Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by baumgarn 1146 days ago
This is not really what brutalism is about. Brutalism in architecture is often very playful and indeed more like a poetry and celebration of the raw materials and structure, not at all about the pure functionality absence of any aesthetic as formulated in that text. Brutalist buildings often neglect functionality in favour of architectural idiosyncracies. Like for example Trellick Tower: the elevators are in a separate tower outside the building and only serve every third floor. Brutalism celebrates raw form over function, and mostly people really don't enjoy living in these buildings.
9 comments

Brutalism is one of those things that means many things to many people, and gets brutally simplified (heh) in the public eye. There's more to any brutalist building than the architect's own idea of brutalism, and of course each architect's idea of what brutalism can be is more than the stripped-down least common denominator definition.

For example, one of the ideas behind using raw concrete for public buildings instead of something sleeker and more expensive is to make public institutions more welcoming and accessible to ordinary people. Traditionally, public buildings were built to project the prestige and power of the class of people who ran elite institutions, at the expense of common people who themselves might feel a bit raw and brutal compared to the sleek and expensive buildings where the sleek and expensive elites ran the world in their sleek and expensive suits. Raw concrete is supposed to communicate that the building, and the institution inside, is (at least supposed to be) working for the public, not spending their money to elevate and aggrandize the people in power.

In other words, in those cases, concrete is meant to create a relatable and accessible rawness, like Gritty the Philadelphia Flyers mascot.

I think it works out a lot better in reality than people think, when a building is well-designed. Architectural photography can hide ugliness — almost every building has its equivalent of the flattering "Myspace angle" — but it can also manufacture it, and with the right lighting, angle, and exposure, it's easy to make any tall concrete building look like a gloomy looming hulk.

Local feelings are a better guide to whether a building is good or not than the feelings of people who have never seen a building in person and have been primed by tendentious photography.

My favorite architecture combines raw elements (concrete, brick, structural supports) with softer touches. To me, the exposed skeleton denotes honesty and stability.
When I was in Switzerland like ten years ago a lot if newer buildings had both exposed concrete and wood. Not a lot of wood, but enough to provide some accents in the otherwise gray texture.
Who knew Gritty was a brutalist mascot!
This is always mentioned, but the term is growing on me. I think we just want websites that are easy to load and read that don’t make a few tabs on chrome take 3GB of memory.
What about simply Functionalism?

Brutalism is indeed overused and has a clear meaning for architecture that really do not overlap with these "guidelines"

but the word brutalism is just too delicious to let the architects have it for a style they've moved on from based on a building material that's so specific to buildings. It's like modernism, there's always a new modern.

and I'm not joking, I think the word brutalist is so attractive to people that it begs to be recolonized regardless of the narrow context in which it once thrived.

I like your thinking, but there could be confusion if used imprecisely. Namely, people might think it's a website that isn't broken (this could be seen as a benefit for the playfully opinionated), or a website made primarily with functional languages/programming style.

I suppose you'd have to refer to a site as Functionalist.

Well I was thinking Functional Minimalism, but that's already not very minimalistic to have two words to define the category :)
To echo you, I was going to say myself that if anything current web design is more like brutalist architecture. It is a celebration of the raw materials and structure: HTML, CSS, JS. There are confusing features, technical flourishes, … well, maybe not so much poetry. Maybe roccoco, not brutalist?
Oh, there's definitely a poetry to them, though too often it's Vogon.
>Brutalism in architecture is often very playful

>not at all about the pure functionality absence of any aesthetic as

That's exactly the vibe I got from https://brutalistwebsites.com. Like many, I like both the aesthetics of brutalist architecture and brutalist websites – but that doesn't mean "form follows function" can be applied here. Many "brutalist" websites are very confusing, inaccessible, and/or impracticable. I suspect that minimalism or simplicism would be a better term for what the guidelines want to achieve.

Nevertheless, it is quite possible to combine playful aethetics with accessible technology, but that requires compromise and a lot of experience.

Reminds me about graphic design misapplying “deconstruction” during the 1990s.
I love the Trellick Tower! See also the former Greenwich Town Hall, which must have one of the best brutalist clock towers of all time: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meridian_House_(Form...
>more like a poetry

More like Vogon poetry to be exact...

Dunno about anyone else, but there are maybe only one or two buildings on this list that I think look okay, and some are outright hideous.

Even the ones that look okay (the first one in particular) could be easily imagined to look better if they used more lively materials.

It’s definitely a case of beauty in the eye of the beholder. I looked at this list and wished more architecture was similar.
> beauty in the eye of the beholder

Yeah, I can acknowledge that. Though surveys do show that most people tend to favor classical architecture.

There's also the matter of what you're comparing it to. Some brutalism may not be beautiful, or as beautiful as something classical in form, but the best examples are just interesting in a way that a generic 5-over-2 building isn't.

I think maintenance of materials matters a lot as well. Concrete's aesthetic really depends on it being clean and crack-free.

> > beauty in the eye of the beholder

> Concrete's aesthetic really depends on it being clean and crack-free.

... unless you're into the aesthetic of crumbling urban decay? I mean I should know better than to pick pointless fights on the internet, but you kinda teed it up

it's a different kind of 'beauty' :)

In some strange way it reminds me of Koyaanisqatsi, now 40 years old (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35764584)

I saw it in a movie theater a long time ago, the images where exiting, the music unlike anything I had every heard... It was stimulating and at the same time uncomfortable, I remember I was glad to finally see the credits after 1.5 hours of a bombardment of sound.

Still it made a big impression on me and made me discover a whole new genre of music and composers.

Pragmatism!