Apologists and defenders of brutalism often use astonishing arguments. Here, for example, is what an Australian wrote recently:
Unrefined concrete was an honest expression of [brutalist architects’] intentions, while plain forms and exposed structures were similarly sincere.
This is like saying that the Gulag was an honest expression of Stalin’s intentions. Sincerity of intentions is not a virtue irrespective of what those intentions are, and as a matter of fact those of the inspirer and founder of brutalism were clearly evil, as the slightest acquaintance with his writings will convince anyone of minimal decency. And what exactly is “sincerity of form and exposed structures”? Is it meant to imply that anything other than brutalism is insincere?
The same article continues:
Beyond their architectural function, Brutalist buildings serve other uses. Skateboarders, graffiti artists and parkour practitioners, for example, have all used Brutalism’s concrete surfaces in innovative ways.
Dear God! I have nothing against playgrounds — they are socially commendable, especially for children — but to regard the urban fabric as properly an extended playground is surely to infantilize the population. As for graffiti artists, to regard the extension of their “canvas” to large public buildings is an abject surrender to vandalism. No one, I presume, would say of a wall, “And in addition it would make an excellent place for a firing squad.”
Theodore Dalrymple, “The Brutalist Strain”, Taki’s Magazine, 2019-11-02.
February 4, 2020
QotD: Brutalist “sincerity”
Comments Off on QotD: Brutalist “sincerity”
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
