Brutalism is a highly controversial architectural style which flourished during the 1950s and 60s in Britain, as the capital slowly began the inauguration of rehabilitating itself as a whole – after the disastrous effects of the Second World War. Brutalism has it roots in Modernism; however, it emerged as a movement in revolt to the architectural mainstream. Brutalism attempted to come out of the Modernist movement on the basis of an undeniably honest approach to architecture, demanding that form follow function. Pioneers thought that the most successful way of doing so would be to avoid unnecessary flourishes.
In other words, relying on clean lines and ‘honest detailing’. Brutalism adheres to no official definition; it is more so associated with the evocative feeling given to the audience, rather than a defined list of requirements. Brutalism in its physical form gives great consideration to the choice of materiality, textures and construction. Notionally, bestowing great emphasise on functionality and equality. Pioneers of Brutalism challenged traditional ideals of how architectural styles were formerly approached. They took measures to raise the benchmark of idealistic standards.
When determining what a building should like look, as much focus was placed on the interior as much as the exterior. This newfound adoption made for a noteworthy quality that demarcates Brutalism from many other movements. The exterior declares its dominance through the characterisation of authoritative block-like forms. The dynamic, geometric style is of a monolithic nature, containing copious amounts of rough, poured concrete. These characteristics are expressed as peculiarities that form the basis of common opinions, both positive and negative.
Identifiers such as “bold”, “brash” and “confrontational are attributive to the style of Brutalism. The enterprising nature of Brutalism could not be more misunderstood. Its very name is delusive, causing many to associate such concrete creations with many of its synonyms, such as “cold”, “harsh”, “crude” and “hostile”. In contrary to popular belief, many are deemed to be wrongful in condemning this style of architecture in such a way. Brutalism never meant to have any sort of connotation with the assumed “brutal”.
Architects Alison and Peter Smithson avidly used this term to describe their particular construction method: exposure of structure, together with the disinclination of masking the interior with finishes. Ultimately, this came to be a favourable way of constructing, for the purpose of allowing occupants to see how the building functioned and to see how it was built. Following this, it was only later when Le Corbusier used the French derivative “beton-brut” (literally translating as “raw concrete”) to describe his own work, that brutalism was associated with concrete.
Later, writer Reyner Banham popularised the expression. Rather than having anything to do with ‘brutality’ – which it has regrettably become greatly associated with, Brutalism as a movement, was concerned with so much more. Originally emerging in the early 1950s, Brutalism was sought through the dissatisfaction of existing forms of Modernism present at this time. The primary objective of this movement was to make a conscious departure of the existing architectural style – which many had rejected -in pursuance of a ‘heroic’ spirit.
War ravaged Britain demanded a solution that was modern and forward thinking, appropriately fitting to the excitement that was to follow the initial post war depression. Architects of this time envisioned Britain to become something much greater than what is was at this time. It could be said that Brutalism was a response that conceptually reflected utopian aspirations. A contributing factor as to why the movement of Brutalism was remarkably controversial was for its continual divide in opinion.
Brutalism both aroused passion and fury of equal measure. Buildings of this style have been praised as revolutionary but have also been decreed as “cold” and “soulless” by others. Firstly, to have an opinion on a contentious architectural style as such, one must approach it contextually. To be able to understand and interpret its beauty, it is imperative that one look at it in context. One must place ones self in a hypothetical position of a post war scenario, imagining what life must have been like during this time.
Just approaching the mid turn of the 20th century, as soon as the Second World War came to finish, chaos and confusion were the feelings most prominent in the lives of British citizens. “Freedom of thought and expression were still disrupted, however, getting more hopeful. Social unrest was increasing: there was a general disappointing suppression of thought at this time. Britain as whole was looking for some sort of salvation”. During this time of reassessment, Brutalism was quickly introduced and gained considerable momentum in Britain.
By cause of recession, the economically depressed country had an increasingly growing need of an inexpensive construction and design solution. The urgent need for reconstructing big cities by the process of erecting masses of housing, public and governmental spaces became increasingly apparent. The best way to describe this move towards ‘simplicity’, ‘towards a ‘better life’ is to call it a “budget utopia”. The architects behind the movement dreamt of a better place, intending to do the best that they could with what was available. Therefore, the production of these ‘solutions were hailed as a vision of the future.
Functionality and durability were comprehensively, two prime constituents of this architectural style. In order to have executed these functions accordingly, a wise choice of materiality was crucial. Concrete presented the most effective way of transforming governmental buildings, public spaces, but most importantly, new housing stock to a legion of people. There was a necessity for solidity during this period of social solidarity. The signature construction material of concrete seemed to be able to provide just that: a concentration of closeness, of compactness.
Philosophically, concrete is seen as humble, capable and honest. So, in relation to these large, strong, bold shapes, the buildings were effectively able to conjure a sense of security. This was not easily found in the former, inferior architectural style. Designed with the best of intentions, both socially and economically, Brutalism was promoted as a positive option for the development and forward march of the country. However, in practice, a great deal of the buildings lacked many of the community-serving features that Le Corbusier envisioned.
Instead, it could be seen that many “developed into claustrophobic, crime-ridden tenements”. Smithson’s Robin Hood Gardens promptly became a notorious example. It became seemingly more apparent that if not prevented, buildings sharing the same issues as this, could become problematic. During this time, the buildings were vastly described as “fortress like” in their “unusual appearance”. It became apparent that Brutalism was not going to take a turn for the better in generating popular enthusiasm; instead, they were reduced to “characterless carbuncles of concrete” that had blighted the British urban landscape.
Others criticized the “hulking”, “austere” buildings for their “uncommunicative” and “unsympathetic” nature in ignoring historic architectural precedent, lacking the empathy for its surrounding architectural environment. “Brutalism” is a term with a big, broad label that is used inconsistently, obtaining to many intense connotations. It cannot be doubted that the general aesthetic of Brutalist buildings to some, may conjure up dreary associations. It has been thought by many, that at first sight, they are of an ‘imposition’ of harshness.
On the other hand, for many to say that the buildings of the Brutalist style do not offer anything else but an “eyesore” and that they’re an “offense” to human values, is unfair. It is unfair to strike up such negative criticism on something that was so obviously intended to offer a better life for people. The architectural style of Brutalism may not adhere to conventional standards to what some may deem “beautiful”, when referring to architecture, but for the fact that it had done so much for people, makes it beautiful in its own way.
The beautiful quality behind Brutalism is in the expression of honesty in its nature. This stems from Le Corbusier’s aspiration that the buildings feel like they were created by man and not a machine. So to say this, Brutalism is a very particular aesthetic that represents a moment in time, in more of a humanistic way. Brutalism was about bringing new life to the city centres. This renewal of life was to help strengthen communities in a transformative way.
This honest, progressive movement exuded a muscular character, providing a sense of security that was very much sought after. You can’t see your reflection in a Brutalist building, because its design was not about the individual, it was about the multitude. ” It was about the securing the communities in their entirety, providing confidence and certitude through the actuality of what was around them. Enthusiasts praised Brutalism’s explicit functionality. Through the dominance of a completely utilitarian approach, these futuristic, otherworldly creations were forward thinking for the fact that they were designed to look into the future – not to the past – for their inspiration.
They thought about it in the long run, they wanted them to stand the test of time. The buildings were designed from the inside out. The purpose of the building and what happens inside was the most important part – the outside is merely the envelope that wraps it up. “Brutalism makes the whole conception of the building plain and comprehensible. No mystery, no romanticism, no obscurities about function and circulation. ” Essentially, Brutalism is a no-nonsense style.