“let’s use concrete only because it’s the fashion”
This is a paradoxical sentence in this context. Raw material was used because it was practical and functional, but at the same time it was fashionable too.
It’s precisely what fashion is, a trend in design in a certain art school. However the lack of an aesthetic ideology does make it anti-fashion too.
One could say that the embellishments that mellow out the raw/harshness of the brutalist style is antithetical to it, though. It’s think that Corbusier would take offense with his name associated with this.
This is a paradoxical sentence in this context. Raw material was used because it was practical and functional, but at the same time it was fashionable too.
Perhaps I phrased it badly. All I meant to say is that “not using concrete” does not equal “not brutalist”. I agree with the rest of what.you said, I think that I’ve just failed to communicate what I intended to beforehand
It’s think that Corbusier would take offense with his name associated with this.
I don’t know enough about Le Corbusier to agree or disagree with you - I did study some of his design, but it was a long time ago - but he would hardly be alone as an artist that wasn’t so keen on what his work influenced. I don’t think that would make it any less true
No, not at all. My comment wasn’t dismissive of your post at all. I just was intrigued by the paradox of fashion and brutalism.
If there was any critique in my comment is more directed at the source you quoted. It’s really forcing the Corbusier angle a bit too much, in my honest opinion. It’s late brutalism, with a bit too much beatification going on to be true to the style.
I do like the building a lot and it’s intriguing to see the headway they made with concrete casting to archieve the rounder shapes.
![A great example of Brutalist architecture, it divides opinion sharply [OC]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/6c1b3532-38c7-4b0f-b926-089b3a0b567f.jpeg){kind=link}
This is a paradoxical sentence in this context. Raw material was used because it was practical and functional, but at the same time it was fashionable too.
It’s precisely what fashion is, a trend in design in a certain art school. However the lack of an aesthetic ideology does make it anti-fashion too.
One could say that the embellishments that mellow out the raw/harshness of the brutalist style is antithetical to it, though. It’s think that Corbusier would take offense with his name associated with this.
Perhaps I phrased it badly. All I meant to say is that “not using concrete” does not equal “not brutalist”. I agree with the rest of what.you said, I think that I’ve just failed to communicate what I intended to beforehand
I don’t know enough about Le Corbusier to agree or disagree with you - I did study some of his design, but it was a long time ago - but he would hardly be alone as an artist that wasn’t so keen on what his work influenced. I don’t think that would make it any less true
No, not at all. My comment wasn’t dismissive of your post at all. I just was intrigued by the paradox of fashion and brutalism.
If there was any critique in my comment is more directed at the source you quoted. It’s really forcing the Corbusier angle a bit too much, in my honest opinion. It’s late brutalism, with a bit too much beatification going on to be true to the style.
I do like the building a lot and it’s intriguing to see the headway they made with concrete casting to archieve the rounder shapes.
Ahh, I see what you mean now. Thank you for explaining!
No worries!