> 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 wi

> 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.