Brutalism in Architecture

In its most generally accepted sense, Brutalism refers to the architecture of the late 1950s through the 1970s that is primarily identified by an expressive use of exposed concrete. While the precise characterization of the works associated with this label is still in flux, wavering between a focus on their form, their materiality, their visual impact, and even their ethical intent, the common denominator of brutalist architecture remains that of the primary material employed. This accepted characterization of Brutalism as a stylistic category has tended to obscure the complex history of the notion. This brief introduction thus focuses on the brutalist trajectory, with the goal to consider its discursive origins, its competing iterations, and its contemporary interpretation. There is a broad consensus to the effect that the notion first emerged in England in the early 1950s within a circle of architects, artists, and critics who shared a new sensibility toward the material and visual culture of postwar Britain. The discourses and practices emerging from this circle were encapsulated under the label of the “New Brutalism.” Most historians also agree that by the end of the 1950s, the idea and its descriptors—New Brutalism, Brutalism—and the adjective brutalist began to move beyond Britain to appear in print in continental Europe and beyond. Severed from its original context, the idea was applied to different architectural cultures. By the late 1960s it was clear that a significant shift had occurred, with the idea of Brutalism now primarily associated with the architecture of exposed concrete, which was perceived as an international phenomenon. Central to this new conception was Le Corbusier’s Unité d’habitation at Marseilles (1945–1952) and its expressive use of béton brut, which came to be viewed as the primary source of brutalist architecture. Any serious investigation of Brutalism in architecture must therefore take into account that this umbrella term refers to two distinct yet interrelated phenomena. From the 1970s to the 1990s, Brutalism in architecture was little discussed in the historiography. The architecture of exposed concrete—to which it came to be associated—was generally subjected to negative criticism, even outright rejection. The tide began to turn at the end of the 1990s, and since the new millennium, Brutalism as an idea and an architecture has now become a serious topic for scholarly investigation. In parallel with aesthetic considerations, some scholars have also explored its social and political underpinnings, making connections with the rise of the welfare state in Western countries. This renewed interest coincided with a new appreciation, even affection for brutalist buildings in all their manifestations, triggering passionate campaigns to re-evaluate and protect a wide range of buildings. Yet the scholarly scrutiny of recent years has also shown that the historical assessment of Brutalism, and the precise characterization of the architecture to which it is associated, is still open to debate.