6 ms·

The article totally skips over the fact that brutalism comes from French - Béton brut means concrete. There is nothing 'brutal' or 'brutalizing' about brutalis

by nealrs 10y ago

The article totally skips over the fact that brutalism comes from French - Béton brut means concrete. There is nothing 'brutal' or 'brutalizing' about brutalist architecture. I know I'm being a bit pedantic, but words matter. Right?

at-fates-hands 10y ago
Not sure how they did that tbh. You'd think they'd take five minutes and do a Google search: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture The term originates from the French word for "raw" in the term used by Le Corbusier to describe his choice of material béton brut (raw concrete).[1][2] British architectural critic Reyner Banham adapted the term into "brutalism" (originally "New Brutalism") to identify the emerging style. The very first paragraph of the article is completely wrong: it was a term of abuse for the work of architects whose buildings confronted their users — brutalized them — with hulking, piled-up slabs of raw, unfinished concrete. These same architects, centered on the British couple Alison and Peter Smithson, enthusiastically took up Brutalism as the name for their movement with a kind of pride, as if to say: That’s right, we are brutal. We do want to shove your face in cement. This is depressing to think about this revisionist history. This was apart of the modern architectural movement of the 20th century, not some sort of audacious idea of an your face art movement. Just. . .so. . .wrong on so many levels
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Fricken 10y ago
  I'm not seeing the conflict. Brutalism is an english term, embraced by British architects who were fully aware of what it suggested. If they didn't want the term for their brand of architecture to imply brutality, they would have gone with something different. Concretism or Rawchitecture or something, I don't know.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  And yet I find brutalist architecture to be, if not brutal, at least dehumanizing. It's a place that is cold, inhuman (in the sense of being a place where humans don't really fit). Forcing people to live in that environment may not be brutal, but it's kind of cruel, or at least uncaring.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    It always makes me think Brave New World in the way it subordinates a sense of humanity to a specific design, and also in the way that design isn't as clever or durable as those who promulgate it imagine it will be.
- vilhelm_s 10y ago
  I feel this claim, that the term derives from "raw", seems super suspicious. It is repeated very often, but I've never seen any scholarly analysis of where the word comes from. If you look at the Wikipedia talk page, you'll find people pointing out that that etymology doesn't seem to make any sense: the oldest attestations of the word is from a Swedish (rather than French) writer talking about "nybrutalism", which got borrowed into English as "New Brutalism". And the building which was described as "nybrutalism" was made of brick, not concrete. If you can find any information about how Le Corbusier coined the term and when, it would be great if you could add it to the Wiki page!
  - niftich 10y ago
    He wrote a letter in 1962 to a fellow architect in which he said: "Beton brut was born at the Unité d'Habitation at Marseilles where there were 80 contractors and such a massacre of concrete that one simply could not dream of making useful transitions by means of grouting. I decided: let us leave all that brute. I called it 'beton brute' [bare concrete]. The English immediately jumped on the piece and treated me (Ronchamp and Monastery of La Tourette) as 'Brutal' -- beton brutal -- all things considered, the brute is Corbu. They called that 'the new brutality'. My friends and admirers take me for the brute of brutal concrete!" [1][2] [1] https://f50collective.com/2016/09/19/brutalist-architecture/ https://f50collective.com/2016/09/19/brutalist-architecture/ [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=b-OUxSelykIC&lpg=PA18&ots=vb60zelHH5&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=b-OUxSelykIC&lpg=PA18&ots=...
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      Based on that, it sounds like the original inspiration was indeed "raw", but it was almost immediately tagged as "brutal" in English, and its admirers knowingly embraced that term. So perhaps the article oversimplifies things, but the broad strokes seem to be correct.
- JonnieCache 10y ago
  There's also the connection to Art Brut, a term for outsider art which was popular around the same time. It is only in french that there are these connections though, in english as well as many other languages it only has the harsh, violent meaning. This is all discussed in the documentaries I've linked elsewhere in this thread.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  Not wrong, just confusing two different movements. My understanding is: I don't think it's clear where Brutalism first came from, or why Le Corbusier coined it. His style was something different again - detailed, sometimes whimsical, but in concrete. http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/heritage/brutalism http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/herit... Has a fair summary. Whether it started as "The New Brutalism" from the Reynar Banham essay or not, it was soon just "Brutalism". That was the architectural style: angles, textures, shadow, imposing mass. A plainer variation without texture or detail. Just ugly slab sided concrete. Both variations co-existed, not just cost-cutting, so probably architect preference too. It didn't brutalise the users, or shove your face quite in it... yet. "New Brutalism" was the urban planning movement that Alison and Peter Smithson created after falling out with CIAM. They might have named it more helpfully! "Streets in the Sky" etc. To them it was an impersonal socialist utopia. People were irrelevant. Much of the bad rep of Brutalism is here. The Smithsons seem to have been as good at architecture as they were urban planning (terrible). It's said they led the simpler, plainer variation, but their own buildings had many inconsistent variations from either Brutalist style, they made frequent use of brick. The odd fancy style at variance to everything. Heating and leaking issues were common from new. Wikipedia conflates Brutalism and New Brutalism too. We might remember the style less harshly, but it also coincided with significant economy - especially in Europe with post-war rebuilding, and the horrible fad of New Brutalism planning. The reality was often living in an inconvenient slum in the sky, with poor access, little thought, and nowhere to sit, or let the kids out. They failed quickly as communities and places to live. They often needed repair before first use. The better examples (most of those we kept) are mostly public buildings, had enough design to be interesting, but worked as buildings. The urban planning of New Brutalism is usually markedly absent. The worst, mostly now blown up, were some combination of the urban planning and cost cutting combined. Usually combined with the simpler slab sided brutalism. No consideration of humans, or life. Often built so cheaply as to need repair immediately. Brutalism of style, urban planning or brutality of life rapidly became indistinguishable. We arrived at Brutalism the insult. The end of New Brutalism in the UK came with the building of Hulme Crescent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulme_Crescents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulme_Crescents (It's an entertaining read - how to get everything wrong.) Opened in 72, failing in 73, and the final nail of New Brutalism socialist utopias in the sky. Just three years after opening, 96.3% of residents wanted to leave. Later the estate had the highest suicide rate in the UK. The architects had also given Manchester the universally reviled Arndale Centre, so far over budget it almost bankrupted the city. Numerous refurbishments were done to try and make it work. It improved, but never really worked before the IRA demolished it. No one killed, but hundreds injured. The rebuild was dramatically better, though took some years to complete. How the architects got a second job in the city has never been explained. There would still be the odd building with Brutalist achitecture, the urban planning movement was done. The early Brutalism of texture, shadow, angles is vastly more interesting than modern curtain walled retail and commercial, with a cliche barn clock, or cutesy feature, and cost as first, last, everything. Source: I'm old enough to remember them still building this shoddy junk, and making promises about brutalist buildings, Hulme Crescents, shopping centres etc. Fortunately never had to live in one.

by nealrs 10y ago

at-fates-hands 10y ago

Not sure how they did that tbh. You'd think they'd take five minutes and do a Google search: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture The term originates from the French word for "raw" in the term used by Le Corbusier to describe his choice of material béton brut (raw concrete).[1][2] British architectural critic Reyner Banham adapted the term into "brutalism" (originally "New Brutalism") to identify the emerging style. The very first paragraph of the article is completely wrong: it was a term of abuse for the work of architects whose buildings confronted their users — brutalized them — with hulking, piled-up slabs of raw, unfinished concrete. These same architects, centered on the British couple Alison and Peter Smithson, enthusiastically took up Brutalism as the name for their movement with a kind of pride, as if to say: That’s right, we are brutal. We do want to shove your face in cement. This is depressing to think about this revisionist history. This was apart of the modern architectural movement of the 20th century, not some sort of audacious idea of an your face art movement. Just. . .so. . .wrong on so many levels

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Fricken 10y ago
I'm not seeing the conflict. Brutalism is an english term, embraced by British architects who were fully aware of what it suggested. If they didn't want the term for their brand of architecture to imply brutality, they would have gone with something different. Concretism or Rawchitecture or something, I don't know.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
And yet I find brutalist architecture to be, if not brutal, at least dehumanizing. It's a place that is cold, inhuman (in the sense of being a place where humans don't really fit). Forcing people to live in that environment may not be brutal, but it's kind of cruel, or at least uncaring.
- throwanem 10y ago
  It always makes me think Brave New World in the way it subordinates a sense of humanity to a specific design, and also in the way that design isn't as clever or durable as those who promulgate it imagine it will be.
vilhelm_s 10y ago
I feel this claim, that the term derives from "raw", seems super suspicious. It is repeated very often, but I've never seen any scholarly analysis of where the word comes from. If you look at the Wikipedia talk page, you'll find people pointing out that that etymology doesn't seem to make any sense: the oldest attestations of the word is from a Swedish (rather than French) writer talking about "nybrutalism", which got borrowed into English as "New Brutalism". And the building which was described as "nybrutalism" was made of brick, not concrete. If you can find any information about how Le Corbusier coined the term and when, it would be great if you could add it to the Wiki page!
- niftich 10y ago
  He wrote a letter in 1962 to a fellow architect in which he said: "Beton brut was born at the Unité d'Habitation at Marseilles where there were 80 contractors and such a massacre of concrete that one simply could not dream of making useful transitions by means of grouting. I decided: let us leave all that brute. I called it 'beton brute' [bare concrete]. The English immediately jumped on the piece and treated me (Ronchamp and Monastery of La Tourette) as 'Brutal' -- beton brutal -- all things considered, the brute is Corbu. They called that 'the new brutality'. My friends and admirers take me for the brute of brutal concrete!" [1][2] [1] https://f50collective.com/2016/09/19/brutalist-architecture/ https://f50collective.com/2016/09/19/brutalist-architecture/ [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=b-OUxSelykIC&lpg=PA18&ots=vb60zelHH5&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=b-OUxSelykIC&lpg=PA18&ots=...
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    Based on that, it sounds like the original inspiration was indeed "raw", but it was almost immediately tagged as "brutal" in English, and its admirers knowingly embraced that term. So perhaps the article oversimplifies things, but the broad strokes seem to be correct.
JonnieCache 10y ago
There's also the connection to Art Brut, a term for outsider art which was popular around the same time. It is only in french that there are these connections though, in english as well as many other languages it only has the harsh, violent meaning. This is all discussed in the documentaries I've linked elsewhere in this thread.
anexprogrammer 10y ago
Not wrong, just confusing two different movements. My understanding is: I don't think it's clear where Brutalism first came from, or why Le Corbusier coined it. His style was something different again - detailed, sometimes whimsical, but in concrete. http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/heritage/brutalism http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/herit... Has a fair summary. Whether it started as "The New Brutalism" from the Reynar Banham essay or not, it was soon just "Brutalism". That was the architectural style: angles, textures, shadow, imposing mass. A plainer variation without texture or detail. Just ugly slab sided concrete. Both variations co-existed, not just cost-cutting, so probably architect preference too. It didn't brutalise the users, or shove your face quite in it... yet. "New Brutalism" was the urban planning movement that Alison and Peter Smithson created after falling out with CIAM. They might have named it more helpfully! "Streets in the Sky" etc. To them it was an impersonal socialist utopia. People were irrelevant. Much of the bad rep of Brutalism is here. The Smithsons seem to have been as good at architecture as they were urban planning (terrible). It's said they led the simpler, plainer variation, but their own buildings had many inconsistent variations from either Brutalist style, they made frequent use of brick. The odd fancy style at variance to everything. Heating and leaking issues were common from new. Wikipedia conflates Brutalism and New Brutalism too. We might remember the style less harshly, but it also coincided with significant economy - especially in Europe with post-war rebuilding, and the horrible fad of New Brutalism planning. The reality was often living in an inconvenient slum in the sky, with poor access, little thought, and nowhere to sit, or let the kids out. They failed quickly as communities and places to live. They often needed repair before first use. The better examples (most of those we kept) are mostly public buildings, had enough design to be interesting, but worked as buildings. The urban planning of New Brutalism is usually markedly absent. The worst, mostly now blown up, were some combination of the urban planning and cost cutting combined. Usually combined with the simpler slab sided brutalism. No consideration of humans, or life. Often built so cheaply as to need repair immediately. Brutalism of style, urban planning or brutality of life rapidly became indistinguishable. We arrived at Brutalism the insult. The end of New Brutalism in the UK came with the building of Hulme Crescent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulme_Crescents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulme_Crescents (It's an entertaining read - how to get everything wrong.) Opened in 72, failing in 73, and the final nail of New Brutalism socialist utopias in the sky. Just three years after opening, 96.3% of residents wanted to leave. Later the estate had the highest suicide rate in the UK. The architects had also given Manchester the universally reviled Arndale Centre, so far over budget it almost bankrupted the city. Numerous refurbishments were done to try and make it work. It improved, but never really worked before the IRA demolished it. No one killed, but hundreds injured. The rebuild was dramatically better, though took some years to complete. How the architects got a second job in the city has never been explained. There would still be the odd building with Brutalist achitecture, the urban planning movement was done. The early Brutalism of texture, shadow, angles is vastly more interesting than modern curtain walled retail and commercial, with a cliche barn clock, or cutesy feature, and cost as first, last, everything. Source: I'm old enough to remember them still building this shoddy junk, and making promises about brutalist buildings, Hulme Crescents, shopping centres etc. Fortunately never had to live in one.