One of the first accounts of Brutalism was given by architectural critic Reyner Banham in his seminal essay titled New Brutalism published in the Architectural Review in 1955, Banham’s conception of New Brutalism was both a movement in the sense of futurism and a style. Banham’s etymology of the term New Brutalism is clarified through his complex and contradictory explanation of Brutalism as both a movement and style. Banham did articulate clearly three underlying rules which are its core components:
“1, Memorability as an Image; 2, Clear exhibition of Structure; and 3, Valuation of Materials ‘as found.’” “Remembering that an Image is what affects the emotions, that structure, in its fullest sense, is the relationship of parts, and that materials …show more content…
The Smithsons - the key architects referred to the original essay by Banham - had also written about Brutalism extensively, in 1957 the Smithson’s in a recorded conversation said “Brutalism tries to face up to a mass-production society, and drag a rough poetry out of the confused and powerful forces which are at work.”. The Smithson’s and Banham had differing opinions on the topic of Brutalism, as has been explored by Dirk van den Heuvel in his essay Between Brutalists: The Banham Hypothesis and the Smithson Way of Life, states that for the Smithson’s Brutalism was more “a way of life”, they were seeking to combine modern architecture with a multiplicity of tendencies within British culture, reaching back to Arts and Crafts”. This differed to Banham who was advocating “an integration between architecture and the latest technologies”. Discrepancies not only can be seen between authors, but are also present within Banham’s own accounts of Brutalism, in 1966 Banham was to revisit Brutalism in his book Brutalism An Ethic or Aesthetic? This time, he extends the taxonomy beyond just the Smithson’s to include James Stirling, Louis Kahn Atelier 5 and others developing the key points originally discussed in the first …show more content…
Jennifer Taylor made one of the first historical accounts in 1972 in the book Australian Architecture Since 1960 under the chapter title The rational and the Robust. Taylor traced Brutalism through Le Corbusier, The Smithsons and then America and Japan, attributing The Hale School Memorial Hall in Perth by Marshall Clifton & Anthony Brand as the first building in Australia to exhibit a brutalist sensibility. Taylor says on the one hand Brutalism in Australia was deeply based on ethical consideration while on the other some drew primarily on the aesthetics. She goes on to say that despite sharing common characteristics, their ideologies were often diverse. A visual account of this diversity is given by Taylor defining the polar opposites as the ethic of Cameron Offices (Figure 38) and the aesthetic of the High Court of Australia (Figure 39), both of which she argues have roots in Brutalism. Architectural historian Philip Goad agrees, noting in his essay Bringing It All Home the emergence of Brutalism in Australia was complex, diffuse across a vast continent, regionally split. Goad also notes that this was due to a number of factors, which he lists geographic isolation, Commonwealth ties, the arrival of British and European émigré architects, and critic Robin Boyd’s reflections on
“1, Memorability as an Image; 2, Clear exhibition of Structure; and 3, Valuation of Materials ‘as found.’” “Remembering that an Image is what affects the emotions, that structure, in its fullest sense, is the relationship of parts, and that materials …show more content…
The Smithsons - the key architects referred to the original essay by Banham - had also written about Brutalism extensively, in 1957 the Smithson’s in a recorded conversation said “Brutalism tries to face up to a mass-production society, and drag a rough poetry out of the confused and powerful forces which are at work.”. The Smithson’s and Banham had differing opinions on the topic of Brutalism, as has been explored by Dirk van den Heuvel in his essay Between Brutalists: The Banham Hypothesis and the Smithson Way of Life, states that for the Smithson’s Brutalism was more “a way of life”, they were seeking to combine modern architecture with a multiplicity of tendencies within British culture, reaching back to Arts and Crafts”. This differed to Banham who was advocating “an integration between architecture and the latest technologies”. Discrepancies not only can be seen between authors, but are also present within Banham’s own accounts of Brutalism, in 1966 Banham was to revisit Brutalism in his book Brutalism An Ethic or Aesthetic? This time, he extends the taxonomy beyond just the Smithson’s to include James Stirling, Louis Kahn Atelier 5 and others developing the key points originally discussed in the first …show more content…
Jennifer Taylor made one of the first historical accounts in 1972 in the book Australian Architecture Since 1960 under the chapter title The rational and the Robust. Taylor traced Brutalism through Le Corbusier, The Smithsons and then America and Japan, attributing The Hale School Memorial Hall in Perth by Marshall Clifton & Anthony Brand as the first building in Australia to exhibit a brutalist sensibility. Taylor says on the one hand Brutalism in Australia was deeply based on ethical consideration while on the other some drew primarily on the aesthetics. She goes on to say that despite sharing common characteristics, their ideologies were often diverse. A visual account of this diversity is given by Taylor defining the polar opposites as the ethic of Cameron Offices (Figure 38) and the aesthetic of the High Court of Australia (Figure 39), both of which she argues have roots in Brutalism. Architectural historian Philip Goad agrees, noting in his essay Bringing It All Home the emergence of Brutalism in Australia was complex, diffuse across a vast continent, regionally split. Goad also notes that this was due to a number of factors, which he lists geographic isolation, Commonwealth ties, the arrival of British and European émigré architects, and critic Robin Boyd’s reflections on