4 ms·

> brutalism is concerned with total utilitarianism and a complete lack of artifice That would be functionalism. > It contrasts itself with minimalism by takin

by tpm 5y ago

> brutalism is concerned with total utilitarianism and a complete lack of artifice That would be functionalism. > It contrasts itself with minimalism by taking it to the extreme and creating an almost anti-human aesthetic. Exactly, and this anti-human aesthetic, inhumanity, intimidation implies that the building must have an emotional or aesthetic impact on the visitor, which is in conflict with the proclaimed utilitarianism. So brutalism in this sense is already moving away from purely functional/utilitarian architecture.

jrochkind1 5y ago
They are not unrelated. As I've always understood it, brutalism was definitely about avoiding artifice, and exposing functional elements. Wikipedia seems to agree. (An encyclopedia is a pretty good place to go for a common starting point when we're talking about what a term like this means!) > Brutalist buildings are characterised by minimalist constructions that showcase the bare building materials and structural elements over decorative design… > New Brutalism is not only an architectural style; it is also a philosophical approach to architectural design, a striving to create simple, honest, and functional buildings that accommodate their purpose, inhabitants, and location. Stylistically, Brutalism is a strict, modernistic design language that has been said to be a reaction to the architecture of the 1940s, much of which was characterised by a retrospective nostalgia.[29] Peter Smithson believed that the core of Brutalism was a reverence for materials, expressed honestly… > A common theme in Brutalist designs is the exposure of the building's inner-workings—ranging from their structure and services to their human use—in the exterior of the building… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture
michaelscott 5y ago
An architectural style can do more than one thing, i.e. it can be both utilitarian in its aesthetic and also be anti-human in its output. Philosophically, I'm not sure these are mutually exclusive but I suppose that's debatable.
- tpm 5y ago
  > it can be both utilitarian in its aesthetic and also be anti-human in its output What I am trying to say is that its 'anti-human' aesthetic is in conflict with professed utilitarism, because it adds elements that are superfluous to the utility. And I think for a part of brutalist architecture this is pretty clearly a break with functionalism/modernism and a precursor (one of many) to postmodern architecture. But I'll leave this to the experts.

by tpm 5y ago

jrochkind1 5y ago

They are not unrelated. As I've always understood it, brutalism was definitely about avoiding artifice, and exposing functional elements. Wikipedia seems to agree. (An encyclopedia is a pretty good place to go for a common starting point when we're talking about what a term like this means!) > Brutalist buildings are characterised by minimalist constructions that showcase the bare building materials and structural elements over decorative design… > New Brutalism is not only an architectural style; it is also a philosophical approach to architectural design, a striving to create simple, honest, and functional buildings that accommodate their purpose, inhabitants, and location. Stylistically, Brutalism is a strict, modernistic design language that has been said to be a reaction to the architecture of the 1940s, much of which was characterised by a retrospective nostalgia.[29] Peter Smithson believed that the core of Brutalism was a reverence for materials, expressed honestly… > A common theme in Brutalist designs is the exposure of the building's inner-workings—ranging from their structure and services to their human use—in the exterior of the building… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture

michaelscott 5y ago

An architectural style can do more than one thing, i.e. it can be both utilitarian in its aesthetic and also be anti-human in its output. Philosophically, I'm not sure these are mutually exclusive but I suppose that's debatable.

tpm 5y ago
> it can be both utilitarian in its aesthetic and also be anti-human in its output What I am trying to say is that its 'anti-human' aesthetic is in conflict with professed utilitarism, because it adds elements that are superfluous to the utility. And I think for a part of brutalist architecture this is pretty clearly a break with functionalism/modernism and a precursor (one of many) to postmodern architecture. But I'll leave this to the experts.