4 ms·

Brutalism is a lot more interesting when you have a vague idea of the background of it => it's a kind of socialist/communist philosophy in architecture, pretty

Brutalism is a lot more interesting when you have a vague idea of the background of it => it's a kind of socialist/communist philosophy in architecture, pretty buildings are the enshrinement of social hierarchies into architecture, so build something that is egalitarian by nature - lots of identical units, function over form. Open spaces, honesty in the sense that the architecture shows you how it's really made with exposed concrete etc, not a facade. I guess you could argue that it's the lisp of architecture - no hiding the construction. I guess the point is that it's not mindlessly ugly, it's a statement about priorities and honesty in aesthetics.

Nursie 8y ago
But you have to look at the results - ugly monoliths that create oppressive spaces. Having grown up around the results in the towns and cities of England, it's hard to see these ideals when a grey-brown lump of concrete is blocking out the already weak winter sunlight, unbroken straight lines make the wind howl through and chill you, and dark spaces accumulate litter and urine and seem to just encourage social problems. So that's why I don't grok the mindset - can people not see what it actually becomes? I get that egalitarianism was there in the intent, but intent is not really relevant. Results are relevant.
- fredley 8y ago
  As with all architecture there are good and bad examples (with bad examples usually lost over time - leaving only the good), and with brutalism in particular issues with poor maintenance. Maintain any building of any age and architectural 'school' poorly and it will become rundown, shabby, and unpleasant to live in/around. I walk through the Barbican frequently, which is rightly a much celebrated building, and find it an extremely elevating experience. I also recently visited Royan Cathedral which is honestly one of the most beautiful I've ever been in. I think many brutalist buildings have been blighted by decades of neglect almost from right after they were built. That's not going to leave the best impression on anybody.
  - Nursie 8y ago
    I don't think you can just blame poor maintenance - the material and style choices are just poor to start with. The cathedral looks to me like a gun emplacement, or some relic of a forgotten war.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      Funny you mention relics of wars. Have you seen the ruins of the Oslobođenje building in Sarajevo? That war ruin somehow manages to capture the aesthetic of well maintained brutalist architecture almost perfectly. Brutalist buildings on their best days look like ruins from a city under siege. Walking into a neighborhood with brutalist architecture feels like you've walked into some alternate timeline where WWIII is raging. The cynical side of me suspects that brutalist architecture is a reflection of the psychological damage WWII inflicted on a generation of architects. They experienced an ugly world, then sought to recreate that ugliness in their work. Experiencing war corrupted them. Their legacy, their still standing buildings, are not unlike the iron harvest French and Belgian farmers experience every year when they till their fields and find bombs from WWI.
auganov 8y ago
Personally, I find the ideological background of that style does very much align with the kind ugliness it evokes. Creates a feeling of a hopeless, purposeless world where nobody cares about you. Aesthetically I don't think it's universally that bad. The real ugliness comes in when you actually look inside the units[0]. Quickly becomes apparent how at odds this style is with the way real people want to live. People go to great lengths to differentiate their seemingly identical unit. As if trying to maintain identity in a jail cell. [0] or at attempts to "prettify" common areas
barry-cotter 8y ago
> I guess the point is that it's not mindlessly ugly, it's a statement about priorities and honesty in aesthetics. Indeed, it’s not mindlessly ugly, it’s deliberately ugly. It’s like the difference between someone accidentally smashing fine porcelain and taking a hammer to it.

Nursie 8y ago

But you have to look at the results - ugly monoliths that create oppressive spaces. Having grown up around the results in the towns and cities of England, it's hard to see these ideals when a grey-brown lump of concrete is blocking out the already weak winter sunlight, unbroken straight lines make the wind howl through and chill you, and dark spaces accumulate litter and urine and seem to just encourage social problems. So that's why I don't grok the mindset - can people not see what it actually becomes? I get that egalitarianism was there in the intent, but intent is not really relevant. Results are relevant.

fredley 8y ago
As with all architecture there are good and bad examples (with bad examples usually lost over time - leaving only the good), and with brutalism in particular issues with poor maintenance. Maintain any building of any age and architectural 'school' poorly and it will become rundown, shabby, and unpleasant to live in/around. I walk through the Barbican frequently, which is rightly a much celebrated building, and find it an extremely elevating experience. I also recently visited Royan Cathedral which is honestly one of the most beautiful I've ever been in. I think many brutalist buildings have been blighted by decades of neglect almost from right after they were built. That's not going to leave the best impression on anybody.
- Nursie 8y ago
  I don't think you can just blame poor maintenance - the material and style choices are just poor to start with. The cathedral looks to me like a gun emplacement, or some relic of a forgotten war.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Funny you mention relics of wars. Have you seen the ruins of the Oslobođenje building in Sarajevo? That war ruin somehow manages to capture the aesthetic of well maintained brutalist architecture almost perfectly. Brutalist buildings on their best days look like ruins from a city under siege. Walking into a neighborhood with brutalist architecture feels like you've walked into some alternate timeline where WWIII is raging. The cynical side of me suspects that brutalist architecture is a reflection of the psychological damage WWII inflicted on a generation of architects. They experienced an ugly world, then sought to recreate that ugliness in their work. Experiencing war corrupted them. Their legacy, their still standing buildings, are not unlike the iron harvest French and Belgian farmers experience every year when they till their fields and find bombs from WWI.

auganov 8y ago

Personally, I find the ideological background of that style does very much align with the kind ugliness it evokes. Creates a feeling of a hopeless, purposeless world where nobody cares about you. Aesthetically I don't think it's universally that bad. The real ugliness comes in when you actually look inside the units[0]. Quickly becomes apparent how at odds this style is with the way real people want to live. People go to great lengths to differentiate their seemingly identical unit. As if trying to maintain identity in a jail cell. [0] or at attempts to "prettify" common areas

barry-cotter 8y ago

> I guess the point is that it's not mindlessly ugly, it's a statement about priorities and honesty in aesthetics. Indeed, it’s not mindlessly ugly, it’s deliberately ugly. It’s like the difference between someone accidentally smashing fine porcelain and taking a hammer to it.