Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelscott | Hacker News Reader

Correct, brutalism is concerned with total utilitarianism and a complete lack of artifice (the material is irrelevant, although a lot of brutalist architecture is made from concrete). It contrasts itself with minimalism by taking it to the extreme and creating an almost anti-human aesthetic.

This makes it appropriate for buildings that are looking to evoke anti-human ideals; churches and monasteries (divinity of God over the profanity of man), as well as many governmental buildings of the period (intimidation and hopefully an inhuman/machine-like approach to orderliness and bureaucracy)

View on HN

>This makes it appropriate for buildings that are looking to evoke anti-human ideals; churches and monasteries

Have you seen an actual monastery? An actual old church (at least 700 years) kept in its original style?

They are as far as you can get from just utilitarian, to the point that they are impractial in many ways.

Nobody needs, or have any use for, a 120 foot ceiling, except to impress visitors by showing them the glory of God. Nobody needs the entire outside of the building having a row of stone Gargoyles hand carved in the smallest details, but they are there.

I'm talking about brutalism as a chosen approach for an architect and where that approach is most appropriate for a building. It doesn't mean that all churches or monasteries should be brutalist (obviously), I'm saying it's one of the use cases for a new piece of architecture where brutalism makes sense.

> 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.

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

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.

> 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.

> Correct, brutalism is concerned with total utilitarianism and a complete lack of artifice

but, every brutalist structure i’ve had the displeasure to work in sucked for humans to occupy and interact with. They completely prioritize artifice over functional matters.

I often find brutalist buildings to be comfortable and inspiring.

There are a number of brutalist academic libraries that I find delightful to be inside of, using them for library purposes. Somehow it's a style suited for libraries?

I went to school here, and this one from the OUTSIDE I don't love, but on the INSIDE it's actually a delightful place to read, browse the stacks, study, or nap. And has been beloved by generations of students. https://www.oberlin.edu/mudd-center

University Library at Northwestern University, I find lovely outside as well as pleasant inside: https://www.library.northwestern.edu/ (There are some alternate entrances and terraces which are closed due to notions of "security" in a facility like this, but which would make it even more pleasant and human-oriented if open. I guess that is then one way it's design ended up incompatible with at least current usage demands. I'm curious if they were open to patrons when the building first opened).

You may be right. My hometown's library and civic center (pool, gym, meeting rooms) are brutalist, and I always found them delightful.

The first modernist architects were implicitly working with a theory that simply highlighting the "raw" use of new, high-tech materials like metal or concrete would result in an enjoyable, decorative look. They weren't necessarily going for a "brutal" appearance, that was more of an unintended consequence that only became clear in retrospect.

Yup, that's the after effect of being anti-human in ideal. It results in a building that it sucks to be in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com