Complex Numbers

Brutal

I don't have much of an opinion about Brutalism.

This entry is for "Journalistic Intentions"  [18+]; specifically, it's about one of the picture prompts: Brutalist Bench.  

Some people love it; others hate it. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground... except for me, of course.

On a recent visit with my cousin, an architect, we had a discussion about Brutalism whilst driving around the Jersey Shore, which features several buildings done in something approaching the Brutalist style. The name isn't based on the English word "brute," or the deodorant brand (which I was surprised to find is still around), but on the French word "brut," meaning, essentially, "raw."

In this context, from what I can gather, it basically means the whatever-it-is—usually a building, but sometimes something else, like a bench—isn't painted or otherwise covered, relying instead on the colors and textures of the raw materials of its construction (hence the "raw," I suppose). It's generally the triumph of function over form, which appeals to me as an engineer. My cousin wouldn't come out and say it, but I don't think he's a fan. Considering some of his work, this doesn't surprise me. The stuff I've seen come out of his office ranges from traditional (including some buildings right here in Charlottesville) to what I can only describe as avant-garde. Yeah, I know, sorry, more French. Point is, I don't think he's done many Brutalist buildings, if any.

Brutalism is most commonly associated with bare concrete, but really, any (mostly) unadorned material would do. Including brick. I do have an opinion about brick, which is: painted brick sucks.

But no, the reason I don't have an opinion on Brutalism is that, to my untrained, function-over-form eye, there's a great deal of variation among examples of the style.

This is actually one of the cool things about concrete (which I devoted an entire entry to a couple of days ago): as it is a liquid (actually a slurry, but whatever), it can be molded into many different shapes.

If you look at the Wikipedia page on Brutalist architecture,   you'll see a lot of different examples of the style. They're all different. Some suck. Others don't. Which is which is a subjective decision.

I've said this before, but architecture is art with function. That is, it's meant to do more than be looked at; people live, work, or pass through architecture, while pure art just kind of sits there daring us to criticize it. But make no mistake, it's also there to be looked at. I mean, usually, you can't miss it, so you might as well make it pretty.

Same for a bench, though on a much smaller scale. The primary purpose of a bench, in my view, is to be a place to sit. Lots of forms can achieve this purpose. The one from this prompt, though? Well, to me, it just kind of looks uncomfortable. Like the designer was more concerned with form than function, its flowing shape at odds with the heaviness of the material.

On the other hand, it's indeed made of concrete, so at least we know it'll handle some weight. That's important, these days.