4 ms·
Huh. My understanding is that brutalism's claimed emphasis on practicality was kind of a pose, and that it was more of a competition to see who could be the mos
by majos 8y ago
Huh. My understanding is that brutalism's claimed emphasis on practicality was kind of a pose, and that it was more of a competition to see who could be the most anti-bourgeois, to the extent that the working class hated living in honest, unpretentious brutalist public housing since it was so uncomfortable.
As an added bonus the rise of brutalism and international style, and the attendant disdain for intricate and expensive craftsmanship in favor of honest mass-produced clean lines, put a bunch of working-class craftsmen out of work.
Of course, I got all this from one read of From Bauhaus to Our House, so it's a little prejudiced.
- Arkdy 8y agoI never considered that the move away from ornaments might be a net negative on working class jobs. That's a little chilling. _From Bauhaus to our House_ was published in 81 (near the end of the movement), so it's completely possible that Brutalism had strayed from it's original ethos by then. Still, outside the book, it should be noted that some of the recent backlash against the style is based on looking at an unmaintained building, and then blaming it for crime rates etc, conveniently ignoring other soci-economic factors. Also, one of the flaws/features of the style was that since you're showing the materials, they needed to be high-quality and maintained. You couldn't just paint over cracks. This means that they're sensitive to neglect, and often, they were.