless architects.
I included the two buildings above for a reason. This is middle ground architecture, which will never appear in arch books. It is also the most important, as it is what most of us see day to day. And again, I would say both are successful. There's a meaningful dialogue, past and present (or past and recent past), between the two buildings.
I got curious:
Catalano was selected for the Greensboro project by a 12-person advisory committee in 1966 that sought 'something out of the ordinary' in appointing Catalano. The group was confident that he would design 'something the people of Greensboro and Guilford County can be proud of for 50 years to come.' Criteria used to select the architect included design capability, site planning ability, professional qualifications, professional reputation and personal qualities. Catalano was recognized as one of the 10 leading architects of the world in 1956 and his design for the student center at Massachusetts Institute of Technology was on the cover of Architectural Record magazine the month it was announced that he was chosen for the Greensboro project.
https://preservationgreensboro...
In short, they relied on reputation, status, and the report of others, without much sense of the virtues or meanings of Brutalism, or of architecture in general. As should be expected. Still, I credit them for taking this leap, and there must have been genuine appreciation.
Greensboro was quite conscious of promoting itself as a place moving forward, a place with a future, much of this optimism centered on its industry. They wanted to be modern—and move away from the old South. This is partly attractive, but also naive and suspect. Their understanding of modernism was simplistic at best and the town built some modernist dogs. The story is true across the country.
Ultimately the desire to be "modern" is abstract and sterile, a desire that cuts off other desires and cultural expressions, and we're all suffering from the abstraction. That's not to say modernist architecture is sterile at all. The best work came from deep cultural and esthetic experience, from a sense of history. Those buildings still speak to us, if we know the language, as do the Greek temples, whether we know the beliefs, practices, or philosophies of the time or not. They are absorbed and assumed in the construction. Rykwert's The Dancing Column really is an overwhelming book, but it makes that point clear.
A common complaint about all the arts is that each has specialized and grown inbred, and cut itself from other disciplines, other arts, the culture as a whole.
This is a nice discussion, btw.
It is a nice discussion, and an important one I think.
I've always thought that architecture should operate, and find ways to appeal, on many levels simultaneously. Good architecture should be able to appeal to practitioners and informed critics on one level, and people-on-the-street, not educated in art theory, on another level. I guess you could call these "appealing to the intellect" and "appealing to the heart", but that's an oversimplification, of course. Neither of these types of appeal are more important than the other, but both are necessary for architecture to be successful.
If the general public needs to be educated in special "inside knowledge" in order to appreciate a work of art or architecture - in other words, if that work of art or architecture cannot "appeal to the heart" - then I think it is failing at a key aspect of what great architecture should provide.
We often design buildings that have an underlying rationale, perhaps a plan diagram that is the result of sophisticated geometric relationships or manipulations. This is intriguing and satisfying to us as practitioners. But if this underlying rationale doesn't result in a building that people enjoy being in and around, a building that makes people happy and makes their lives a little bit better, I have to ask, "what's the point"? Educating the public about the rationale for the architecture won't help, unless the architecture is also able to appeal to their hearts, to give them reasons to want the work to be the way it is.
I'm saddened when I hear architects talk about how most of the public are uneducated and naive, or worse, unintelligent or foolish. This seems so condescending and cynical to me. If the public can't see the value in the work that architects have produced, maybe architects should work harder to appeal to them.
But if we only appeal to what the man on the street wants or (worse) thinks they want, where would we be?
There's the old thing about Henry Ford... if he'd asked the man on the street what he wanted, he would have said, "A faster horse."
We've given over too much to the idea that everyone's opinion is of equal merit. It is not. I agree though that part of the role of every architectural expression should be that people should enjoy being in it, and it should make their lives better (and easier). Beauty makes people's lives better. Making lives better should be part of every every architectural expression.
Artful architects. Not engineers with a stamp.
“But if we only appeal to what the man on the street wants or (worse) thinks they want, where would we be?“
As i said, I am arguing that great artists and architects should be able to do both at the same time.
BTW what’s the difference between a person wanting something, and thinking that they want something?
Marketing.
The difference would be something along the lines of, everyone "thinks they want" to win the lottery. But there are all of those stories of the lottery winners who wind up ill-prepared to deal with a large windfall of loot. They don't really understand what they're asking for completely .
What they actually "want" is to not worry about the bills they have, or that they have enough money to cover medical expenses, not to work their crappy job, or to have a vacation once a year. Things like that. What they express as their want is not exactly what their underlying wish/need is.
So architecturally speaking, it would be like someone saying "I think I want a glass house." They saw one and thought it was cool. But they never mention that they don't want drafts or high heating/cooing bills. And their occupations don't provide them with the means to maintain the costs associated with their "want". Sometimes clients' wants run counter to their ability to support the reality of what they ask for. That's always the difficult discussion to have.
Frequently people ask for things that have unintended consequences or peripheral obligations that they don't have the knowledge to even consider.
One of the jobs of the architect is perhaps to see through what people "think they want" and discover what it is they are actually desirous of. And make sure that is satisfied. Which I think is part of the thrust of what most people agree on.
A great example of this is Falling Water. The clients wanted a house that looked out over their favorite waterfall. They had chosen the site across the stream, yes? What the architect gave them was life on the waterfall. He delivered not what they asked for. But what they wanted.
But ceding the role of the educated expert to the client is unwise, for both service provider and client. Steve Jobs. Not a dumb guy. But also not an oncologist. That's an extreme (and sad) example, but if the architects cede the role of expert to the non-experts... what's the point of architects gaining knowledge and expertise? Kanye? Brad Pitt? Architects?
And I agree about the "same time". But I just don't think too much weight should be given to all the "opinions" of the non-expert users.
These posts are too long. Not even sure if I'm clarifying my point. Sorry.
I understand what you're saying. And I agree that part of the role of the architect is to discover and clarify client preferences, and synthesize them into good architecture. I've always said that I think great architects are able to be so persuasive that the client believes that the ideas are actually theirs.
That's rather cynical. I prefer a client who's open to ideas not their own with the cognizance of the fact that they hired an Architect because they respect what we do, not just as a tool to be used .
Architecture school should include courses in basic psychology.
Then instead of being viewed as just egotists we could be viewed as manipulative egotists.
Absent in all the above discussion about builders and public alike is any larger understanding of the culture, its beliefs and practices and customs, which might be expressed in abstruse philosophy but also is implicit in art, in the plot of popular movies—and can be implied in the details of architecture or sounded out explicitly in architectural theory. (I don't profess to be that well informed myself.)
From Rykwert again:
Greek architecture shows how buildings should be conceived, how physical forms relate to the fabric of human groups—to societies and communities. Building is, after all, the group activity par excellence.
Leave aside his argument about the Greeks. Architecture pays a price when it forgets that understanding, that relationship, as do we.
The old courthouse above speaks with a wealth of architectural details brought together and interrelated into a system of hierarchies, creating a building that is balanced, ceremonial, formal—and aloof, perhaps a bit stiff and imposing, as may have been appropriate expression about the law and society at the time.
The Catalano still maintains control and balance, but in a design that is open and dynamic, as well as informal. The rough surface of the concrete invites touch and reminds us of the grit of our existence, bringing us closer to our institutions and charging that relationship. Our sense of ourselves, our relationship with each other, with our institutions, has changed.
A shift in opinions may be a reaction to parametrics / Pomo.
Has you thought to look to nature for direction ? The human body is, I think, the best example of "form follows function".
Nothing is superficial. Maybe the appendix.
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.