Quote:
Originally Posted by IanWatson
McMansion Hell is making an effort (bit of a long read) to set the record straight, which I really appreciate. I'm looking forward to the third post in the series.
|
Another one you hear is "Stalinist" which might actually be applied to what could correct be referred to as brutalist buildings. Stalin commissioned lots of neoclassical 1930's type buildings. He died in 1953 before the 60's styles really took off. Buildings like Scotia Square and Fenwick are not Stalinist.
I like that McMansion Hell article but the Vitra Conference Center is an odd example to choose if the goal is to clearly delineate the style. The brutalism misappropriation is very simple. As they say it came from French but was misunderstood in English because "brut" in "béton brut" is a false cognate; it looks like an English word with a different meaning. This is much simpler than the question who was really part of the architectural "movement" or not. Architects and architecture historians seem prone to getting in the weeds a lot over these historical trends and movements/philosophies instead of just focusing on how a building is constructed. You might get average people to understand that "brutalist" doesn't mean "brutal" but they're not going to remember which movement Le Corbusier was participating in when he designed a particular building in raw concrete.
We are living through the mass extinction of 1950's and 60's architecture right now, just as cities unwisely demolished all kinds of valuable early 20th century architecture in the 1960's.