> As with any art form—whether opera or painting or literature—the more you know about it the more you appreciate it. This is especially true of concrete buildings.
I think this is called the Courtier's Reply? Just because you spent your life studying literature or sticking people in giant unpainted fascist architecture doesn't make it a good thing.
Art does come from humans, who generally make it in good faith (like religion...)
You've got to spend the time to see where they are coming from if you want to understand what they have produced. Even then, de gustibus non est disputandum.
The term "Courtier's Reply" was apparently invented by a high-profile and argumentative atheist, PZ Myers, and it's specific to that debate.
(Personally I can't think of a more pointless and unprovable hypothesis than the atheism one, though I'm not religious.)
The Courtier's Reply "fallacy" is... well, it's tricky. The issue is that it's subject to incredibly heavy cherry-picking -- when a talking head on TV goes on about how climate change is a hoax, or vaccines cause autism, nobody thinks twice about questioning the knowledge possessed by the talking head and whether it makes them qualified to issue comments on those topics. And yet those talking heads should, if we're being charitable, be permitted to yell "Courtier's Reply!" the instant someone asks about their qualifications.
Which means that when you dig down and parse it out enough, you discover that the "Courtier's Reply" is really "the fallacy of criticizing Dawkins". Which is probably not what an allegedly-rational community wants to be promoting as fallacious.
Indeed. I can appreciate the artistic vision and merit in something and still dislike it.
For example, on many occasions I've eaten dishes at restaurants that were clearly put together with incredible vision and experience. And yet it would not be something I'd ever order again. Which isn't to say I'm picky. I've repeatedly eaten dishes knowing that, with time, you can learn to enjoy something. I used to hate sushi in particular, and the characteristic flavors of Japanese cooking in general. It took me years of persistence to enjoy various Japanese dishes, but I've come a long way. But that doesn't always pan out. I've eaten balut many times, but at this point I think I'm just gonna throw in the towel. It's too livery, and while I enjoy foie gras and other heavily herbed liver pates, I don't think I'll ever enjoy balut. (The balut broth is amazing, though.)
I like to think that I _get_ brutalist architecture. It's generally meant to be imposing in general. But also a style that, because of the unique characteristics of concrete, permit the architect to experiment with different shapes, configurations, and patterns (or, conversely, utilize fewer patterns).
But it's too challenging. That's not the kind of environment you want to be forced to deal with. By being imposing, it can't be ignored. It's like being surrounded by bears in the forest--it's not the kind of imposition you normally appreciate, certainly not on a regular basis. The designs might be flexible in terms of construction, but it's entirely inflexible in the way it evolves with the surrounding environment. That's one thing architects don't pay enough service to, IMO--continuity with the past _and_ future, both wrt to form and function.
Boston’s Government Center is terrible not because of the building styling per se but because it’s a giant concrete plaza with no activity & no structure & no people, and all the buildings are built at massive inhuman scale with nothing happening on the ground floor & absolutely no accommodation to foot traffic. The square overall could be improved by filling the square with pretty much anything: trees, market stalls, food trucks, fountains, children’s playground, whatever.
It would be quite beautiful if they would replace most of the plaza with a park. I notice that a lot of concrete architecture looks best when it's standing next to a green space, or is surrounded by trees. The Government Center with its deserted plaza of concrete carries more of a sense of imposition to me. I may be a little biased though because of how similar the plaza is to the kind of parking lot that you see in front of a Wal-Mart.
I, too, typically despise most brutalist architecture. But the D.C. Metro is brutalist, and I think it was done exceedingly well. It's one of the greatest pieces of architecture I've personally experienced. And by experience, I mean both the individual stations as well as the stations collectively.
Sadly, subsequent modifications fell far short of the original vision, which I couldn't even begin to put into words myself.
For example, installation of waiting time displays broke up the cavernous open space.
I almost cried when I first saw (after returning to D.C.) how some of the stations had red lights along the platform instead of the original off-white. The lack of color is part and parcel of the brutalist design; adding color gives the same effect as graffiti.
The steel and glass coverings over the escalators, while nice in themselves, don't echo the brutalist style, either, though admittedly I have no idea how that could have been accomplished. I'd give the designers an A for effort.
The newer extensions don't echo the design faithfully, which really detracts from the overall feel. What made the original design work so well was the repetition--both within each station, and across stations.. If you're not going echo it faithfully, then don't even try. It's like expanding the scene in an existing painting by using crayon and crude shapes. Better to switch to another design altogether so that it's clear you've left one artistic environment and entered another.
I think the D.C. Metro is both amazing in its own right, and an example of how brutalism can be used to great effect. The Metro is imposing, yes, but not confrontational; both efficient and inspiring. It's probably not a coincidence that by dint of the architecture being almost entirely underground, both the functional and esthetic elements work in harmony. Most brutalist architecture has horribly poorly functional interiors which were sacrificed for the benefit of the exterior "statement", which makes it suck for everybody inside and outside.
Maybe I would appreciate the DC Metro architecture more if it weren't marred by how miserable the experience of using the metro for commuting actually is.
"Heroic" architecture would be Albert Speer's plan for Berlin.[1] Speer's architecture was designed to make people feel small and insignificant. He liked very tall, narrow design elements. Unlike brutalism, Speer's work had good finishes and decorative details.
It's surprising that the authors put so much time into researching the architectural heritage of the word heroic, but appeared to not do the same for brutalism. There's no mention of the word 'brut' - a reference to the raw, unfinished appearance used in early works identified by critics as forming a movement. Semantically it has nothing to do with the word brutal (meaning savage, etc.) , but it's a convenient leap for those imposing what they see an the ideology behind it.
In reality it's a very broad movement spanning decades, continents and covering a massive variety of design intentions.
Writing off all of it is as closed minded as writing off all of impressionism, etc. There are fantastic achievements and also-rans in any group.
I personally have a fondness for many of them, as I find the majority of modern civic architecture is forgettable and unambitious, and glass and steel do not automatically trump concrete and brick. But I would never claim to love it all.
There is a fantastic resource at www.sosbrutalism.org which contextualises classic examples in time and location is worth a few minutes of your time.
19 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 58.3 ms ] threadhttp://99percentinvisible.org/episode/hard-to-love-a-brute/
I think this is called the Courtier's Reply? Just because you spent your life studying literature or sticking people in giant unpainted fascist architecture doesn't make it a good thing.
You've got to spend the time to see where they are coming from if you want to understand what they have produced. Even then, de gustibus non est disputandum.
The term "Courtier's Reply" was apparently invented by a high-profile and argumentative atheist, PZ Myers, and it's specific to that debate.
(Personally I can't think of a more pointless and unprovable hypothesis than the atheism one, though I'm not religious.)
Which means that when you dig down and parse it out enough, you discover that the "Courtier's Reply" is really "the fallacy of criticizing Dawkins". Which is probably not what an allegedly-rational community wants to be promoting as fallacious.
For example, on many occasions I've eaten dishes at restaurants that were clearly put together with incredible vision and experience. And yet it would not be something I'd ever order again. Which isn't to say I'm picky. I've repeatedly eaten dishes knowing that, with time, you can learn to enjoy something. I used to hate sushi in particular, and the characteristic flavors of Japanese cooking in general. It took me years of persistence to enjoy various Japanese dishes, but I've come a long way. But that doesn't always pan out. I've eaten balut many times, but at this point I think I'm just gonna throw in the towel. It's too livery, and while I enjoy foie gras and other heavily herbed liver pates, I don't think I'll ever enjoy balut. (The balut broth is amazing, though.)
I like to think that I _get_ brutalist architecture. It's generally meant to be imposing in general. But also a style that, because of the unique characteristics of concrete, permit the architect to experiment with different shapes, configurations, and patterns (or, conversely, utilize fewer patterns).
But it's too challenging. That's not the kind of environment you want to be forced to deal with. By being imposing, it can't be ignored. It's like being surrounded by bears in the forest--it's not the kind of imposition you normally appreciate, certainly not on a regular basis. The designs might be flexible in terms of construction, but it's entirely inflexible in the way it evolves with the surrounding environment. That's one thing architects don't pay enough service to, IMO--continuity with the past _and_ future, both wrt to form and function.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/06/zaha-hadid-architecture-g...
http://media.jrn.com/images/940333_4397240_ver1.0_640_480.jp...
The man who built it was Bruce McCarty, not sure what he was thinking when he designed this.
Sadly, subsequent modifications fell far short of the original vision, which I couldn't even begin to put into words myself.
For example, installation of waiting time displays broke up the cavernous open space.
I almost cried when I first saw (after returning to D.C.) how some of the stations had red lights along the platform instead of the original off-white. The lack of color is part and parcel of the brutalist design; adding color gives the same effect as graffiti.
The steel and glass coverings over the escalators, while nice in themselves, don't echo the brutalist style, either, though admittedly I have no idea how that could have been accomplished. I'd give the designers an A for effort.
The newer extensions don't echo the design faithfully, which really detracts from the overall feel. What made the original design work so well was the repetition--both within each station, and across stations.. If you're not going echo it faithfully, then don't even try. It's like expanding the scene in an existing painting by using crayon and crude shapes. Better to switch to another design altogether so that it's clear you've left one artistic environment and entered another.
I think the D.C. Metro is both amazing in its own right, and an example of how brutalism can be used to great effect. The Metro is imposing, yes, but not confrontational; both efficient and inspiring. It's probably not a coincidence that by dint of the architecture being almost entirely underground, both the functional and esthetic elements work in harmony. Most brutalist architecture has horribly poorly functional interiors which were sacrificed for the benefit of the exterior "statement", which makes it suck for everybody inside and outside.
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2764430/Hitler-s-gra...
In reality it's a very broad movement spanning decades, continents and covering a massive variety of design intentions.
Writing off all of it is as closed minded as writing off all of impressionism, etc. There are fantastic achievements and also-rans in any group.
I personally have a fondness for many of them, as I find the majority of modern civic architecture is forgettable and unambitious, and glass and steel do not automatically trump concrete and brick. But I would never claim to love it all.
There is a fantastic resource at www.sosbrutalism.org which contextualises classic examples in time and location is worth a few minutes of your time.