Essay Plan
A Close reading on Reyner Banham’s essay on ‘The New Brutalism’
Introduction
Through the reading of Reyner Banham’s essay on ‘The New Brutalism’, this essay aims to achieve a closer insight on the style and theories of the Brutalist architecture. The style’s appellation originated from the french translation, ‘béton-brut’, which meant ‘raw concrete’. Brutalism was first introduced by the architects Peter, and Alison Smithson who formed an emergence of many controversies of its definition and characteristics. The post-war architecture sought to reveal the honesty of material due to the experience of an economic crisis. This critical point of time leads to many instances of using material that was efficient and mass-produced to the body of architects and builders for rapid restoration. Resources before this point often followed the white cube functionalist appeal of the ‘pre-war heroes’ of this movement. Instead, this post-war reaction took a different approach to white painted and render of bricks that represented a machine-finished concrete surface. However, Brutalists, who commonly involved, Reyner Banham, The Smithsons, James Sterling and many others, went with more of an honest approach to material finishes. Examples of a rough finish would involve unpainted brickwork, unplastered brickwork, and exposure of shutter work on concrete. Numerous other material that were predominantly involved, such as steel, glass, and more traditional types used in more unified and large-mass forms in a more distinctively modern form were marble, stone, and brick.
Reyner Banham’s discussion in his text provides an insight into the effects of Brutalism and the concept behind this movement as a bi-ism categorisation – consisting of a bridging between cubism: a label or tag created by historians, and futurism: a banner or policy adopted by a group of artists. This essay discusses Banham’s concept of ‘the image’ of Modernism and its meaning whilst being an ideal aesthetic as an unresolved visual. It also informs the fact that Brutalism is a mere reflection of the nature of a cause evident through the society’s culture and historical events, and finally the importance of maintaining a balance between structure, function and form in future architecture. Therefore, Brutalism was for security and a way of re-establishment resulting in a clear reflection of the post-war economic difficulties.
Argument 1: Brutalism merely reflects the nature of a cause through its method of re-establishment
Brutalism was not merely a style but through its methods of re-establishment, reflects the true nature of the cause. Banham speaks of Brutalism’s upheaval as a mere reflection of World War II and countries, America and Western Europe’s economic depression that coincided with this particular historical event.This sparked many new insights, innovations on the theory and methodology of architectural design and the materialistic quality of buildings. The Industrial revolution was a time of machine development and with this vast use of machinery, had a major impact on people’s lifestyles. People of the working class and rural areas no longer required to produce goods by hand and the machinery enhanced the quality, accuracy and efficiency of production. This provided all resources and equipment for when the First World War began. However, due to the mass destruction of buildings and life source, countries resolved to the re-construction of their cities with the aid of an efficient and fast-paced industry.
According to Architecture historian from Columbia University, Beatriz Colomina, describes Brutalism as a post war situation that was painfully haunted. It was the significance on the “as found” theory that many architects and critics adopted as what depicted the pure struggle of the economy and the ‘architecture of aftermath.’ As it was initially focussed within England, the journal branched beyond Britain to other destinations like New Zealand, Brazil, and later involvements which picked up several Brutalist manifestations. Situated in Sao Paulo, the FAU-USP project completed in 1969 was a building consisting of a massive concrete volume supported by spindly legs. This particular building aimed to mimic the hopelessness and frailty of the society’s poverty. Author of the ‘Journal of Society of Architectural Historians,’ continues to discuss Artigas’ declaration that followed Theo Crosby’s composition of the stripping back in stylish facades in architecture. Artigas comments that “one should not cover existing conflicting conflicts with an elegant mask, but expose them without fear.” He comments around the same time of Alison and Peter Smithson’s ‘Streets in the sky’ concept in which opposes his perspective.
It was evident that the post-war modernism overflowed with stylistic and theoretical criticism and controversy. Two major controversies that are the most well-known are between Alison and Peter Smithson’s way of life, and Reyner Banham’s hypothesis. Although Brutalism may be known for its controversy, Dirk van den Heuvel suggests that Brutalism was born from controversy. Although the term’s first appearance in the Smithson’s article of AD magazine, 1953, the Smithsons did not receive the appreciate of their way of thinking. After countless letters to the editors and opposing comments about this infamous split between ethics and aesthetics, Banham’s hypthesis resulted in the last say on Brutalism.
Crosby’s articles predominantly promoted the ideas and interests of architecture-as-building in the Smithson’s way of Brutalism. He argued in the 1955 editorial on the New Brutalism ‘that “contemporary” functioned as shorthand for a bastardised version of modernism – a modernism that had already been liquidated of its ideals and reduced to nothing more than a stle for up-to-date living.’ Through his writing, he suggests a re-assessment of Modernism’s leading architects Le Corbusier and Mies Van Der Rohe to name a few. This bastardisation Crosby explains refers to done by these architects lean towards the opposition to the aestheticism concentration. Crosby’s view was somewhat similar to the Smithsons in which he quotes, “What is new about the New Brutalism among movements is that it finds its closest affinities, not in a past architectural style, but in peasant dwelling forms. It has nothing to do with craft. We see architecture as the direct result of a way of life.”
The Smithson’s outlook was more on the functional side of the argument with Arts and Crafts concepts. Their House in SOHO, London, failed to proceed in construction because of adjoining owners. This design comprised of materials such as bare concrete, wood and brick work; while internal finishes were completely empty providing an integration between shelter and environment. Their intention was to incorporate a structure that was exposed entirely to enhance their brutalist definition – A basic functionalist structure that reveals the ‘raw’ quality of concrete materiality.
On the other hand, Banham emphasises the ‘as found’ materials, clear plans and powerful imagery as his ideal of The New Brutalism. The term, similar to Theo Crosby’s labelling of the style as a “program,” “banner” or “a brick-bat flung in the public’s face.” insists on the structural design as its ‘impetus… to reform society.’ Banham’s view opposed the Smithsons. He discussed his hypothesis in a more aesthetic approach as a way to acknowledge and ‘pick up the pieces of a bombed and austere England’ in a way to display a re-establishment and honesty in construction. Through this, he aimed to create powerful images for those who may encounter these structures from America. Although Banham weighed attention on Brutalism’s aesthetics, not stylistically but in terms of atmospheric expression, this was most avoided by others due to complexities of the term. However, he emphasises structure’s equal importance to the material quality that the Smithsons employed.
Argument 2: Brutalism reveals ‘The Image’, an ideal aesthetic of modernism as an unresolved visual. (To each individual has their own ideal view of modernism)
Banham’s ‘The New Brutalism’ reveals aspects of ‘The Image’, as an ideal aesthetic of modernism as an unresolved visual. As it is a continuously evolving phrase, there are obvious clarities of meaning and articulations to be made of this notion of ‘image’. From this, many architects have insisted many of their own opinions and declarations on the Brutalist architecture. Banham describes his conditions of ‘the image’ as an instantaneous comprehension of the visual entity to be justified by the form’s experience through the eye. This idea of ‘an image’ has the ability “to describe anything or nothing.” In Banham’s text, he quotes St. Thomas Aquinas’ assumption of beauty as quod visum placet, meaning ‘that which seen, pleases and for imagery to be defined as quod visum perturbat, which seen, affects the emotions.’ However, the issue with using this phrase in reference to an ideal raises controversy as it is clear, that there are varied ideals to each individual and therefore poses an inappropriate description as ‘an image’. The New Brutalists were often regarded with an interest in the anti-art and the ignorance of architectural aesthetics.
Author of “The Troubled Relationship between Architecture and Aesthetic: Exploring The Self and Emotional Beauty in Design” from RMIT School of Architecture and Design, Yael Resiner-Cook discusses of this contradictory ideal ‘image’ as a direct relationship between one’s individual judgement. This results in a visual discrimination which leads to extensive cultural implications. The modernist architectural styles not only involve Brutalism but many others in which also display ideas of exterior concrete use. A range of these architectural styles include Constructivism, the International style, Expressionism, Postmodernism, and Deconstructivism all to which had similar characteristics to the Brutalist style. This evidently shows the cruciality of accuracy in definitions within the modern era and what characterised each of the styles.
Due to the introduction of this phrase ‘The New Brutalism,’ initiated by Alison Smithson, caused a wave of disagreement and criticism . American architect, Robert Venturi, claims that a building with a complex and contradictory image does not equal a picturesque or an intended expressionism. As the architect strongly promotes his opposition to purity and picturesqueness he continues to argue that there is a disconnection between the experience and the program being the origin of simplicity. Venturi goes on to praise The Doric Temple’s stylistic simplicity that was achieved through its renowned subtleties and the art of distorted geometry. He believed that this particular architecture held a real complexity behind its existing aesthetics.
Architects Alison and Peter Smithson also had a similar approach to Venturi’s ideal of ‘The Image’ or ‘The New Brutalism’. As mentioned in Professor Doctor Laurent Stalder’s article on ‘New Brutalism, Topology, and Image’, examines further into more architects and their different stylistic ideals of The New Brutalism. Stalder states that the attempts to define ‘New Brutalism’ by the post-modern and contemporaries often resolve to their own individual opinion in comparison to a precise, tangible foundation in its explanation of architectural theory.
The Soho House design was initially named ‘brutalist’ by Alison Smithson due to its entire-structural exposure that was open and was composed of non-existent internal finishing. Theo Crosby’s article that followed the Smithson’s design, mentions their later definition of the new brutalism as ‘reverence for materials’. However, Stalder continues that this information is neither old or new because of their correlation with the ethical demands of honesty in the Modernist architecture that also involved the ‘true principles’ by Pugin, John Ruskin’s architectural meaning behind ‘physical and material rationale,’ followed by Muthesius’ Sachlinchkeit’ and Hannes Meyer’s meaning of functionalism. Similarly, though with an extension of an aesthetic component, critic Reyner Banham’s became the first well-known analysis of ‘The New Brutalism’ definition. Split into three parts, this definition consisted of a ‘clear exhibition of structure’, the ‘valuation of materials “as found” and ‘memorability as image.’ Therefore, through acknowledgement of each architectural definition and style, it is evident that to assume the ideal aesthetic or form into a specific phrase would undoubtedly result in controversy and confusion as to each differently opinionated individual.
Argument 3: The collaboration with a balance of structure, function and form is the basic commonplace for a successful design. – MENTION BRUTALISM
It is evident that with a collaboration and balance between the structure, function and form of architecture as a successful design. Banham foresees this cruciality of the three aspects in relation to his concept of ‘image’ and as mentioned in the previous argument, that it is comprehended through the eye in coherence with the experience within the building in use. He argues that it is the ‘relationship between structure, function and form [that] is the basic commonplace of all good building.’ He continues to discuss the idea of the ‘uncommonplace’ in which translates into ‘great architecture’ achieved by a space that is ‘apprehensible and memorable.’
Banham’s main issue with this entire controversy was that due to the forgotten obligation to involve form with structure and function, proves the condition of the English architecture’s ethical decay. He argues that the improper use of the phrase ‘the conceptual building’ that is used to denote a new architecture is meaningless because of its lack of a form-giving experiential quality.
This formulated additional twists and alterations. However, Fill Hearn explains that the modernist architecture based upon Viollet Le Duc’s design methodology tended to incorporate form, however discarded the physical context and hence lacked an interconnection with the cultural values of the place. Robert Venturi poses a major contribution to this absense of cultural meaning. He wrote an essay depicting and reminiscing on the cultural meaning and the crucial essence of ‘Complexity and Contradiction’ in present and future movements of architecture.
Edward De Zurko, author of the ‘Origins of Functionalist Theory’ defines functionalism as an “adaptation of form to purpose the basic guiding principle of design and the principle yardstick by which to measure the excellence or the beauty of architecture.” However, Venturi’s states, “An architecture of complexity and contradiction, I reaffirm, does not mean picturesqueness or wilful expressionism.” Similar to Banham’s hypothesis, Venturi’s disapproval of this false complexity and false simplicity in which others name serene represents a disconnection with the experience and program as originating factors of simplicity. He criticises the work of those who have misunderstood and set aside this theory, Aalto, Le corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright as examples. In particular, Aalto’s church in Vvokenniska and quasi-expressionist Giovanni Michelluccis Church of the Autostrada, although complimented by critics, Venturi reveals that their complexity is only ‘part of the program and the structure of the whole rather than an expressive device justified only by the desire for expression.’ Although they have risen to success with their own ideals of architectural value, Venturi explains that those particular architects lacked a sense of real complexity in which should display a vivid whole.
Athough Venturi’s stylistic impact on the modern movement was ineffective and architects like Le Corbusier continued in success with his works, Venturi’s theory however continues to support the majority of the past four decades of architecture.
Le Corbusier’s later developments left the organic formalism theology and focussed more on the functionalism of this modernist movement. According his more subtle critics, present in his work for the city of the future, was a more ‘humanist’ vision. Arguably, one of his first Brutalist works was the Unite d’Habitation in marseilles, 1952. This seventeen storey structure met the needs of humanistic principles such as, shopping stores, apartments, clubs and a meeting room. As a demonstration of principles acquired in the twenty first century architecture today, shows the success of the incorporation of humanistic principle design. With the three operating independently, poses inefficiency and would require the acknowledgement of the remaining aspects.
Conclusion:
Overall, despite the innumerable contributions along with contradictions toward Brutalist architectural theories, Brutalism was yet only another style of the many modernist movements. It was a clear reflection of the post-war economic difficulties that resulted in a confusion of their ‘image’ of architecture and a digression from the unity of structure, function and form. However it was also the development of their re-establishment. This re-establishment may have sparked many controversies but it was an effective way in exploration and learning the meaning of architecture. Through this, Architecture was a design for purpose rather than a purpose for a aestheticism in which also opened up to a realisation towards incorporating technique, expression, reason and poetics in a simultaneous manner.