The terms ‘Brutalism’ or ‘New Brutalism’ were coined in the mid-1950s by the young British architects Alison and Peter Smithson. Born in the context of the post-World War II, the architectural thinking knew a shift towards a re-evaluation of social concerns with urban responsibility. Brutalism tries to combine new ethical concerns with a certain aesthetic formalism. Indeed, the couple was certain that architecture could address social and cultural problems and solve them with design.
However the legacy of the Brutalism in the United Kingdom is now a prominent theme in contemporary architectural debate. The responses to Brutalist architecture in Britain, and to modern architecture as a whole, have brought out opinions on the subject of its restoration. On one hand, …show more content…
These buildings are slowly being rediscovered and make their comeback. The twenty-first century reappraisal of Brutalism is partly an attempt to re-invoke values of social democracy. If the Brutalist architecture was meant to change the way men and women lived and moved by improving the quality of life, what is left of it? Does the preservation of brutalist buildings must be undertaken or should we completely change our attitude toward public housing? The only way to answer that question is to understand Brutalism’s post-war context and how it was subsequently (mis?)interprete. It also raised the question of why the Brutalist movement has faced a dramatic decline in the second phase and now we witness its rebirth again. Why is Brutalism so loathed? What is it, really? And - can Brutalism be saved? Should it
However the legacy of the Brutalism in the United Kingdom is now a prominent theme in contemporary architectural debate. The responses to Brutalist architecture in Britain, and to modern architecture as a whole, have brought out opinions on the subject of its restoration. On one hand, …show more content…
These buildings are slowly being rediscovered and make their comeback. The twenty-first century reappraisal of Brutalism is partly an attempt to re-invoke values of social democracy. If the Brutalist architecture was meant to change the way men and women lived and moved by improving the quality of life, what is left of it? Does the preservation of brutalist buildings must be undertaken or should we completely change our attitude toward public housing? The only way to answer that question is to understand Brutalism’s post-war context and how it was subsequently (mis?)interprete. It also raised the question of why the Brutalist movement has faced a dramatic decline in the second phase and now we witness its rebirth again. Why is Brutalism so loathed? What is it, really? And - can Brutalism be saved? Should it