During a radio interview recently I was asked what Brutalism is and how it came about. Indeed, as I explore in my book, there are a number of theories as to how the term came to be used in the architectural context. Often cited is Le Corbusier's mantra beton brut which translates as simply rough concrete. Kenneth Frampton in his book Modern Architecture suggests it was coined by Hans Asplund as early as 1950. Of course, the term was brought to wider public attention in 1966 when critic Reyner Banham published his book The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic. But he wasn't the first to put it in print and his title was inspired by fellow Team X members, and personal friends, Alison and Peter Smithson. Alan Powers in his book Britain managed to pin down the first time Brutalism was actually used in print to a brief article in Architectural Design magazine, December 1953, detailing three small house projects, one of which was a concept by the Smithsons for a residence in Soho that was never built. This fascinated me. All too often the origins of a particular word or phrase are difficult to trace precisely but here we have a documented first airing of a term that became part of the architectural lexicon. What it reveals about this often misunderstood label is even more interesting.
The Smithsons had developed a design for a terraced house in Colville Place just West of Tottenham Court Road. The site itself had been bombed but cost restrictions meant that the dimensions of any new dwelling would have to conform to the type of Georgian terrace surviving in the same street. Disagreements with the owner of the adjoining plots to the proposed house meant that, ultimately, it couldn't be built. The concept, though, was to play with the 'internal order' of the house, putting the living quarters in the top of the house in the attic floor to receive the most daylight with the kitchen and bedroom on the floor below and studio at ground floor level. A basement below the pavement contained a bathroom and storage area in the proposed plans.
The crucial aspect of the design, though, was the demand for no finishes at all. The interior would consist ‘bare concrete, brickwork and wood’, there would be exposed ceilings and un-plastered walls. The beauty would be found in the stripped functionalism of the building but with a quality of work that would remain pleasing even when laid bare. This was the essence of what the Smithson’s called the ‘new brutalism’ as they stated in the feature.
They wanted the building contractor to regard the project in the same way as an industrial warehouse; purposely visible. It was this same aesthetic that was applied to one the Smithon’s earliest commissions, the Smithdon Secondary School at Hunstanton in Norfolk (1949-52). Although faintly Meisian in its proportions and the use of glazing and metal beams, the same demand for exposed ‘industrial’ structure without finishing was an essential part of the design.
What this reveals about the emergence of Brutalism as an architectural style or epoch is that the Smithson’s saw it as the next natural progression of the Modern Movement. The first generation of Modernists had set themselves apart from the unnecessary weight of faux historical reference and eclecticism. They had created a style that was pure, simple, lean and responsive to the spirit of the machine age. Brutalism was the next step; stripping away the last remnants of traditional building (rendering, plastering, finishing) and exposing the structure completely but with a standard of workmanship that would bare such exposure. Brutalism was Modernism 'unplugged' and it heralded the way forward for the next generation of Modernists.
This small document of 1953, therefore, represents the first utterance of this crucial step in the development of the Modern Movement. This was ground zero for Brutalism and, for that reason, could be one of the most important architectural texts of the post-war period.
No comments:
Post a Comment