At work we recently got into a debate about the merits of architecture from differing periods. One dissenting voice, crowded out by the majority it has to be said, favoured he 'Brutalism' of the late 1950s and particularly, (in Britain at least), early to mid 1960s.
One was flabbergasted to say the least that anyone could be a proponent of this style. The surviving examples are usually grey, drab, un-exciting and often problematic. Many of the tower blocks etc that were built for example, which were supposed to create a safer, better, cleaner environment actually led to social dissolution and are now run down and feel dangerous.
They may be iconic to some, but for my money these, mostly, concrete monstrosities are both hideous and not always even as functional as their simplistic design style was meant to achieve.
There is a good link here describing the Brutalist movement in the UK http://www.voicesofeastanglia.com/2011/08/the-rise-and-fall-of-brutalist-architecture.html
which is well worded and worth reading for those with anything beyond a passing interest.
One should always put one's cards on the table in situations like this. I am a rank amateur with no professional understanding of architecture. yet, to my untrained eye there is much more beauty (alongside the requisite functionality) in many of the architecture and engineering feats of he Victorian era. See this link for a few examples; http://www.architecture.com/HowWeBuiltBritain/HistoricalPeriods/Victorian/VictorianBuildings.aspx
To conclude, let us hope that future architects retain the principles of functionality. But that they are able to successfully blend them with the visually appealing. It makes for a better world.
No comments:
Post a Comment