- Title
- Prospects for a new new brutalism
- Creator
- George, Beth
- Relation
- Art and Australia Vol. 55, Issue 2, p. 54-59
- Publisher
- Art and Australia
- Resource Type
- journal article
- Date
- 2019
- Description
- Ask today what brutalism means and many will say ‘concrete’. Or perhaps ‘raw’, maybe ‘honest’. One might cite its derivation from the French term béton brut. Intriguingly, much of this perception can be traced back to the definitive writings on the subject by architectural academic Reyner Banham. In 1955, he penned the article ‘The New Brutalism’ for the prominent British journal The Architectural Review, recognising an approach to architecture promulgated by Alison and Peter Smithson, who valued direct- ness, ordinariness and social equity. At first lauding and eventually somewhat denigrating their practice, Banham not only offered an explanation of new brutalism but he effectively constructed a pre-history for it—brutalism—both etymological and stylistic. It is one that the Smithsons consider largely fictitious. Banham’s article offers a strange prophecy for brutalism’s ends. Curiously, it opens by questioning the role of observers in con- structing (and distorting) history. Banham identifies two forms of ‘ism’: one ‘consciously adopted by a group of artists’ themselves and one applied to practitioners by critics and historians who locate some commonality among them, perhaps irrespective of the practitioners’ own knowledge or agreement.[1] Such are the coun- terposed roles of the Smithsons and Banham himself.Ask today what brutalism means and many will say ‘concrete’. Or perhaps ‘raw’, maybe ‘honest’. One might cite its derivation from the French term béton brut. Intriguingly, much of this perception can be traced back to the definitive writings on the subject by architectural academic Reyner Banham. In 1955, he penned the article ‘The New Brutalism’ for the prominent British journal The Architectural Review, recognising an approach to architecture promulgated by Alison and Peter Smithson, who valued direct- ness, ordinariness and social equity. At first lauding and eventually somewhat denigrating their practice, Banham not only offered an explanation of new brutalism but he effectively constructed a pre-history for it—brutalism—both etymological and stylistic. It is one that the Smithsons consider largely fictitious. Banham’s article offers a strange prophecy for brutalism’s ends. Curiously, it opens by questioning the role of observers in con- structing (and distorting) history. Banham identifies two forms of ‘ism’: one ‘consciously adopted by a group of artists’ themselves and one applied to practitioners by critics and historians who locate some commonality among them, perhaps irrespective of the practitioners’ own knowledge or agreement.[1] Such are the coun- terposed roles of the Smithsons and Banham himself.
- Subject
- new brutalism; architecture; concete; Reyer Banhan
- Identifier
- http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1445159
- Identifier
- uon:42517
- Identifier
- ISSN:0004-301X
- Language
- eng
- Reviewed
- Hits: 350
- Visitors: 331
- Downloads: 1
| Thumbnail | File | Description | Size | Format |
|---|