Brutalism (and modernism in general) was/is a fundamentalist way of thinking. They wanted buildings to embody principles, that could be rationally justified. G

Brutalism (and modernism in general) was/is a fundamentalist way of thinking. They wanted buildings to embody principles, that could be rationally justified. Generally speaking, fundamentalism is usually a bad word. We use it when people seem to view the world through a narrow framework, and can't even engage with ideas, facts or truths from outside that framework. We tend to think of authorotarian religions, strict political doctrines and such. But... there are other examples of fundamentalism, that we call out more rarely. Science, for examaple, is very fundamentalist. It is, after all, a narrow framework for determining truth that ignores anything which can't fit into it's framework. Anyway.... the modernist movement(s) failed, in terms of proving it's principles but it did have some significant influence. Personally, I think the biggest reason was economics. Architects (especially the more ideological types) often hate having commercial decisions impact their work in any way. Ultimately, I don't think you can (philosophically) have a truly rational "theory of buildings" that ignore economics. Economy of space, materials, labour... money. Still... I think there's some value in purity, embodying ideas as fully as we can. Not everything that fails is a failure. Imagine a town that's fundamentally democratic. It probably won't work, but we need someone to try it so that we can learn.