Very interesting post about some of my favourite things! I wish I was closer to Glasgow as I’d love to visit the exhibition and then follow in your footsteps.
Very good essay, Neil. I enjoyed a lot; keep it up. Three points.
Your opening is fantastic. Yes, an interest in architecture makes you place endlessly fascinating. What were these people thinking? Under what constraints? How does it fit with . . .
Second, I don't think that every structure built for utilitarian purposes, or with simple strong geometry, or made out of concrete can be called "Brutalist." By that definition, grain silos, contemporary highways, pyramids (in South America, Cambodia, Las Vegas and of course Egypt over the last few thousand years) and I don't know what else is Brutalist. So the inclusion of the concrete steps and the overpass seems to stray from your architectural/aesthetic, and as you correctly point out, ideological, critique. The point of brutalism is not simple "memorable" or "found materials" or "exhibition of structure." Cabin built of wood on hillside almost anywhere in world . . . If one is going to analyze through genre or style, one has to be more specific in order to get traction. Your definition and selection threatens to be overly capacious.
Third. The point of brutalism is, like almost all architecture, in some practical sense normative: given various ways to build, this is how we should be building. (Style may also be, and is often analyzed as, normative in political and spiritual senses, too. Certainly Brutalist architects said lots of things about the broader/deeper meanings of their work.)
And though I've read a bit, and been through the odd exhibition with the usual academic trappings, arguments that reappear here, I'm ultimately rather unconvinced, and don't think I'm being a philistine, on that account, anyway. SUNY Buffalo, the campus where I have taught for 27 years was built pretty much all at once, and Brutalist. The best defense I heard of it was "architecture as sculpture." (McKim Mead & White, if memory serves.) I get it. But it's not enough. It's kind of bad sculpture. You are right about Nebo Peklo! And that's part of the problem.
Turning from form to function, the light in these buildings is shitty, due to the aversion to glass, which I presume is rooted in an essentially ideological aversion to capitalist International Style. (Do not get me started on the Gropius Dorms and the Harvard Bauhaus). We have one good teaching room; the rest are caves. Was very odd when 9/11 happened, I was lecturing in an windowless auditorium when a student arrived from the Dean's office to say the Towers were down and the school had been shut. Buffalo could have been nuked and I wouldn't have realized it for a while. To generalize, the point about brutalism cutting people, things, spaces off from one another has real weight. So, as you point out, looks good on a police court/jail, the point of which is to . . . cut off. Anyway, I've still not warmed to my campus, and spend little time there, even when I'm resident. Yes, I retreat to a Village, East Aurora, famous for the Roycroft (Arts & Crafts, Frank Lloyd Wright, etc.) and Victorian buildings. And pastures.
None of which takes away from the quality of your essay and your pictures. Kudos, and keep up the good work.
Thank you for the excellent comment, David. I hope you write more on this topic.
I agree that it is not enough. The architects were so enamoured of modern art sculpture that they lost sight of the humans. Maybe the tight budgets of the post war period meant that functionalism was not so much a choice as a necessity. Brutalism was a way of keeping it interesting.
You’re also right that the definition can become too broad (it is called non purist in the exhibition). Do you know the great architecture critic Jonathan Meades? He had a tv show which brought Vanbrugh in as a brutalist of the C17th in a Borges-on-Kafka and his precursors style.
Thanks, Neil. No, I don't know Meades, at least not by name -- my interest in architecture is amateurish -- but probably should. I'm not quite willing to give a free pass with "times were tight." Certainly not for New York State in the 60s and 70s, building an entirely new University. Design choices were made, and are subject to judgment. I also think that our age wants really neat boxes. Maybe always the case. But the sort of push towards journalism/punditry on a global basis means we demand simple explanations for everything. Thin description, as it were. More soon.
Excellent article. There are more brutalist buildings the further west you go. Gartnavel Hospital, Anniesland Cross, to name two examples. I also see the hotel at Charing Cross and the buildings around it as an example of what not to do. Anyway, great article, hope to read more.
Great article, and this is so true: "They adore the bold, sculptural forms, the clean lines and pure geometric shapes … before returning to their stately Victorian homes." I think the main problem with Brutalism isn't the form ss much as the main material, concrete. There couldn't be a worse material for a rainy climate like the UK. It just looks so damn grey and depressing.
thanks for the wee walk around the toon Neil, its been sometime since I lived in Scotland and worked in Glasgow, so many familiar sites, and a couple of authors I have liked and read ..also enjoyed your wonderful interview..cheers
I lived in Scotland from 1977 until 1999! Your article had me searching for my Kelman and Leonard books..had them for years, could only find Busted Scotch by James Kelman, so I need to get “how late it was, how late by him, and Poems by Leonard..If you keep this up I will be on a flight to glasgow in the spring Neil with a rolleiflex and a bag of film! Cheers
Excellent article 👏
Corby town centre is /was a complete example of brutalist architecture… a depressing place.
Let’s visit when I’m down!
Excellent article, really enjoyed it.
Thank you!
I enjoyed reading that Neill. Pix great too.
Thanks Jan! Does Brutalism fit in with the Bamagram?
Mmmhh, possibly. Ruinous beauty category? (Apols for additional ‘l’ on your name).
I like it. (Both ruinous beauty and a bonus L)
Very interesting post about some of my favourite things! I wish I was closer to Glasgow as I’d love to visit the exhibition and then follow in your footsteps.
Thanks! You’re welcome any time. (I still have a Bristol trip on my mind - hopefully early next year!).
Very good essay, Neil. I enjoyed a lot; keep it up. Three points.
Your opening is fantastic. Yes, an interest in architecture makes you place endlessly fascinating. What were these people thinking? Under what constraints? How does it fit with . . .
Second, I don't think that every structure built for utilitarian purposes, or with simple strong geometry, or made out of concrete can be called "Brutalist." By that definition, grain silos, contemporary highways, pyramids (in South America, Cambodia, Las Vegas and of course Egypt over the last few thousand years) and I don't know what else is Brutalist. So the inclusion of the concrete steps and the overpass seems to stray from your architectural/aesthetic, and as you correctly point out, ideological, critique. The point of brutalism is not simple "memorable" or "found materials" or "exhibition of structure." Cabin built of wood on hillside almost anywhere in world . . . If one is going to analyze through genre or style, one has to be more specific in order to get traction. Your definition and selection threatens to be overly capacious.
Third. The point of brutalism is, like almost all architecture, in some practical sense normative: given various ways to build, this is how we should be building. (Style may also be, and is often analyzed as, normative in political and spiritual senses, too. Certainly Brutalist architects said lots of things about the broader/deeper meanings of their work.)
And though I've read a bit, and been through the odd exhibition with the usual academic trappings, arguments that reappear here, I'm ultimately rather unconvinced, and don't think I'm being a philistine, on that account, anyway. SUNY Buffalo, the campus where I have taught for 27 years was built pretty much all at once, and Brutalist. The best defense I heard of it was "architecture as sculpture." (McKim Mead & White, if memory serves.) I get it. But it's not enough. It's kind of bad sculpture. You are right about Nebo Peklo! And that's part of the problem.
Turning from form to function, the light in these buildings is shitty, due to the aversion to glass, which I presume is rooted in an essentially ideological aversion to capitalist International Style. (Do not get me started on the Gropius Dorms and the Harvard Bauhaus). We have one good teaching room; the rest are caves. Was very odd when 9/11 happened, I was lecturing in an windowless auditorium when a student arrived from the Dean's office to say the Towers were down and the school had been shut. Buffalo could have been nuked and I wouldn't have realized it for a while. To generalize, the point about brutalism cutting people, things, spaces off from one another has real weight. So, as you point out, looks good on a police court/jail, the point of which is to . . . cut off. Anyway, I've still not warmed to my campus, and spend little time there, even when I'm resident. Yes, I retreat to a Village, East Aurora, famous for the Roycroft (Arts & Crafts, Frank Lloyd Wright, etc.) and Victorian buildings. And pastures.
None of which takes away from the quality of your essay and your pictures. Kudos, and keep up the good work.
Thank you for the excellent comment, David. I hope you write more on this topic.
I agree that it is not enough. The architects were so enamoured of modern art sculpture that they lost sight of the humans. Maybe the tight budgets of the post war period meant that functionalism was not so much a choice as a necessity. Brutalism was a way of keeping it interesting.
You’re also right that the definition can become too broad (it is called non purist in the exhibition). Do you know the great architecture critic Jonathan Meades? He had a tv show which brought Vanbrugh in as a brutalist of the C17th in a Borges-on-Kafka and his precursors style.
Thanks, Neil. No, I don't know Meades, at least not by name -- my interest in architecture is amateurish -- but probably should. I'm not quite willing to give a free pass with "times were tight." Certainly not for New York State in the 60s and 70s, building an entirely new University. Design choices were made, and are subject to judgment. I also think that our age wants really neat boxes. Maybe always the case. But the sort of push towards journalism/punditry on a global basis means we demand simple explanations for everything. Thin description, as it were. More soon.
Loved all of this. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks Christian!
Excellent article, I'm realising now that concrete and stories about concrete really make me happy!
Excellent article. There are more brutalist buildings the further west you go. Gartnavel Hospital, Anniesland Cross, to name two examples. I also see the hotel at Charing Cross and the buildings around it as an example of what not to do. Anyway, great article, hope to read more.
Thanks Tony! Anniesland Cross is in the exhibition but seemed a bit too far to walk. Charing Cross and Anderston probably deserve a tour of their own.
Agreed, there's a lot of crimes against architecture around the motorway and Anderston
Really interesting look and read. Thank you.
Thanks!
Great article, and this is so true: "They adore the bold, sculptural forms, the clean lines and pure geometric shapes … before returning to their stately Victorian homes." I think the main problem with Brutalism isn't the form ss much as the main material, concrete. There couldn't be a worse material for a rainy climate like the UK. It just looks so damn grey and depressing.
Yes, absolutely, and it is notable that the places it works (like Le Corbusier in Marseille and India) are bright.
thanks for the wee walk around the toon Neil, its been sometime since I lived in Scotland and worked in Glasgow, so many familiar sites, and a couple of authors I have liked and read ..also enjoyed your wonderful interview..cheers
You’re welcome! When were you here? I still need to read some of those books but never thought of them in terms of urbanism before.
I lived in Scotland from 1977 until 1999! Your article had me searching for my Kelman and Leonard books..had them for years, could only find Busted Scotch by James Kelman, so I need to get “how late it was, how late by him, and Poems by Leonard..If you keep this up I will be on a flight to glasgow in the spring Neil with a rolleiflex and a bag of film! Cheers