Talk:Brutalist architecture

web design

I added a mention[1] of the recent trend of "brutalist web design" that has recently been getting press (I gave just one citation but there's a fair amount more coverage out there). Another editor took it out and moved it to the web design article, on the basis that this current article is about architecture, so the addition here was out of place.

I'll defer to others here but I thought it was a reasonable addition to the current article as well, since it documents the influence of the brutalist architectural movement in areas outside architecture, which is imho of some relevance to the architecture article. So I'd support adding it back, maybe with different phrasing per the above. It's not a big deal either way, but I'm mentioning it here in case anyone else has thoughts. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

"a case example of" (photograph caption)

What is this supposed to mean? I have never heard this expression before, and I am a 64-year-old native speaker of English.213.127.210.95 (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"Brutalism" vs. "New Brutalism"

I'd argue that Brutalism requires a minimal number (preferably zero) of non-right-angles in the design, and certainly no curves. New (Neo-) Brutalism still retains those ideals, but can use angles less than 90 degrees/

Hi. I'm currently citing the sources. There seems to be some confusion between Brutalism and New Brutalism (therefore the first Brutalist building actually isn't) Also other small things. See my comments:

• The term Brutalism was formed by Le Corbusier (French speaking as betón brut is French) and spreaded via Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne. There's not much written I found about that.
• The French term "brut" also means "brutal" or "rude", of course. Not only raw. And that's how it is intended. I also found the term "warehouse style" used by Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe and Frank Lloyd Wright (but would not mention in this article).
• The (first) Banham Article I found is from 1955. Furthermore it is about "New Brutalism", not Brutalism. His approach is widening the limitations of "Brutalism" so also Villa Göth (1952) or Hunstanton School (1949-1954) is covered (which would usually not be considered Brutalism). This worked yesterday, today it's asking me to register: https://www.architectural-review.com/rethink/viewpoints/the-new-brutalism-by-reyner-banham/8603840.article
• Cite from the 1955 Banham Article (about Hunstanton school): this is a building that some brutalists can apparently accept as constituent new brutalist structure
• The "New Brutalists" later founded Team 10 and then later they crashed the Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne. They called it "New Brutalism" to delimit from Le Corbusier.
• The press did not really accept this initiative and complained about the awkward name "New Brutalism" http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-46209489.html (sorry it's German language)
• The Britannica uses the other Title "New Brutalism" instead "Brutalism" https://www.britannica.com/art/New-Brutalism
• Earlier Buildings: This one was long believed to be the "first" concrete church, at least in Europe: de:Heilig-Geist-Kirche (Wien) (planned from 1907, finished 1913). István Medgyaszay in Muľa was finished 1910.

Comments? --Thomas Ledl (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with this line of questioning. Especially the appropriation of "New Brutalism" by the Smithsons in the early 50's and using it to promote their own brand of architectural aesthetics and principles. It is however quite hard to apportion Brutalism to Le Corbusier as he hasn't been on record using the phrase as far as I'm aware (edit : I have since provided sufficient sources to support the etymology of the term to le Corbusier beyond dispute, see below)

I think it is a real pity that Asplund's term was hijacked by the Smithsons at such a formative stage in the history of Brutalism. I think that it's even a greater pity that the brick, suburban modernist detached homes that are now being described as "point zero" for Brutalism (ie Villa Goeth and Sughden House) are now considered part of the movement as a result. I only have one angle of approach to this : It would be possible to argue that Le Corbusier has been consistently on record mentioning beton brut in his writings in the 40s and infatuated by the material by that time, and that Asplund and the Simpsons coined and used "New Brutalism" in a sarcastic manner, possibly to mock Le Corbusier ? This could be consistent with the Team 10 /CIAM schism in 1953, which could have been simmering since the late 40s in architectural circles.

Many take Reyner Banham's 1955 essay as a veritable source on the origins of Brutalism. My view is that it was written at a very fluid phase in the course of the Modernist Movement, and as such, Banham was very careful in providing definitive answers. I think he is capturing the essence of this transitional phase very well in his essay, but I also think that we'd have to look in the 40s, long before Banham and New Brutalism, to source a fairer and more credible origin of the term. We need to look for the original "Old Brutalism that prompted the "New Brutalism" response in the early 50s, and I maintain that this "old Brutalism" is very likely to be distinctively Corbusian in nature. Is anyone up for researching this further?

I would very much favour this distinction between Nybrutalism and its derivatives as a reaction to Corbusian beton brut to be added to the History section.11 west (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, this very much strikes me as a Creationist trying to pick and create facts to support their preconceived notions rather than letting the evidence speak for itself.

The suggestion that Sugden House or Hunstanton School have only been associated with Brutalism recently is wrong. In fact, the neologism here is the suggestion that all Brutalist structures must be concrete or that Brutalism was derived from Beton Brut.

Beton Brut and Art Brut may have existed on their own but it was not until Banham came along that they were associated with Brutalism.

Le Corbusier never once used the term to describe his own work. On the contrary, however, the Smithsons DID. To deny that they, along with Banham and others in their circle, introduced and popularized the term and were responsible for its formative development is folly. The current origin of the term is quite credible. -Jtfolden (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, these are exactly the simplifications I seek to oppose. Le Corbusier must be credited, at least with the etymology of original term, as he has referred to the importance of beton brut since the 1920s. He becomes infatuated by it in the next decades. Quoting the sight of Chandigarh in a letter to his mother in the mid 50s : "It is an architectural symphony which surpasses all my hopes, which flashes and develops under the light in a way which is unimaginable and unforgettable. From far, from up close, it provokes astonishment; all made with raw concrete and a cement cannon. Adorable, and grandiose. In all the centuries no one has seen that"

But Le Corbusier also wrote about concrete in his seminal Vers Un Architecture as early as 1923 "Reinforced concrete has brought about a revolution in the aesthetics of construction. By supressing the roof and replacing it with terraces, reinforced concrete is leading us to a new aesthetic of the plan, hitherto unknown" (Towards a New Architecture, Dover Publications, 1986, p63, par 2)

Coming to Banham's book in the 60s, who stated "Behind all aspects of the New Brutalism, in Britain and elsewhere, lies one undisputed architectural fact : the concrete work of Le Corbusier's Unite d'Habitation at Marseilles. And if there is one single verbal formula that has made the concept of Brutalism admissible in most of the world's western languages, it is that Le Corbusier himself described that concrete-work as beton brut"

And later in the same book (p.45), he directly quotes the Smithsons as saying "Our belief that the New Brutalism is the only possible development for the moment from the Modernist Movement, stems not only from the knowledge that Le Corbusier is one of its practitioners (starting with the beton brut of the Unite) but because fundamentally both movements have used as their yardstick Japanese architecture, its underlying idea, principles and spirit".

So we have even Banham and the Smithsons indicating the etymology of Brutalism back to Le Corbusier! But it has become one of the most common conjectures in the history of architecture that the Smithsons and their "New Brutalism" describe a brand new aesthetic style, when in fact all the Smithsons was to coin a term to create their own sub-genre !! Banham places Mies' Illinois Institute of Technology, the Hunstanton School and the Unite D'Habitation in the same canon in his book to describe this "new movement" based an a new set of (quite obscure and indiscernible, if you ask me) socio-ethical principles. So in very basic terms, we have Reyner Banham and the Smithsons around 1955 telling Mies Van Der Rohe and Le Corbusier something along the lines : "You may not know it yet, but your work is so New Brutalism"

So what was that really about? Well Banham would write his essay in 1967, over a decade after circles like the Independent Group and Team X had actively challenged Le Corbusier's CIAM and the Athens Charter as doctrinaire, and sought to clash with his functionalist aesthetics. The Smithsons were not even born when Le Corbusier exalted concrete, but they decided to challenge him in their mid 20s with work like Hunstanton and Sugden House. They clearly coined the term "New Brutalism" with reactionary intention, as a polemic to the Modernist establishment of the time. Hence it is "New" Brutalism and not "Brutalism" , and the terms perhaps should be better appreciated in their own merit. As to why Le Corbusier never used the term Brutalism to describe his architecture, well the answer is simple. The Godfather of Modernism, who steered an entire architectural movement for several decades didn't really participate in the vanity of coining a new sub-genre to describe his architecture exclusively. But this might be something the Smithsons would have been more susceptible to. In hindsight, perhaps it would me more appropriate to link "New Brutalism" with the definitions of Art Brut and Post Modernism, and link "Brutalism" with Modernism 11 west (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The original structure referred to by the term "Nybrutalism" (New Brutalism) was a brick home. Early Brutalist work by the Smithsons was primarily brick, as well. Le Corbusier's work was only associated with Brutalism after the fact by Banham. He did so in his 1955 essay, "The New Brutalism". So it's a neologism to suggest Le Corbusier is the original inspiration or that he coined the term. Not all Brutalist structures are concrete. If you want to argue that all Beton Brut structures are concrete, there would be no debate but not all Brutalist structures are Beton Brut. It's merely one sub-category under the umbrella of Brutalism. It's also worth noting that Beton Brut already has its own page here and that's where the focus on Le Corbusier fits, imo. Jtfolden (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jtfolden Surely if we take Banham as basis for arguing the origins of Brutalism, we would need to clarify to a broader audience the context at the time his essay was written, as well as provide accurate quotations from it. I'd be happy to concede only that Banham and the Smithsons popularized (although I prefer hijacked) the term in the UK, but they both clearly allude to Beton-Brut as a key material, and Le Corbusier as their inspiration. This is evident in a number of clearly defined points in Banham's writings (I am preparing a longer essay to support this), and should take precedence in the History section.

Further, the anecdotal story that Banham references to Hans Asplund and his critique of Villa Goth, is highly contentious and should not be read at face value. The key point is that Asplund is referring to the architects of Villa Goth as "New Brutalists" SARCASTICALLY (Banham is clearly referencing this) . The Smithsons, I will argue, also adopt and popularise the term with a heavy dose of sarcasm. This is the architectural world of the 50s rebelling against Le Corbusier and his persistence with steering Modernism towards a beton-brut, high rise Utopia, and of course there's any number of young architects rejecting this playfully through their work : using traditional materials and a more "humane" scale in their designs. Hans Asplund will later move on to reject Corbusian Modernism, criticizing it's shortcomings in his book Farewell to Functionalism (1980). The Smithsons are also known to detract from strict Functionalism, not only through their participation in the counter-Modernist Team X manifesto, but also through their body of work, which is clearly post-modern in ethic and aesthetic. Throughout their career, they believe that they can provide a better solution for post war reconstruction than Le Corbusier's concrete architecture, what with their glass and steel schools or brick and mortar suburban homes. This is their "New" Brutalism you are looking for : the very beginnings of Post-Modernism. And what's more, all of this is referenced in Banham's book - available to anyone who will go on and read more than its cover. It is time for this record to be set straight, and a more in depth analysis of the essay, the themes, and situation at the time will testify with certainty where aesthetic credit should be due. It is about time to take Brutalism home. Soon 11 west (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

History doesn't support your suggestion of hijacking - unless you can come up with ANYONE using the term Brutalism to refer to architecture prior to Asplund and the Smithsons. Actually, if one were to discount Banham you have virtually ZERO connection between Brutalism and Beton Brut (or Art Brut for that matter). Le Corbusier certainly never used it. ...it is Banham that connected Le Corbusier to The Smithsons and their "New Brutalism" AFTER THE FACT. While Asplund was not being "positive" when he used the term, it was indeed the Smithsons, Michael Ventris, and other architects who introduced the term in the UK and to the english speaking world. These facts are WELL cited. It wasn't until 1955 that Banham started expanding the term to cover others projects as it was popularized.

Indeed, if one were inclined to discount Banham entirely then we'd probably have to rely on why the Smithson's claimed to introduce the term (that it was partly used because P. Smithson's nickname was ‘Brutus’) and accept the fact that the they described New Brutalism as an "ethic, not an aesthetic".

Original research and personal essays can't be used as citations on wikipedia. Again, if you have any direct citations showing the term "Brutalism" or "New Brutalism" being used for architecture prior to Asplund and the Smithsons, that would be prior to 1949, I would love to see them. That's the kind of info it would really take to legitimately alter the history section in this page. Jtfolden (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@jtfolden I have already responded with regard to basic etymology : Both Banham, and The Smithsons are quoting Le Corbusier as the etymological originator of the word, "the owner of this verbal formula" - this I have quoted out of Banham's "The New Brutalism , Reyner Banham, 1967 edition" in my first comment above, please refer to that part for quotations, as it appears that I am the only author that quotes from the original source, rather than secondary sources such as internet magazine articles? It would be presumptious to continue mixing "New Brutalism" and "Brutalism" as if they carry one and the same meaning. "New Brutalism" certainly deserves its own Wikipedia entry, but should be clearly disambiguated from Brutalist Architecture on the basis of the well documented Team X revolt against CIAM of the 50s, a revolt that the Smithsons themselves orchestrated.

It is also documented that Banham and The Smithsons mingled in the Independent Group during the 50s , to construct the new-fangled, avante garde, anti-establishment architectural style "New Brutalism" sought to be, before it found a more solid basis and ultimately absorbed into the wave of Post-Modernism. Recently, there has been a significant semantic change with regards to what can be termed as Brutalist Architecture today - and I find that there is no conflict with what Banham has quoted in his book either. I am referring to urban renewal and architectural proposals that relate to high-rising, monumental scale architecture advocated by CIAM Modernism, with a suggested predominance (although not necessarily, exclusivity) of concrete as the material of choice. All architecture that was influenced by these principles and delivered between 1947 and 1983 can be, and in actual fact is liberally termed Brutalist - although very much of it is rejected by the Smithsons : Here's a video from a 1970 BBC interview where Peter Smithson is imperiously dismisses UK's Brutalist high rises as "clean, sun-drenched boxes with fitted carpets inside and vandalism outside" , possibly in anticipation of his low-rise, "New Brutalist" Robin Hood Gardens. Although he didn't take into account spaces like The Barbican Estate, an perfect example of the very idealised High Modernist estate he rejected. So to summarise, there's no problem I see with this situation in Banham's essay. We're looking at two different styles : perhaps related at source , but eventually conflicting in principle. They simply cannot be seen as the same without properly detailing the narrative of the CIAM/Team X conflict , and this disambiguation needs to be added, as it is indeed the basis of most confusion about what can be seen as "Brutalist" and what not today. It is a matter of scale, ambition and doctrine, in the end, and we certainly can't continue to associate the vertical neighbourhoods, mega-structures and extreme functional zoning advocated by CIAM Modernism with the Picturesque revivalist, counter-Modernist tendencies of the Smithsons, more suitably analysed under another entry for "New Brutalism" and perhaps linked to Post-Modernism. Anything else is paradoxical, and does no favours to those who are looking for a modicum of clarity in this fascinating narrative.11 west (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Rather than bringing clarity, that change would be illogical. We already have this existing page to cover Brutalism overall, and another page for Beton Brut. Your suggestion would leave Brutalism fragmented across three pages; The existing Beton Brut page about concrete works, a neutered Brutalist page about concrete works, and a new page about the history and popularization of Brutalism in the UK. As you already admit "It is however quite hard to apportion Brutalism to Le Corbusier as he hasn't been on record using the phrase as far as I'm aware" and have yet to provide citations of him ever doing so, because he hasn't. The term he did use to describe his work was Beton Brut and there exists a page for that. Jtfolden (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@jtfolden we can certainly merge Beton Brut to Brutalist Architecture - what would be more logical? I am happy for referencing the entire episode of New Brutalism under Brutalist Architecture also, as you have seen I am not excluding it at any degree. It is not hard at all to apportion the etymology of Brutalism to Le Corbusier anymore - I have found the exact quotation at Banham and in the process of following up with mentions about beton-brut as old as 1927-1933 to supplement Banham. It just takes a bit of time to research in French, but in the interim, I believe the original source is sufficient. Why is there a need for consensus when quoting verbatim from original sources? 11 west (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@11 west: First off, please cease the strong arm tactics in an attempt to push your contested edit through. This page has been stable and edited without drama for a very long time. Between your comments on the edits, here, down below, and going out of your way to make derogatory comments about me in the Brutalist group on Facebook recently, it's virtually impossible to assume your edits are in good faith and instead seem to merely be edit warring to control the page and re-write the narrative to fit your personal viewpoint.

The reality is that the responsibility to achieve consensus is on the author who wishes to make the contested edits. That is you in this case since your edit was reverted. It is not appropriate for you to continue strong arming your personal agenda on the page.

Your Banham citation, at best, provides insight into why he associated Beton Brut with Brutalism to begin with but does NOT suffice as an explanation for the origin of the term at all. It was also made well after the fact. Indeed, as of the mid-50s Banham considered the Smithsons Soho house and Hunstanton School to be the reference architectural designs for New Brutalism. That obviously wouldn't be the case if he thought it entirely revolved around Beton Brut.

Also, if you are trying to build the case that Brutalism and The New Brutalism are two entirely different things then that doesn't seem to be supported. Indeed, they are used interchangeably, especially by Banham himself, and have been since introduction in the early 1950's. Again, I would love to see any citations you have, though.

I have asked, numerous times, for even simple citations showing usage of the term Brutalism (New or otherwise) by anyone prior to the Smithsons and you have not provided it. As far as I'm aware Alison Smithsons is the first person to use the term in print, as well.

Mentions of Beton Brut do not count as a mention of Brutalism. One does not automatically mean the other here. Nor would it at all be logical to merge the Beton Brut page with this one. Brutalism, as a whole, covers far more than just Beton Brut structures (such as Art Brut and furniture). Jtfolden (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@jtfolden I believe you have mistaken my intentions. I have not, and I am not taking the Smithsons, or brick out of the story. Reyner Banham, mentioned a number of etymological (ie beton-brut, Asplunds story, the nickname, Art-Brut), and architectural (Le Corbusier's Unite in Marseilles, Mies Vand Der Rohe's Illinois institute of Chicago) origins for the word. All of these should be mentioned in equal terms in the History section, and I will be quoting reputable literary sources all the way beyond Banham. I will also be adding a photo of Unite, the Illinois institute and Hunstanton in the history section.

Please note, that I haven't edited any previous information out, only added to it. But we need to revise the spurious claim that the "first Brutalist building was made out of brick" that is widely circulating the internet and to which I know you personally subscribe. If we both take Banham as point zero, chronologically it doesn't really stand as all other key buildings he mentions to support his New Brutalism theory, buildings he devotes a much longer part of the essay to, are already in construction. I will use this order of buildings and materials Illinois Institute (1947 to 1956 / steel and glass) Unite D'Habitation (1947 to 1952 / concrete) Hunstanton school (1950-1954 / Glass and Steel) and Villa Goth (1950 / Brick). Would you agree with this pluralistic revision as the basis of future edits ? 11 west (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@11 west going off of your prior comments, I don't think I've been misinterpreting your intentions at all. It is quite clear when you use words like hijack, etc, that your view is not unbiased. I note you also continue to speak of me in a derogatory manner on your talk page while trying to change your tone here. Lots of editors have contributed to this page, not just myself, and the attitude that only you will fix it doesn't really belong.

I left the bulk of your contribution intact in my recent edit but did move it to a more chronologically appropriate spot.

It is not spurious to state that the first structure described as Brutalist was a brick building. Even if you don't like Villa Goth, Banham himself states that Hunstanton School was the first building described as New Brutalist by its own designers.

However, I do NOT take Banham as point zero. Just because he helped popularize the term, it did not originate with him and architects directly involved in Brutalism often disagreed with him.

You have to have more than Banham to base a major change on... Which is why I continue to ask what citations you have, pre-Banham, in regard to the origination of the term Brutalism or New Brutalism. Smithsons by way of Asplund has been the most credible and accepted so far by editors of the page. Other citations could change that but I haven't seen any directly from the period that move it much beyond the Smithsons and related architects. Jtfolden (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@jtfolden I believe you were the one who set the tone by calling me a "Creationist trying to pick and create facts to support their preconceived notions" when I am merely presenting all facts in their entirety. At any case I will now be creating separate areas for each contested section to make it easier to track changes and the discussion. 11 west (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "The Smithsons' Hunstanton School completed in 1954 in Norfolk, and the Sugden House completed in 1955 in Watford, represent the earliest examples of Brutalism in the United Kingdom." - I haven't been able to find a source citing anything but "New Brutalism" for Hunstanton and Sugden House. If there is one to be found, please find a way to quote it in parallel with the below citations I provide, that should stand in any case :

- Elaine Harwood on both properties remains within the definition of New Brutalism

- Albert Hill refers to Sugden House as "The First Postmodern Home" here and although I like it, I am not fully prepared for this yet

The transition from "New Brutalism" to just "Brutalism" cannot be assumed arbitrarily, and I notice that many scholars are very carefully using these in different contexts (often alluding to dates and materials). There's also good argument for a semantic differentiation of the word through the years, but for the time being, and for lack of credible sources, I would not suggest to refer to the Smithson's early buildings as anything else but "New Brutalist"

I am gonna be making this small change in this segment, based on Harwood's approach, as she is ideally presenting both buildings in question on that citation. Thanks 11 west (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe you may drawing a conclusion that is not explicitly present in a reliable source. Hardwood explains where the term Brutalism comes from in the beginning and then uses it from that point in the video. New Brutalism and Brutalism have been used interchangeably from very early on. Banham even does it regularly himself. "The New Brutalism" appears to be the full, proper name for the movement while "Brutalism" is a less formal reference. If you have a "good argument for a semantic differentiation" based on reputable sources then perhaps you could start a new suggestion for discussion. The way it's currently heading it may be best to edit the lead in sentence from "Brutalist architecture, or Brutalism..." to "Brutalist architecture, or New Brutalism...". Jtfolden (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, please research how to properly add and re-use existing citations. You are causing duplicates, or breaking them, within the ref list. Jtfolden (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@jtfolden : Jumping from "New Brutalism" to "Brutalism" isn't all that simple, neither the wanton connection of a huge body of architecture between the late 40s and the late 60s as originating from the work of the Smithsons. But this is what was attempted by Banham between 1955 and 1967 !! And this is what remains in the root of the confusion today. So there is indeed evidence of an aesthetic leap that had already taken in place at the time with regard to contemporary architecture internationally, and details exist on how The Smithsons and Banham attempted to put their own tag on it. The entire New Brutalist movement was Banham's invention, and based solely on one the review of a single completed building, the Hunstanton School. He retrospectively fuses a wide range of preceding and contemporary architecture, Le Corbusier, Mies, Stirling and Gowan et al, mixes beton brut with art brut, and chiefly the work of Peter and Alison Smithson adding (Brut(us)+Al(ison) to create his narrative of a unique movement that, stemming from that single building, had by 1966 had become a worldwide phenomenon. However, not all of his contemporaries shared this view.

- Banham admits on page 134 in his 1967 book "The reason why I have not reprinted my (1955) article as part of this book, is that I do not believe it to be truly representative of the state of the Brutalist movement at that important time of its evolution. In retrospect, it reveals only too clearly my attempt to father some of my own pet notions on the movement. Any reader who is interested enough to turn it up, should read it "cum grano salis" (with a grain of salt) as a description of the New Brutalism" .

- Gowan and Stirling, whom Banham attempted to associate with the movement (Ham Common Flats/Leicester University) rejected the attempted connection in 1958 "New Brutalism is a journalistic tag applied to some designers of architectural credit, in a morale-boosting attempt to to sanctify a movement as Britains contribution and to cover up for the poor showing of our post-war architecture". Stirling and Gowan, Plucky Jims New Brutalism, The New Statesman, July 26 1958, p116. And later in 1959 they said "New Brutalism, a term which we used to regard on one hand as a narrow interpretation of one aspect of architecture, specifically as the use of materials and components "as found" - an already established attitude ; and on the other hand, as a well-intentioned but over-patriotic attempt to elevate English architecture to an international status. But whatever the term might initially have meant, it is clear from recent and repeated derisive journalistic asides, that it must now have created in the public eye an image of pretentiousness, artiness, and irresponsibility, and as such the continuation of its use can only be detrimental to modern architecture in this country" Stirling and Gowan "Afterthoughts on the flats at Ham Common" Architecture and Building, May 1959, 1967

- Notably with regard to the climate they sought to cultivate, the Smithsons did their own steering by denying James Stirling's contribution in the 1962 Team X meeting at Royaumond "One example is the Smithsons’ strong opposition to the presence of James Stirling. Alison Smithson denied him a part in the Team 10 history simply by omitting any mention of him in her retrospective publication Team 10 Meetings, despite Stirling’s contribution to the Royaumont meeting." here http://www.team10online.org/team10/meetings.html

- In Australia, Robin Boyd argued that many of Banham's contemporary criteria in his 1967 book left out important buildings seemingly belonging to the same canon, such as Paul Rudolphs' work at Yale (1963) and John Andrews' Scarborough college (1964), or buildings in Latin America (ie Oscar Niemeyer's Brasilia in 1960) . "Banham's examples were", he argued "so diverse in style, that one is led finally to the suspicion that the aesthetic of New Brutalism can be found in anything that was built by Alsion and Peter Smithson, or in anything that in Dr Banham's opinion looks as though it might have been" . Boyd describes Banham's book "an oblique view of an episode in the life of the Smithson, an episode that was over the moment they gained larger scale commissions and no longer needed a slogan" Robin Boyd, The Sad End of New Brutalism, Architectural Review 142, July 1967

- I am also suggesting Anthony Vidler's Another Brick in the Wall here https://www.jstor.org/stable/23014873?seq=23#metadata_info_tab_contents . Here Vidler picks apart the New Brutalist narrative step by step, providing a most insightful narrative on the early days of New Brutalism.

So there's contemporary evidence that the aesthetic of New Brutalism was simply borrowed, and not at all newfound. Many architects before them and after them were already building in that very same style, and many of them didn't even want to be categorised under the label the Smithsons and Banham created. And this is in the root of why we may have Brutalist Architecture that is not necessarily New Brutalist. All we need is architects that never subscribed to the specific ethic that Banham and the Smithsons promoted, while demonstrating a similar aesthetic (either before or after them) to understand how the semantic leap has been achieved in popular use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11 west (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 11 west (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You state "And this is in the root of why we may have Brutalist Architecture that is not necessarily New Brutalist." No. You have to establish first that they are not interchangeable. That would require clear citations. People merely critiquing Brutalism, new or otherwise, is not evidence. Your personal interpretation of others statements do not get us there, either. As I have already mentioned, people have been using the term interchangeably - we can readily see it in print. I know of no one who disavows one and yet props up the other as two separate things and still no citations showing the use of the term earlier than established currently. You also entirely ignore that the Smithsons and other architects of the time actually disagreed with Banham a notable amount of the time. Stating "The entire New Brutalist movement was Banham's invention" is untrue... and they did not work together to create the movement. The Smithsons, and other architects like John Voelcker, actually appeared in Architectural Design in the mid-1950's contradicting Banham; "Brutalism has been discussed stylistically, whereas its essence is ethical". Much of the pushback is no doubt why Banham later voices reservation about his original essay. Jtfolden (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@jtfolden The Smithsons, Voelcker, Banham were in the same close circles and worked together, around the time of This is Tomorrow exhibition in 1956 and also in the first the Team X meetings in the early 50s. They were all also associated with the Independent Group, chaired by Banham himself, among the other artists that provided the rationale for the "ethic" dimension of New Brutalism They absolutely worked together to create the movement, although they do fall out later for a variety of reasons - but in short, Banham broadening the 1955 canon in his 1967 book did create a rift in this inner circle. I will create a separate discussion for this fascinating connection so we don't digress further here.

The claim where the Hunstanton was the first building to be called New Brutalist by its architects, and where the term was first heard with regard to a certain Villa Goth is already explicitly presented in this entry. With regard to the evolution of the term, however, there is a lot that can be added to connect it with the global state of architecture at the time. The terms would become interchangeable, but not exclusively by virtue of Banham's essay or the Smithsons' architecture as the aesthetic or ethical point zero, apart from the fact that they were the first to use the term and built an entire mythology around it. The consensus that derives from Banham is, that other contemporary (so between 1955 and 1967, referring to the various illustrations offered in his book), and sometimes preceding architecture (ie Le Corbusier and Mies examples from before 1955 already referred to) also belong to the canon, sometimes in retrospect. The critical citations I presented earlier testify to this fact, and there is no evidence to support that what we call today Brutalist architecture didn't already exist as a style before the term was popularised by Banham and the Smithsons (what Stirling and Gowan term as "..an already established attitude", thus themselves rejecting the attempted categorisation). Many architects which we accept today as Brutalist, built architecture within the creed of an evolving Modernist movement. Summarising, what can be said is :

- That New Brutalism evolved as a British movement, stemming from the Smithsons, Banham and their close circle. There is no evidence that anyone outside Britain and that circle referred to any architecture as "New Brutalist". They may use the term interchangeably, but as far as I'm aware, no-one else does.

- That not all British architects subscribed to it as a universal term to describe similar contemporary architecture in Britain (ie Stirling and Gowan)

- That other international contemporary architects who built in a similar style/ethic have been added to the canon, either directly by Banham or other contemporary critics, by virtue of the similarity of their architecture, and that sometimes this happened in retrospect (again, Le Corbusier and Mies)

- And that there's no universal acceptance of the precedence of British (or Smithsonian) architecture to describe a style that was already taking the world by storm in the 50s. Here I quote Dr Ruth Verde Zein, one of the most recognised Latin American architecture critics :

"The brutalist architectural tendency is one of the most remarkable trends of the modern architectural international and Brazilian panorama during the second post-war era until the end of the 1970s. Those works more tuned with brutalism characteristically use bare and rough exposed concrete surfaces, underscoring the marks printed by the natural timber formwork, a technique which began to be used more frequently in the civil architecture of that time, both as a technological attribute and a search for a greater plastic expressivity; its use combined with exposed bricks and/or concrete blocks is also very common. Its foundational paradigm is the work of the French-Swiss architect Le Corbusier (1887-1965) since the Unité d’Habitation in Marseille (1945-1949) and onward; his buildings helped to conform a particular architectural language which made a definite impression on architects and their works all around the world.

Examples of brutalist architecture can be found in different countries and regions at the same moment. Although visually and technically connected they may assume specific features in each case due to other influences, or by their choice to underline different constructive and technological aspects. Even, distinct ethical and conceptual discourses can be found attached to brutalist trends in each place, in accordance to their own cultural references. Although the British brutalist works (or New Brutalism) are better known thanks to Reyner Banham’s books and its replication in several other publications, the careful research on brutalism works comparing dates and other information has to consider it as one among other manifestations within a broad international panorama, since in fact, British brutalism does not have a temporal or conceptual precedence over several other brutalist architectures from other countries and places, all of them being definitely contemporary.

This and other studies do not suggest a hierarchical but a complex and diversified panorama, with multiple side connections; in fact, a situation that Banham himself, despite his personal preferences, correctly defined as an “international brutalist connection”." here

I will soon be adding these clearly referenced points between the presentation of New Brutalism as it evolved in Britain, and Brutalism as was already evolving in the rest of the world.11 west (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, The Smithsons, other architects, and Banham were in the same circles but the suggestion that all were onboard the same narrative and that a disagreement did not occur until much later is incorrect. They were contradicting Banham almost from the get go and publicly speaking out after his '55 essay was released. So, the idea it was "canon" and everyone involved accepted it is not the reality.

There are several issues in the narrative you are trying to present.

- Since May it seems you've essentially been trying to find something to support the idea of "old Brutalism" as opposed to New Brutalism" and I still have yet to see it. There is no evidence that anyone outside Britain and "that circle" referred to any architecture as "Brutalist" until after it was popularized.

- Any evidence that New Brutalism and Brutalism are not interchangeable. All evidence points to the fact that they have been since the beginning. The fact that people at large would use the shorter form after popularization is merely evidence of the linguistic evolution of its usage, not that there is a technical difference.

- the fact that similar styles or ethical attitudes may have existed prior to the introduction of Brutalism actually doesn't negate its origin. This is particularly true due to the fact that "Brutalism" likely wouldn't exist as a term to describe architecture (or possibly anything else related such as art and furniture) if not for the fact it was popularized in the UK. In virtually any field, be it architecture, religion, heck even tissue paper, you may have similar trends and trains of thought. Someone comes along and bundles a group of ideas in an intentional, cohesive whole and gives it a name that sticks.

-Banham, for better or worse, muddies the water by including old projects after the fact - despite the issue that their designers may not even agree. It actually opens up the issue as to whether structures that don't follow the ethical concerns and style should even be considered as Brutalist at all. That would knock quite a few off the list. There's a good reason why Le Corbusier, for example, is described (rightly) as proto-Brutalist in the page. There might be merit for a separate section toward the end of the page concerning similar contemporary architectural styles for comparison, however.

As for your comment about adding content based on "clearly referenced points between the presentation of New Brutalism as it evolved in Britain, and Brutalism as was already evolving in the rest of the world" - that is your personal interpretation and the same attempt to separate the two yet again without basis. If it were worded like that then it would likely result in a revert. You have to find legitimate sources with due weight that state what you believe, not make changes based on your personal opinion. So a lot more work is needed on this train of thought before it's committed to the page. Jtfolden (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@jtfolden I believe you are again misinterpreting my contribution. Please refrain from directing critique personally at me - I believe we have agreed to leave this type of discourse behind us. I am not creating new theories, neither I am painting a picture based on personal aesthetic preferences. Any conclusions I have drawn, is clearly mentioned in the sources I reference, and I don't claim it as mine. I am laying out facts and views of established scholars or practitioners, and supported by documentary evidence from reputable academic journals (JSTOR Journals/RIBA Archives/Interviews/Books). I am steering clear of newspaper articles and other online sources where provenance by a reputable author cannot be verified - (there are too many generic newspaper articles here, that don't cite any sources of their own, for example). If you have any reason to maintain that any of my conclusions are not referenced in the citations provided, or that the sources I provide are superficial, please be specific. I will equally challenge, (and I expect anyone to), any assumption, misquotation, or liberal interpretation that will mislead readers into false conclusions.

Reyner Banham is beyond dispute a source of singular importance. However his writings cannot remain above criticism, neither can be the one and only measure by which all Brutalist architecture can be assayed. His writings are often cited as unchallenged manuals for Brutalism to support personal views. There is beyond doubt a provenance in the terminology of Brutalism there, but as it happens with many -isms there could be no copyright in the terminology. There are architects that implicitly or explicitly have either accepted or rejected the term to describe their architecture, where others have never weighed on either side of the argument, while scholars worldwide continue to build upon his work to express broader, well rounded views. It is exactly this discussion that I think is useful in providing a neutral viewpoint for future iterations of the entry.11 west (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@jtfolden Regarding the Merriam Webster citation, it doesn't refer to the story of "New Brutalism" and its first published use to describe the never built Soho house. However the episode is adequately referred to in Banham twice, albeit with a small discrepancy

- In the 1955 essay, he states that Alison Smithson wrote it in Architectural Design , November 1953

- But in the 1966 book, he states that Peter wrote it instead, in Architectural Design, December 1953

I don't really mind the former over the latter, and I am citing both references at the end of the quote at any case. I have moved the Merriam-Webster quotation in the beginning of the article 11 west (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not critiquing you "personally" or is that my intent. However it does honestly seem that your posts sometimes contain theories, analysis, ideas, etc... that are your own, or out of context, conclusions rather than what is explicitly stated in sources. That's fine on the talk page for the airing of ideas but it's not ideal and it's not OK for the page itself. So, if original thought or conclusions were to bleed over then they would likely be reverted. That is the point.

The task of any editor is to document; to find reliable, trusted sources and to carefully summarize the information to be added and accompanied by citations that clearly present the exact same statement or intent. Editors are not to add original thought, or change the meaning or implication. We are not writing a typical essay, for example, so personal conclusions on the topic itself do not factor in here. "No Original Research" is one of the core requirements of Wiki. See WP:NOR for more.

This is also one reason why, repeatedly, I have asked for clear, trusted sources for the statement that New Brutalism and Brutalism are not interchangeable or that the difference is beyond the linguistic evolution of its usage. From all I have read, at best, the 'short form' simply became the common usage of the term as it gained in popularity and spread out from the UK. Even the wiki page treats them as interchangeable. The Smithsons do, as well. Example: Saying that "The term 'New Brutalism' was primarily used in the UK while the architectural movement was more typically referred to as 'Brutalist' globally" might be an acceptable statement IF there were consensus it passes Wiki's Verifiability test and/or there was a citation to base it on. You treat them as distinct but without clear, DIRECT citations imo. You may *think* they are distinct but it's the job of an editor to have outside sources that explicitly state that. To be clear, it's not enough to find quotes or sources that *might* support a personal opinion - you have to find sources where it is explicitly stating that exact same idea, evidence, etc (and that it is not an outlier, as well). As to the Merriam Webster citation, again I think you're looking for a distinction that is not present. I don't mind the move though as it's still referring to the same thing in the end.

So, if it's making an edit to the page for the sake of clear attribution, such as Person 1 referred to structure A as "this", then that's fine. Making edits where there's an attempt to box certain things under "New Brutalism" and others under "Brutalism" for seemingly arbitrary or assumed reasons would be an issue. Sources speak for themselves, such as "Writers W, X, and Y state "this", "this", and "this". Perhaps the page should be edited to indicate "this" instead".

As for Banham and your statement that "his writings cannot remain above criticism"; I don't believe anyone would disagree. As I have pointed out elsewhere, Brutalist architects of the time often disagreed with him, as well. After decades of muted disagreement, Peter Smithson himself would eventually state that "Brutalism" was not what Reyner Banham was talking about". Jtfolden (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@jtfolden May I propose a possible solution for this? Banham uses the terms "New Brutalism" and "Brutalism" interchangeably from the get-go in his 1955 essay. We could simply add a sentence testifying to that fact, without further assumptions or conclusions made. My opinion here is that the term soon spread like wildfire also beyond London and the UK. Its a cool term, and as more and more relevant contemporary architecture emerged from 1955 onward, people, journalists, academics would have also adopted it to express the broader spirit of the time. This is not an extraordinary assumption, and I am looking for international publications that mention it for a timeline of expansion (I have found something in German already).

I am also working on a different avenue of investigation, to include for example

- International contemporary or preceding architecture that shared the same ethic, aesthetic or both without necessarily been termed Brutalist at the time (no personal views here, only where notable academics/architects claim verifiable examples that can testify to the fact)

- Other architecture that's seemingly belonging to the canon, but where architects reject the Brutalist label (I am think Stirling and Gowan among others, and I have Moshe Safdie on record saying that Habitat 67 was not Brutalist after all, which might upset many)

It is important to lay these out to readers for context, without necessarily drawing conclusions. This will take some time to research, and I will tend to add under Criticism (maybe a sub-category there). I am also looking to source some of the original articles from the Architectural Review between 1953-1955 (so Banham's original sources) through the RIBA collection here in London. These will include Banham's original article (I have heard it contains interesting footnotes), Asplund's letter, the Smithsons first usage of the term, any reactions in print at the time etc. I will share these with the Society once I have them, because they're nearly impossible to find outside London and I think it's worth it from a historic perspective. 11 west (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not at all opposed to an edit indicating "New Brutalism" and "Brutalism" were used interchangeably from early on. I think it's fine to reference Banham too, without the suggestion he was the only one doing so. I'm sure it would certainly help the reader given it may be referenced either way depending on what source they look at...

As for the other avenues of investigation; I think it would be good to expand on some of that. Though, sometimes it gets into muddy waters when you have a plainly Brutalist structure but the designer rejects the label, as you noted. It would be good to explain why, if there's a confirmed reason - in some later cases, for example, part of it may be due to the increasingly negative connotations around the term itself as covered in the "Criticism and reception".

Also, I have been thinking for some time that it might be good to have a brief "Related" (or similarly named) section near the bottom that touches just a bit more on the connection to Art Brut, Brutalist furniture, etc, and directs the reader to other potential pages. This page focuses on architecture but given they all came out of the same 1950's movement it doesn't seem to make sense to me to provide an incomplete picture and leave them entirely disconnected either. Jtfolden (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@jtfolden I'm inclined to believe that others within the Banham/Smithsons circle in the UK might have used the term interchangeably. I am less sure about how "New Brutalism" was received outside the UK, which may explain how we ended up with a simplified term in broader use. Certainly, primary sources beyond Banham are needed to establish this assumption. I am planning to look at contemporary publications to see how the term might have evolved between 1955 and 1966 - who used either or both terms and in what context.

Agree with the rest too. Art Brut and the Brutus story could be added for context, as well as related disciplines. It seems that there has been a sort of linguistic convergence of various related themes with the root "brut" (Asplund/nickname/Art Brut/Beton) that must have made perfect sense to them, it was brilliant. I am thinking that these might ideally sit close to History, rather than elsewhere. But we could also look at the structure of a more robust interdisciplinary page (I am looking at Modernism for example and how they use sub-headings to structure each section). 11 west (talk) 08:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Capital or lower case?

In this article the initial "B", when it is not at the beginning of a sentence, is sometimes set in capital and sometimes in lower case. Which should it be? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Capital "B". LoopZilla (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of a capital 'B' here is nonstandard. Typically a movement is capitalized if it's named after a proper noun (e.g. Platonism) or if its derived from a language that tends to capitalize nouns as German does (e.g. Bauhaus). Brutalism meets neither of these criteria. The OED doesn't capitalize 'brutalism'. I would favor following its example. At this moment I don't grasp the difference between 'brutalism' and 'new brutalism', so I can't say if the latter should be capitalized. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 14:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A contradiction

Early in the article this sentence appears."Architects Alison and Peter Smithson are believed to have coined the term "Brutalism" "

Later this appears. The term "Brutalism" was originally coined by the Swedish architect Hans Asplund to describe Villa Göth in Uppsala"71.36.157.252 (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I had a look at the sources and it appears that the Smithsons got it from Asplund. So I resolved the contradiction by crediting the Smithsons with introducing it to the English speaking world. Does that seem a reasonable resolution? Possums (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This is hardly the only contradiction when it comes to the origins of the term Brutalism ... please read above the discussion "Brutalism" versus "New Brutalism"11 west (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. Asplund used the term "Nybrutalism" (New Brutalism) originally. This was introduced to the english speaking world by the Smithsons and Banham. Neither "Brutalism" or "New Brutalism" were used in architectural circles prior. Jtfolden (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Both Banham, and The Smithsons are quoting Le Corbusier as the etymological originator of the word, "the owner of this verbal formula" - this I have quoted out of the primary source, Banham's "The New Brutalism , Reyner Banham, 1966 edition", while all other quotations in this part are from secondary sources (articles etc). Consequently, and as derived by their own admission, Le Corbusier is beyond doubt the only one who should be credited with the etymology the word. Banham, Asplund and the Smithsons can be safely credited with coining and popularising a derivative of this etymological formula, namely "New Brutalism" . It is beyond doubt, and eminently evident in Banham's book, that there would have been no "New Brutalism" or indeed any other kind of Brutalism before Le Corbusier advocated beton-brut as the ultimate construction material.

In addition, certain distance has to be placed between the Brutalism of Le Corbusier, and Art Brut, a radical form of avant garde art advocated by Jan Dubuffet. Dubuffet was in the inner circle of the Smithsons, and very influential to the development of their work according to Dirk Van Der Heuvel . An idea here, that the abstract character of Art Brut and its relation to "New Brutalism" could merit further scrutiny. Might Art Brut have ultimately become more important than Le Corbusier beton-Brut for the Smithsons  ? I wouldn't be surprised. For now, I have removed Le Corbusier from that sentence as he is now adequately covered.

I will soon be addressing this by clearly crediting Le Corbusier for the etymology of "Brutalism", and Banham and the Smithsons for popularising and expanding on its derivative "New Brutalism". Asplund/Villa Goth and The Smithsons are now clearly associated specifically with "New Brutalism" remain part of the history section as they should 11 west (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest you not without direct and clear citations, lest the edit be reverted. I have repeatedly asked for direct citations and you have responded with conjecture and original research based around handpicked and misinterpreted quotes. Also, while Banham helped expand and popularize (New) Brutalism, he is a critic and secondary to the architects who introduced New Brutalism themselves - who on many occasions very publicly pushed back against some of his claims. Jtfolden (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@jtfolden I have cited the original source, verbatim, a number of times, a fact you are ignoring. I will now be starting a dispute resolution process about your arbitrary reversals. 11 west (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Bt all means, you are welcome to do so. Original research and personal agendas should not be used as the basis for edits such as that. My revert is not arbitrary and the existing history should remain based on the numerous citations available. Jtfolden (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@jtfolden is Reyner Banham original research? What personal agendas? Is this serious? All current citations in the Brutalist Architecture article are secondary sources, internet articles etc !!! We have a template message testifying to the existence of unsourced or unreliably sourced material, and it appears that currently I am the only one who cites Reyner Banham in the original ? This is the definition of edit warring - I expect you to be banned, hopefully for more than the indicated 24 hours 11 west (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@11 west: please reconsider your methods of interacting with other editors. Dial it back, and treat other editors with respect. If you treat Wikipedia as a battleground and other editors as opponents, you won't make much progress. Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

Hi fellow Wikipedians,

As someone not very knowledgable in architecture, I found the lead section very confusing, as it doesn't give a proper definition of Brutalist architecture nor does it highlight some of its defining features. The lead section should start off with the most important facts followed by less important facts. It may be helpful to define modernist architecture too. I would've rewrote it myself, but again, I'm not exactly an expert in this field. Thanks! Ganbaruby (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jtfolden: I attempted a small re-write that functions more as a broad introduction to "what is brutalism" Jtfolden undid my revision, having preferred the prior version. However I agree that the lead needs a re-write as it very quickly jumps into fairly esoteric details. It would be useful to have a more general overview. Perhaps jtfolden would volunteer to do this re-write, or at least discuss what about my edit was lacking? Possums (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Possums: I initially reverted it, before seeing the alert about re-writing the lead, mainly because it removed the reference to some structures also being made out of brick, steel, etc... Some past edits to the page removed everything but concrete. Given the earliest Brutalist buildings were brick, I think it's important to keep it in the lead. Some of the other info there is duplicated or also referenced in later sections though, and I'll see if I can't merge a bit of it together. Jtfolden (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jtfolden: I've cleaned up the lead. It's now a lot simpler and mostly just refers the content in the body below. I've added a picture of the High Court of Australia, I think its a good example but there could be a better one. All that glitters is (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

External links

We don't need external links to personal blogs on Wikipedia. I've removed several links to blog sites which were listed in the External Links section. See WP:EXT external links. Curdigirl (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

External links are the links from other websites to connect with your current content which is relevant Parvinkhatun (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Criticism and reception

As sharp as The Prince Charles' quote in this section may read (Luftwaffe/Rubble), it is not tied to a Brutalist building at all, but rather to Richard Rogers' 1987 Paternoster Square redevelopment proposal. Neither Richard Rogers as an architect, nor his specific plan for Paternoster Square were Brutalist in spirit or nature, therefore I will be delighted to remove this and transfer it to the Wikipedia article about Post-Modernism (in all honesty, I'm rather inclined to do that with many other parts of this here Brutalist Architecture entry, but one thing at a time). Sadly the original source was easily taken out of context in this case to apply to Brutalist architecture. The source referring the episode in its actual context is here : 11 west (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

History section : Villa Goth photo

It was captioned "Villa Göth (1949) in Kåbo, Uppsala, Sweden. "Brutalism" was used for the first time to describe this house." I have now corrected it to "Villa Göth (1950) in Kåbo, Uppsala, Sweden. "New Brutalism" was used for the first time to describe this house." My source is of course but also its Wikipedia entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11 west (talk • contribs)

You may not cite Wikipedia articles in references. Stick to external sources, and remember that you're having a meta discussion on whether Banham originated the term - that requires additional sourcing, not from Banham, but from later scholarship by others. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

History Section : Hans Asplund and "Brutalism"

The following phrase "The term "Brutalism" was coined by the Swedish architect Hans Asplund to describe Villa Göth, a modern brick home in Uppsala, designed in 1949 by his contemporaries Bengt Edman and Lennart Holm.[2] He initially used the Swedish term Nybrutalism (New Brutalism),..." is conjecture and contains inaccuracies for the following reasons

- This is not what is quoted in the cited resource Hans Asplund merely coined the term Nybrutalism with connection to Villa Goth.

- "He initially used..." there's no evidence that he dropped "Ny-" to refer to it as "Brutalism" at any point after "initially" using it. Please provide citations if so

- Villa Goth was built in 1950.. Both Banham and the Wikipedia page for Villa Goth point to that. Specifically Banham mentions that Villa Goth is still being designed in January 1950. I quote in support but also its Wikipedia entry

- I want to draw your attention to this citation too . In it, Elaine Harwood, only refers to the Smithsons' work in Sugden House and Hunstanton as "New Brutalism" at (00:09), but to a concrete high rise (Erno Goldfinger's) Balfron Tower in Poplar as just "Brutalism" (at 03:32). I am leaving it as it is in reference to (00.09) since it is relevant to that part of the history.

Therefore I will be changing the wording in the Hans Asplund Sentence to reflect the above 11 west (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe what was originally meant by "He initially used the Swedish term Nybrutalism" was the fact that his phrase was Swedish, as opposed to later english derivation. There was no suggestion in the text that he dropped "Ny-" himself. However, as noted in Banham's 1966 book (p10), what's important here is that "the originator of the word "Brutalist" seems fairly certainly to have been Hans Asplund." New Brutalism and Brutalism are used interchangeably. Jtfolden (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I will want to tentatively challenge Asplund's characterisation, beyond how it was borrowed by Banham and the Smithsons (visually linking Villa Goth with their Sugden House ever since). If nothing else, Banham's reference in 1955 is already second hand. Anthony Vidler offers an insightful breakdown which I quote verbatim "As late as 1956, the origins of the term (New Brutalism) were still giving rise to what the photographer of the vernacular tradition Eric de Mare called "a subject for academic research". In 1950, the Swedish Journal Brygg Mastaren had published a special issue on the work of architect Gunnar Asplund with an english summary that used the term "Neo Brutalist" . De Mare wrote to the Architectural Review summarising a letter he had received from Asplund's son Hans, explaining how the term had arisen in Sweden. Hans, it seems, had coined it in jest to characterise a house design by Edman and Holm, and had shared his comment with three English architects Ventris, Cox and Shankland, who brought the words back in England, where they had spread like wildfire, and had somewhat surprisingly been adopted by a certain faction of young English architects. Hans Asplund apparently took no pride in this invention as a self-described Paleo-Sentimentalist. Thus a term that was apparently invented to repudiate Swedish modern, and its importation to Britain (this is the New Humanism, the sentimental vernacular architecture prevalent in Sweden and Britain at the time) had in fact been invented by the Swedes"

There's no evidence that Asplund meant to provide a coherent architectural proposition by describing a townhouse as Nybrutalism, although I will have to see De Mare's original letter exchange with Hans, as well as the Gunnar Asplund journal entry to conclude. But there's every evidence that the Smithsons and Banham used it because it sounded right, and fitted their narrative. So the connection is purely linguistic at that stage, with Smithsons and Banham popularising and fleshing it out at a later stage.11 west (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Neither does Asplund NEED to have provided "a coherent architectural proposition". The first line of the History section states that he coined the TERM. It doesn't suggest anything further than that. The whole purpose of that section is to show where it came from. In fact, it used to state that he coined the term 'Brutalism' specifically and that was probably more accurate since nybrutalism can possibly be translated as "New Brutalism" or "Neo-Brutalism" (Google translate favors the former). It's the "Brutalism" part that is important since no one was using it in relation to architecture before then. Soho House and Hunstanton School are partly notable for the fact they're the earliest designs referred to as Brutalist by their own designers in the world, as well. So I'm not sure what you're trying to challenge here.

On the other hand, if you've actually seen the design of Villa Göth then it would be extremely hard to discount the fact that it houses a lot of the aspects important to the Smithsons and Brutalist architecture overall, such as the display of raw building materials in a modern design (even some beton brut in the bathrooms and ceilings, IIRC). Jtfolden (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

History Section : New Brutalism coming to Britain

There's another assumption made here, that isn't cited appropriately. The phrase : "This was picked up in the summer of 1950 [4] by a group of visiting English architects, including Michael Ventris, and Alison and Peter Smithson.[5][2][6]" Alison and Peter Smithson's direct "adoption" from the Asplund term in 1950 doesn't derive from any of the cited sources. Neither I found any evidence that the Smithsons visited Sweden that year. Instead, there's consensus that it was Oliver Cox, Graeme Shankland and Michael Ventris who brought it back to England, where it apparently "spread like wildfire among a certain faction of young English architects" These are the changes I propose

- I rephrase to indicate that it was only Oliver Cox, Graeme Shankland and Michael Ventris who brought it back to the UK, and not the Smithsons

- I have moved Alun's citation temporarily to the next sentence, which is correctly placing Alison Smithson not utilising the term publicly before 1953. (Not a very useful citation, perhaps better suited for the Further Resources section. I am happy for this to be more suitably placed elsewhere or even removed)

- I have left the Guardian citation from Meades which correctly attests to the above

- I have removed the citation from Golan as it doesn't point to the Smithsons importing the term first hand

- I am adding the new citation from VIDLER, ANTHONY. “Another Brick in the Wall.” October, vol. 136, 2011, pp. 105–132. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23014873 which clearly attests to the fact

- And last Banham relates the same story. Oliver Cox, Graeme Shankland and Michael Ventris, not the Smithsons. 11 west (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you are using the Source or Visual Editor but be careful when removing or editing citations. The Golan link was used somewhere else in the page and was broken somewhere along the way by it's removal. I have fixed it. Jtfolden (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Chronology discussion

It would be very helpful to provide a correct chronology of important events related to Brutalism in the history section, as dates currently go back and forth. This is justified, as contemporary discussions often used the term "New Brutalism" to retrospectively add buildings to the canon. I am oriented towards offering an absolute timeline based an all existing mentioned buildings and episodes currently in the History section, as such :

- 1946 and the Mies Van Der Rohe as the "first completed building to carry the title of New Brutalist"

- 1950 Asplund and Villa Goth, the first recorded use of New Brutalism (Nybrutalism)

- 1952 Le Corbusier Unite D'Habitation and the "verbal formula" story

- 1953 The Smithsons and their (unbuilt) SoHo house story as the first public mention of New Brutalism in the UK

- 1953 Le Corbusier's Chandigarh

- 1954 The Smithsons and Hunstanton School as "the first building completed in the world to be called "New Brutalist" by its architects"

- 1955 Le Corbusier's Ronchamp

- 1955 Sugden House justified as above

- 1955 Reyner Banham's essay to bind the above, and adding the art-brut story (and I would be fine to the Smithsons nickname story around here too as a contemporary truth, although this is not related until 1966)

I believe this would offer to readers a much clearer idea about the gradual shaping of various architectural and art influences into a coherent movement. Any thoughts? 11 west (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This is helpful, but please be aware of Wikipedia's no original research policy - you may not string a series of facts together and draw a conclusion that is not explicitly present in a reliable source. Find scholarship that states a conclusion on the origin of the term, not what Banham or Asplund say, and cite that. There have been many, many words expended on the subject of Brutalism by lots of architectural scholars. You need to look in sources from the 1990s and beyond, not in Banham's books. Banham was undoubtedly influential, but itf the topic is the origination of the term, you need later scholarship that looks at how that came to be. Acroterion (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional observations: Please remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary source that summarizes the views of reliable secondary sources. On the subject of whether Banham coined the term (leaving aside whether he popularized the term), Banham himself would be a primary source. Primary sources are to be avoided, or used with great care. Since the subject is about Banham's usage (or Asplund's, or Le Corbusiers's) we need references to scholars who aren't Banham, Asplund or Corbu. Acroterion (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, the reference to the IIT in Chicago as the "first completed building to carry the title of New Brutalist" is a misreading of Banham's text. The exact wording on page 17 is "Yet the first completed building to carry the title of 'New Brutalist' was not Corbusian; rather it was the most precise imitation of the building style of Mies Van Der Rohe outside the USA by that time..." The keywords here are "outside the USA". He is referring to Hunstanton and more clearly states this claim again on page 19 of his book. Too, though this edit was incorrect, even if someone decided in 1966 to describe a random building from 1946 as Brutalist, that doesn't mean the first usage of the term suddenly moves back in time. I do not believe a building can be the first to carry a title when the title in question did not even exist yet. This is why, on the topic of origination, that clear and well supported citations are needed to radically alter the history, imo. Jtfolden (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@jtfolden I'm fine with that reading and most of your edit. Would you mind adding back the date for Mies' building, though (it's 1946). It is customary to provide a date for every building mentioned, but also contributes to the timeline. We are discussing an artistic, philosophical and architectural continuum that covers a period of time, and not an instant and immaculate conception. The word has an multi-faceted origin, the ethic and aesthetic also have provenance in the past, (and as I will argue elsewhere, specific influence to the future). Thanks 11 west (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Images

Lets agree on images we will use in article here. It should be balanced level of all objects from all over the world. Image of Villa Göth is a must, as that is THE FIRST object of the style, so that is even out of question. Le Corbusier is indeed precursor, and that is the reason to have it in article as important and the famous example. All other images are from London. That probably means you live in London or know about it, but that is NOT the reason to include all objects from London. We already have Trellick Tower, and that is enough. Also, dont restore some other photos someone added BEFORE your edits. This is not the laundry list of every brutalist building someone finds interesting. Please, DO NOT edit war and before any further photo addition come here to agree with me. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

First, you lied by implying that there existed some pre-existent talk agreement about which pictures should be included. Then, you replaced several photos of brutalist buildings (which I admit may have been too many, but the selection clearly represented many of the visual hallmarks of the style) with a photo of a non-brutalist building that is not even visually illustrative in that respect. Then, when I made a concession and inserted two prominent (and legally protected) examples of brutalist design, you again reverted them and again replaced them with a non-brutalist building. (The Le Corbusier building should obviously be included in the section on precursors, not featured as a representation of the style itself.) In the meantime, I've restored images of actual brutalist buildings, and per your request I've just added back the photo of the Villa Göth (which I don’t think should be in the lead, as its brick exterior and lack of obvious concrete doesn’t make it a clear example of typical brutalism). You’ve also done nothing to improve the sources or citations on the page, which is full of dubious original research. Can you explain what you’ve actually done to improve this page at all?

Also, I don’t live in London, but clearly a high proportion of early (and iconic) brutalist buildings were built there, and many of the best quality photos on Wikimedia Commons cater to these, and I thought they made the best example for the lead. If you have other, equally quintessential (and good quality) photos from other countries, I invite you to make suggestions. What you’re doing now is simply disruptive, especially when you’ve demonstrated no commitment to improving the page beyond reverting my well-intentioned edits. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I will believe that you have well intentioned edits if you remove excess unneeded images that completely destroy WP:LAYOUT as following: Torre Ministerio de Gobernación, Iglesia El Rosario, either Balfron or Terllick tower (we do not need both, its as we know based on the same design, and if we keep Terllick it should change to a proper image where you can see the building actually) and Alexandra Road Estate, as it is crazy to have small protected image in the lede, where you dont actually see the building but corridor. So, now is your time to shine and show that you DO actually want to clear this article. And after we solve this, when we actually SEE the article without 1346 excess images and with proper layout, we may continue to fix sources, after you improve this page. Thank you my love! --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Habitat panorama.jpg is extremely effective at illustrating passive brutality. As for changing the intro to suggest that brutalism is a description of a pleasant showcasing of architectural features, you obviously do not speak English. That is not what this article is about. Brutal: 1. savagely violent. 2. unpleasant or harsh. 3. direct and without attempting to disguise unpleasantness. Origin: late 15th century (in the sense ‘relating to the lower animals’): from Old French, or from medieval Latin brutalis, from brutus ‘dull, stupid’ (see brute). Now you are going to have to accept that if you are going to rewrite this article. This article is not about celebrating beauty or kindness. It is about complaining that there is no beauty. If you cannot understand that, you cannot write a good article for this. When a building is beautiful, it is not brutalist. ~ R.T.G 16:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, RTG. Not only is your argument here all demonstrably untrue, it also represents a pitifully adolescent and reactionary viewpoint. The argument that "there is no beauty" is premised on the baseless, conservative assumption that there exists an objective definition of beauty (and for that matter, any objective reality which could be described qualitatively in the first place, lol, which could then be said to embody this definition). It’s particularly ridiculous when applied to a modernist art movement whose whole aim was to imagine alien, inhuman forms that might imbue everyday life with as-yet unknown forms of spatial and aesthetic perception. Grow up. Anhedonic pessimism isn’t realism, it’s ideology in the extreme. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"Inhuman", you said it is. You do not even reject my issue. You embody it. Adenhonia cries the inhuman brutalist at rejection. (that there is no such thing as beauty, which cannot be described... lol?) Let's be clear about something, Gentlecollapse6. What is an objective reality with set elements? It's a subjective reality. Modernism? Certainly not something which I can assist you with, however, if the intention is to be so alien and inhuman without reference to a standardised concept of aesthetic... why'd you pretty up the Habitat 67 image? You could have fooled me said someone who, apparently has no sense of humour then... and yet... ~ R.T.G 03:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC) ... There is no need for an argument. I make my point below, and leave it to the contributors. ~ R.T.G 04:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The term Brutalism is, as the article notes, derived from the French béton-brut, which simply means raw concrete. It is the extensive use of raw concrete that is the defining characteristic, not (at least not intentionally) a visual beat-down. The style is intended to maximize the expressive qualities of concrete: whether that really worked out to anybody's liking is discussed in the article. A beautiful Brutalist building is still Brutalist. As is often the case, out-of-fashion architecture gets a bad name and is ignored for a while - this happened to Victorian architecture in the 1960s and 70s. The article isn't a means of arbitrating taste. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The phrase was coined on the Villa Goth. There is no concrete in the Villa Goth exterior. The Villa Goth image has been removed from the article, and replaced with one which makes it appear like concrete, making this article a lie. This was one of the coolest and quirkiest architecture articles on the site. A funny little gem about the way the world is. You've ruined that. ~ R.T.G 19:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What you are doing is replacing the article about brutal architecture with an argument that there is no such thing. ~ R.T.G 19:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)With a filter to make it appear as though there never was such a thing, openly stated bias toward that in your response. ~ R.T.G 19:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. The bricks of the Villa Göth are perfectly visible in the current photo. It was chosen because it’s a more straight-on photo which highlights the geometric qualities of the design. The previous photo was poor quality, with the landscaping in disarray and the unique structure of the building less discernible.gentlecollapse6 (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can see that the new image is pale, grey, and obscuring of the deeply contrasting mortared red brick with white painted features. Sadly, this is the only point I am seeing as winnable here, but one thing is clear, the better that you cover this up, the less likely that anyone will be motivated to improve it. A good day, ~ R.T.G 03:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC) ... Look, it is not my intention to be so argumentative with this. There are obviously two aspects to brutalism, one attempting to rewrite the other. There are obviously brutalist buildings which are truly brutal. Having spent time with this article I expect you to know that without debate. When I looked at the article after some months, I found it to be looking almost pretty. There must be a balance to achieve neutrality. I'm trying to put strong terms, not psychoanalyse each other. Just as there is nothing truly wrong with trying to turn brutalism into beauty, there is nothing truly wrong with accepting that effort has a clear basis. I'm not even going to come around and argue points. I believe you have the majority on this issue, and I believe you are capable of both reasoning and differentiating. Try to accept, if you will, that the stark nature of some brutalist items has been notably unattractive, and that those items are interesting. That's all. Good luck with it, ~ R.T.G 04:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I've put the previous picture back. Not only was the newer picture lacking color but it was reversed (showing windows on the wrong side, for example). Jtfolden (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Which is why the Villa Goth has been a subject of argument - origin stories aren't always neatly assembled. I wasn't aware that I had changed or ruined anything, thanks for letting me know. As far as I know I've never edited the article. There was a little edit war a while back over Villa Goth - see the walls of text up the page. Regardless of etymology, Brutalism is broadly associated with concrete in academic commentary. Sometimes there's brick, and I could probably make a pretty good argument that brick can be just as raw and bricky as concrete can be concretey, fitting the essence of strong statements of material. I have more than the usual number of reference materials and will take a look for such a broadened thesis. Acroterion (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The lede summarizies the broad view well - " It is characterized by stark, minimalist constructions that showcase the bare building materials and structural elements of the design." That fits Villa Goth as well as Breuer-type concrete compositions. Acroterion (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words on the lede, Acroterion. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

11 west, myself, and a few others dug into and hashed out a chronological and well sourced history for the etymology of the term "New Brutalism" and it's first usage for this article nearly a year ago. There is actually little corroborating evidence -from the era- to suggest that "New Brutalism" was derived from Beton Brut. There were a few lesser, competing theories but neither Asplund, the Smithsons, or Banham pointed to Beton Brut as the source (any more than Banham pointed to Art Brut, which he also associated with New Brutalism). The argument around Villa Goth revolved around the idea that "New Brutalism" and "Brutalism" were separate entities but, again, there was no evidence to support that Jtfolden (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

In English speaking Europe, the Villa Goth is projects-style architecture, for a mid or small sized city or country town from seventies and eighties architecture. Without significant windows on the lower floor, it looks like the sort of place that would end up being a doctors office in a poor neighbourhood. Describing it as brutal is recognisable and class-independent speech over here. The word brutal, in this now peaceful society, is used specifically to describe something which causes an ordeal, across all of the various dialects. It is fair to disagree that the Villa Goth is brutal... but it is totally valid for the person who sees this building as, less than posh, to describe it as brutal, as a severe reprimand. It is not experimental speech and not even truly rude, though it is quite a strong opinion. I am not sure if I would describe it as brutal myself but possibly so and it certainly looks exactly like an unpopular style of cheap government-constructed building. Certain works of breton brut fit right in to that frame, and if you can't accept that, there is nothing to qualify an opinion of beauty. You say tomato, and I say tomato, as simple as that. I grew up for many years with buildings in similar style in view of my house. The last time I read about one of them in the news someone had been tied to a lamp post and tarred and feathered outside it for selling crack cocaine. He did not live there. He was brought there to do that to him. But go on, deny the past. Maybe they'll build whole neighbourhoods like this in America. Do you know what style came directly afterward? Habitat 67... So, my motivations are clear, and your silencing opinions are bare, even if you can't stand to be disagreed with. The complaint is well founded. Do as you will. ~ R.T.G 15:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know about WP:NOR, and long enough to know that accusations and personalized arguments aren't acceptable. I'm not interested in debating semantics. Acroterion (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a big gaping hole, where what this subject is about, is. There is obviously lengthy unsatisfactory debate. The comment does not refer to your character, or anything like that. You want to act upon fear of understanding? Fine. I tried. Go protect stuff you don't really understand. Your odds of getting an attack out of me are minimal. ~ R.T.G 03:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Detrimental April 2020 Edits

RTG is correct above, the recent edits to this page are much for the worse. This page had been stable for quite some time with well established history and first use of the term "New Brutalism" via sources from the time they were originally used as opposed to random blogs and neologisms trying to make a Beton Brut connection. The phrase New Brutalism originates from 'nybrutalism', not Beton Brut (which wasn't officially associated with the term until Banham himself did so. Le Corbusier never even used the term Brutalism. Beton Brut has its own page and is NOT the totality of Brutalism. We don't need to broaden a thesis that Villa Goth and Hunstanton School (the first completed structure ever described as New Brutalist by it's own architects) are ground zero for Brutalism. Jtfolden (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This was page was full of unsourced claims and heaps of original research, which you did nothing to improve. As other commenters noted in an above section, it was also completely vague in its description of brutalist as a style and movement. To say the article was "stable" in this sorry state is meaningless. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I’ve actually worked on this page both far more and far longer than you and many of us have worked to improve it and add sources. The History section in particular is much improved.

Recent edits have been for the worse. The lead is supposed to act as a summary for the rest of the page. Instead it had ballooned and becomes repetitive within itself and feature questionable info and sources that contradicted the better researched areas below it. The newer image of Villa Goth was also for the worse.

Perhaps you could work on the unsourced sections you are complaining about. Jtfolden (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

And yet you left the lead, where most readers get their information, almost entirely devoid of clear descriptions of brutalism and its principles ("simple, block-like structures" ...come on, are you kidding?), or any of the historical claims you apparently worked so hard to add into the article body? Historical background was almost entirely absent from the lead before I added them. That "Nybrutalism" was the inspiration for the Smithson's New Brutalism doesnt contradict the connection to, Le Corbusier's phrase, which has nonetheless been widely used as a pithy and accurate summary of the movement's aims (a modification of phrase, rather than removal of this info, might have been more helpful). As it is, your version of the lead clarified nothing about the origins or meaning of the term.

"Recent edits have been for the worse." If you can support this claim with any sources or coherent arguments beyond your issue with "Beton Brut", that’s be great. As it stands, you removed a sourced claim describing the kinds of materials associated with the style, and replaced it with an unsourced, vague claim about “concrete, and sometimes brick." If you could point out an element of the lede which is inaccurate or unduly repetitive, with sources to back up your perspective, I'd be grateful. Otherwise, I consider my edits a useful roadmap for how the rest of the article should be improved—with core, important ideas summarized clearly for the average reader.

Also, the current picture of the Villa Göth is low quality in my opinion—the landscaping is in disarray, covering part of the house, and the angle doesn’t emphasize what is unique about the structure—its geometric, boxy design. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, for your clarification, the lead is supposed to act primarily as a summary only. Citations are not typically needed, but can be used, in the lead. That visitors may or may not read beyond that is arguable but also irrelevant. It's their fault if they don't - it's not justification for packing every little factoid there. Your prior edits added repetitive statements and you're doing it again. You now have two sentences in the first paragraph of the page that are overlapping and saying the same thing in different ways. There's no sources required here - just read it. Sometimes less is more. Jtfolden (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

So your position is that the lead for a poorly-sourced and vague page should also be equally poorly-sourced and vague? And that adding clear, summarizing statements about the subject to a lead is a bad thing? If my straightforward (sourced) claims about the style are indeed correct, then you could help by making sure they’re reflected in the article in more depth.

Also, if you could point out the two sentences which communicate the same things, I’d appreciate it. As it stands, I see one sentence broadly summarizing the movement's approach, and one sentence describing particular elements of a typical design. (For example: a log cabin could be said to feature "stark, minimalist design that showcases the structural elements and building materials", but nobody would argue that Abe Lincoln was a brutalist, now would they? The specifics—concrete, geometric fixations, intimidating size, muted colors—matter.) gentlecollapse6 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Trying to put words in my mouth won't get you anywhere. If I feel they are all "clear, summarizing statements" then I won't have a problem with them. If you're concerned about readers not moving past the lead then accurately reflecting the content of the page in the summary and avoiding being too repetitive or wordy about it would be beneficial, right? If I think something can be stated more concisely, then that is what I attempt, per wp:layout. The same holds true for citations in that area since it's commonly sourced below, etc. I still think the lead could use improvement in regard to summarizing the cited information in the History and Characteristics sections in particular but I'll return to it when I get a minute. Jtfolden (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

As stated above, I don’t understand which elements of the “characteristics” section can currently be lost without the definition becoming needlessly vague, but suggestions welcome. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The article for the Villa Goth references a 2001 book by an apparently popular architecture critic, Rasmus Wærn, to say Brustalism "is also an approach to architecture, a striving to create simple, honest, and functional buildings by, for example, not allowing them to create associations or emotions", "a reaction to the architecture of the 1940s", "characterized by a retrospective nostalgia." This article says none of that. This article references a letter from Asplund to Banham, apparently the earliest recorded mention of the term known and the inspiration for the first book bearing the title New Brutalism, but no letter is mentioned in this article. It is only by reading the article on the Villa Goth that I find that the inside of the Villa Goth does in fact incorporate breton brut... well, the bathroom is raw concrete as it were. This is all very interesting stuff whether you are for or against brutalism. I was looking last night at some "brutalist playgrounds" which have been almost obliterated off the internet by a copy of one by a group called Assemble winning a Turner prize, a sort of foam brick reconstruction of the playground for that refurbished Park Hill in the article. I am counting only 8 images in the article outside the gallery and the same in the gallery itself. I think I could easily fit 30-40 images in this article, and that's probably how many it would need to give a representative view. This day last week there was about 20 images in the article. It's a visual genre really, isn't it? ~ R.T.G 07:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

In light of this, it’d probably be more helpful to show a picture of the interior of Villa Göth in order to illustrate accurately to a reader what a typical brutalist design looks like, which should after all be the primary purpose of images on this page—not simply "here's a building called brutalist! (which may or may not differ greatly from the majority of examples in the style)". gentlecollapse6 (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that also having interior photos of buildings like Villa Goth, and especially Hunstanton School, would be helpful. The problem is that there aren't a lot that are both good and 'free' readily available for use within wikipedia that I have found so far. Some of the issues in the "Brutalist Revival" of the last 15-25 years is an over-simplification of the movement as just a style, only concerned with concrete, and with attention mostly paid to the exterior. Those actually discussing this movement in the 1950s and '60s talked about it as an approach to design of the entire structure, inside and out, and the honest use of any 'raw materials' fit for the purpose. The Smithons described it as an ethical concern. Volcker even outright stated that Brutalism could NOT be understood stylistically. Banham tried to shoe horn the movement into stylistic terms more than any other, perhaps, and is most responsible for popularizing the term but even he admitted that it "eludes precise description". However, Brutalist structures like Villa Goth, Hunstanton and numerous others that use brick are under-represented on this page, too. If you go to a site like SOS Brutalism you will indeed see vast amounts of concrete, particularly institutional buildings, but there are also many showcasing lots of brick or featuring other materials. A few are specifically tagged but the majority are not. Jtfolden (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

A good deal of the Characteristics section currently covers the topic of Brutalism being used to describe an approach to design, including an ethical or 'honest use' of materials, rather than just a style. It doesn't use anything from Rasmus Wærn, however, but I'll look at that again and see what might be good here. Regarding the "Asplund letter" in question - it was written in 1956 and sent to Architectural Review where it was published in the August issue of that year. Banham later included part of it in his book, released 1966. It's not the first use of the term in print but merely Asplund's explanation, after the fact, of how the term 'nybrutalism' came about back in 1950. The letter is actually used as a citation here. We could probably do with a better description of Villa Goth on this page to tie some things together. Jtfolden (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

We have a well-developed History section, as well, so we don't need to pack the lead with lots of repeated or conflicting information. There is NO DOUBT that Le Corbusier influenced the movement greatly, particularly later on, (and this is essentially stated in the History section more than once) and that Beton Brut represents a sizable portion of example buildings. However, the suggestion that the phrase "Brutalism" originated with the term "Beton Brut" is apparently a neologism. It's a claim made years and decades after the fact and then repeated without evidence (as was the case for your citation in the lead previously). It's also important to note that the earliest Brutalist structures (such as Villa Goth, Hunstanton School, Sugden House, Lyttelton House, etc...) really don't have any measurable connection to Le Corbusier.

As far as the Villa Goth picture, it's not perfect but it's still far more representative of the structure then the grayscale, reversed photo prior. Jtfolden (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Italy is fully missing

See for instance Giovanni Muzio. Arminden (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Prefab buildings as brutalism?

It seems to me that there is a sort of confounding of prefabricated panel buildings as brutalism. In the picture examples we have several examples of these sorts of prefab panel buildings (known in German as Plattenbauten), yet I would argue that these are separate from Brutalism. Whilst they do use concrete, I'd say they are quite distinct as an architectural phenomenon from Brutalism. I'd say Park Hill Estate however is Brutalist whilst the buildings in Talnakh aren't. What do we think? 194.230.148.211 (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

on university campuses : add information on Puaka-James Hight Building

There should be some added information or a picture on the Puaka–James Hight Building at University of Canterbury. As it has significant importance in the southern hemisphere, and New Zealand. As well it is a surely to be one of the taller brutalist buildings on University campuses. MitchellMatchbox (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

History section completely unrelated

The whole article is basically about new brutalism, not brutalism. You wouldn't make an article about classical and only talk about neo classical would you?... Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is about the architectural style commonly known in English as brutalism, which was occasionally referred to historically as 'new brutalism'. But if someone talks about brutalism, this is what they are taking about. There are suggestions that "new brutalism" may have started as a joke (paralleling the various neo- movements) as there is no recognised 'old brutalism'.[2] Robminchin (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)