- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Brutal Truths

Few are immune to the architectural charms of Eastern Europe. Prague’s winding streets and medieval towers are a testament to the city’s enduring commercial vitality. The gothic imprint of German settlement can be seen as far east as Romania, where a distinctly Teutonic cathedral looms over the Brasov town square. The architectural signature of the Habsburgs—pastel colors and baroque ornamentation—remains from Krakow and Lviv in the north, to the Adriatic port of Trieste, to Budapest and Bratislava, even as languages change and national borders interpose themselves. In Sarajevo, the baroque style gives way to the minarets and narrow streets of the Islamic old town, reminding visitors that Bosnia was once part of the Ottoman Turkish heartland.

Not all of the region’s architecture is charming. Belgrade and Warsaw were flattened during the Second World War. Ugly apartment blocks and squat concrete buildings are grim reminders of the Soviet era. Newer glass-and-steel hotels jostle uneasily with older structures. Lacking in resources, many historic buildings have gone from charmingly ramshackle to completely run-down.

Still, the variegated architecture of Eastern Europe puts lie to the notion that in matters of taste, anything goes. Residents and tourists alike flock to old squares and charming historic districts. Newer buildings are functional but unloved. In the wake of the tragic Notre Dame de Paris fire, debates about design in the public square have re-emerged along political fault lines. Instead of turning architecture into another front in the culture war, we should ask ourselves a simple question: Where have all the beautiful buildings gone?

Park Hill, a council housing estate in Sheffield, England. (Wikimedia Commons)

In the United States, the major flashpoint is brutalism, a post-war style that marries imposing concrete-and-steel design with stripped-down functionalism. Left-wingers darkly warn [1] of the alt-right “infiltrating” architecture twitter under the guise of criticizing brutalist buildings. Others defend brutalism as a symbol of our lapsed commitment to public housing and economic justice.

Though brutalism is defended on both aesthetic and political grounds, the two arguments are difficult to reconcile. To a certain type of critic, brutalism represents “heroic architecture,” [2] the realization of an individual designer’s vision in concrete and steel. Mid-century pioneers of brutalism like Le Corbusier and Ernő Goldfinger were minor celebrities. Le Corbusier’s architectural vision was uncompromisingly individualistic, unmoored from tradition or conventional ideas about form and beauty. It is no accident that Howard Roark, the fictional protagonist of Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, was also an iconoclastic architect. (Roark’s aesthetic sensibilities were closer to Frank Lloyd Wright than Le Corbusier, and the Swiss architect probably would have bridled at Roark’s politics, but the parallels between the two are unmissable.)

To a few intellectuals, brutalist buildings are heroic achievements, but the public has never warmed to them. When Naples’ notorious Gomorrah housing project was recently torn down, the loudest naysayers were professional architects [3]. Actual residents had long complained [4] about the buildings’ conditions. But if you’re not willing to defend the aesthetics of brutalism, ideology will suffice. So says today’s leftist journal Jacobin [5], trumpeting “Save Our Brutalism,” and lauding the great mid-century brutalist buildings as potent symbols of our now-forgotten commitment to equality.

L’Enfant Plaza in Washington, D.C. (Wikimedia Commons)

Defending brutalist buildings on ideological grounds only highlights the divide between design and the lived experience of a building’s residents. As James C. Scott points out in Seeing Like a State, there is a profound gulf between the God’s-eye view of architects and policy-makers and the ground-level view of actual inhabitants, who have to live with brutalism’s unforgiving sterility. From the air or from a distance, Oscar Niemeyer’s vision of Brasilia is a striking achievement. To the city’s inhabitants, however, the Le Corbusier-inspired design is artificial and alienating. Brutalism proposed to strip buildings down to their barest functions, yet it fails at the basic task of providing a welcoming, visually-appealing space for residents and passers-by.

Ascribing a single ideological message to a diffuse architectural movement is also mistaken. Perhaps Jacobin subscribers equate brutalism with public housing, but the meaning is more sinister in Eastern Europe. The tiered design of the Gomorrah housing projects bears a marked resemblance [6] to the resorts built for Communist apparatchiks on the shores of the Baltic Sea. Your average Latvian is more likely to associate these buildings with Soviet-era repression and mismanagement than left-wing nostrums about equality. Enver Hoxha’s Albania produced some striking examples of brutalist architecture. Hoxha, not coincidentally, was a notorious tyrant.

Design fads come and go and political sensibilities change, but the technocratic, top-down worldview that undergirds brutalism persists. In 2011, the Dutch celebrity architect Rem Koolhass was quite open [7] about his preference for “the generic city” over architecture rooted in local culture or history:

The traditional city is very much occupied by rules and codes of behavior. But the generic city is free of established patterns and expectations. These are cities that make no demands and, consequently, create freedom. Some 80 percent of the population of a city like Dubai consists of immigrants, while in Amsterdam it is 40 percent. I believe that it’s easier for these demographic groups to walk through Dubai, Singapore or HafenCity than through beautiful medieval city centers. For these people, (the latter) exude nothing but exclusion and rejection. In an age of mass immigration, a mass similarity of cities might just be inevitable. These cities function like airports in which the same shops are always in the same places. Everything is defined by function, and nothing by history. This can also be liberating.

Technocrats once spoke the language of socialism and central planning; Koolhass and his ilk are more likely invoke markets, openness, and globalization. But the underlying impulse is the same: Society can be cataloged, organized, and ultimately shaped from the top down through the design of its cities and buildings. Beauty, tradition, and culture are secondary considerations.

Even if we dismiss brutalism as a fad perpetrated by blinkered technocrats and egotistical architects, ugly buildings expose ugly truths. Pervasive ugliness seems to impose an unconscious psychic tax on the great mass of people, even if most have no interest in the finer points of architecture or design. So why have we lost the ability to construct beautiful buildings? There are no easy ideological answers. Socialism may have birthed brutalism, but capitalism has given us barren strip malls, cookie-cutter exurbs, and Koolhaas’s “generic city.”

By contrast, Notre Dame de Paris was a communal undertaking, built by generations of craftsmen and artisans. The names of several of its earliest architects are lost to history. Crude historical revivalism is also unsatisfying. Warsaw’s ersatz Old Town, rebuilt in the wake of World War II, is an impressive testament to Polish national will, but it lacks the authentic charm of Krakow’s beautifully-preserved historic district. Budapest’s Fisherman’s Bastion, a restored medieval structure, pales in comparison to the city’s old baroque neighborhoods. And Huawei’s “European” campus [8], plopped down in the middle of Southern China, is the architectural equivalent of the uncanny valley: The closer it hews to historic European buildings, the faker it looks and feels.

Blackened and diminished by fire, Notre Dame de Paris still inspires awe. Even among non-Catholics, the cathedral’s beauty resonates because it can be appreciated by everyone, from tourists to locals to architects. Despite decades of calamity and neglect, many of Eastern Europe’s old buildings evoke similar feeling. Such structures have always been rare, but we seem to have lost the ability, or the ambition, to even attempt them. Brutalist architecture is a historical footnote. The disappearance of beauty in our public spaces will be with us for far longer.

Will Collins is an English teacher who lives and works in Eger, Hungary.

15 Comments (Open | Close)

15 Comments To "Brutal Truths"

#1 Comment By BasileosPetros On June 6, 2019 @ 10:17 pm

It’s pretty simple isn’t it? Socialism and capitalism, as guiding principles, are both thoroughly materialist doctrines aimed at maximizing one notion of economic well-being or another. They are cousins, and the sons of the scientific, technocratic worldview.

Art or beauty are completely orthogonal to a culture that views its self-worth primarily in terms of its distribution system.

#2 Comment By Whine Merchant On June 7, 2019 @ 12:37 am

Nice to see this piece on the intersection of the aesthetic, political theory, and human experience. To regard political theory as something that only expresses itself in overt governing is to miss the subtle but powerful influence of the ever-evolving zeitgeist.

Thank you –

#3 Comment By Oleg Gark On June 7, 2019 @ 10:20 am

Brutalist architecture wasn’t solely inspired by intellectuals and Socialist ideology. The 20th century had two World Wars and a Cold War that threatened civilian populations and cities with death from above. It’s no wonder that many buildings found their architectural inspiration in reinforced concrete bunkers. Ugly, but suggesting strength and protection.

#4 Comment By Emil Bogdan On June 7, 2019 @ 12:51 pm

Make no mistake, the most egregious purveyor of Brutalist architecture is the United States. From the canyons of Manhattan to the endless strip malls you mention, nearly every office monolith and Home Depot and Wal-Mart is essentially Brutalist and soul-deadening. Brutalist architecture is minimalist and materialistically efficient, the factory-like hallmark of pure capitalism.

#5 Comment By Patricus On June 7, 2019 @ 11:15 pm

I don’t understand why one would hate strip malls. In a strange area I know I can stop at a strip mall to eat and buy any desired groceries for the continued trip. There is probably a drug store, a phone store and a place to buy tennis shoes. Some strip malls are ugly but others are nice. The great benefit: plenty of parking!

#6 Comment By Josep On June 8, 2019 @ 4:42 am

nearly every office monolith and Home Depot and Wal-Mart is essentially Brutalist and soul-deadening

Oversized parking lots. Enough said.

#7 Comment By karsten On June 8, 2019 @ 6:24 am

‘Socialism may have birthed brutalism. But capitalism has given us barren strip malls, cookie-cutter exurbs, and Rem Koolhaas’s “generic city.”’

And this is supposed to be somehow surprising or ironic? Hardly — in fact, it is the most expected fact imaginable.

Mind you, of course, there were an “-ism” or two which eschewed this false binary of socialism/capitalism, an -ism or two which actually did put aesthetic beauty above cold, rootless functionality. A third position, one might say. But of course, we had to violently do away with all such -isms that defied both the socialist and the capitalist world and instead sought to create worlds of beauty, didn’t we?

#8 Comment By NICHOLAS BINIARIS On June 8, 2019 @ 8:58 am

Ideology, a mark of the bourgeoisie, can breed both brutalism-functionalism and idealism. Socialism, the “only scientific social truth” can breed only brutalism. The aesthetically pleasing, the comfort of the human psyche, the identification with the culture and tradition of a certain people cum geographical area and climate are not a priority for a devastated Western Europe and a subjugated Eastern one after two utterly brutal Civil Wars. Brutalism is an inevitable product of mass- democracy and mass- culture. Koolhass is right. Globalized cities are like airports. We cannot build a Parthenon, a Hagia Sofia, a Karnak, a Venice or a Florence an Angkor or the Taj Mahal. Deities, spirits, demons, and heroes are all eclipsed by science and psychology. We are truly marching on to the total freedom of the human spirit as we see it functioning along with AI, robotics and top-down socialism and capitalism.
No doubt aestheticism, as an ideology, can breed a totalitarian conception of the political. But the beautiful cannot be eclipsed by the ideology of “inclusion” where we love, tolerate and understand all as a whole. The brutal-barbaric is tolerated as a necessity of testing the limits of “equality”, but is neither loved nor understood. It keeps distorting our psyche, wounding our sensitivities and leaves us in perpetual angst of running away from it.

#9 Comment By Robert Valiant On June 8, 2019 @ 9:40 am

“Great” (the stuff that lasts) architecture is always elitist and top down. Brutalism is no exception and neither is Bohemian Renaissance. Democratic or market-based architectural design is represented by American strip malls, medical services buildings, and McMansions.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

#10 Comment By Ryan dignan On June 9, 2019 @ 10:30 am

For an insightful arguement for formal, classical forms of beauty in art, architecture and music, see the bbc program by Roger Scruton “Why Beauty Matters”. Articulating and reclaiming objective beauty might be the primary path to restoring some sanity in our time.

#11 Comment By Gary Bebop On June 9, 2019 @ 1:17 pm

Brutalist is nurtured by the economics of modern regulation, construction, and function. It’s what we are willing to pay for. Beauty and grandeur were the scale in which theistic ages thought. They were willing to pay for that scale. This age is utilitarian and resigned. Only what pays for itself will be built.

#12 Comment By Egypt Steve On June 9, 2019 @ 3:25 pm

It’s not exactly “capitalism.” It’s post-war capitalism. This country is full of beautiful buildings in many great styles built before WWII: the beaux-arts state capitols and county courthouses of the 1880s thru 1920s; art deco masterpieces like the Chrysler Building or Empire State Building of the 1930s; regional styles like the Spanish Colonial Revival architecture that makes Santa Barbara so amazing. I suspect these were mostly conceived by city fathers, and built by city residents, who were committed not (only) to their own bottom lines, but to the greatness of their communities and by extension, of America. We need to figure out a non-Trumpist way to re-racinate our elites and our workers, so that people actually care about their homes and the communities of which they are part.

#13 Comment By Ken T On June 9, 2019 @ 6:39 pm

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Beauty is in the eye of the person paying for it.

#14 Comment By Greg On June 9, 2019 @ 11:33 pm

Capitalism is worse. Walking around Moscow it’s clear socialist architecture was deeply flawed but its public spaces were often quite livable. Capitalism on the other hand is consistently horrible in what it produces.

#15 Comment By Un Citoyen On June 10, 2019 @ 3:26 pm

Great article! I actually recently read Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead, and was quite surprised at how far to the left it was, even when not compared to Atlas Shrugged. Howard Roarke was the quintessential egotistical leftist narcissist who wanted to defy classical architecture and give the world the brutish, ugly modern architecture that we’ve seen in those 70’s housing projects.

In fact, much of modern architecture has just been plain ugly. Frank Lloyd Wright is extremely overrated. Frank Gehry’s museums are all bizarre and hideous. Rem Koolhaas designed the hideous CCTV bldg that marred the skyline of Beijing, and his co-conspirator Ole Sheeren designed that bizzare looking new tower in Bangkok that looked like it was crashed into by an airplane in the middle.

Modern architecture is modern for the sake of being modern, not because it’s good or beautiful. The only beautiful new bldgs these days are in the Islamic world – Malaysia’s Petronas Towers, Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, Saudi Arabia’s Abraj Al Bait tower in Mecca, all at least have some style and taste.

I’ve come to the conclusion that “modern” everything is just plain bad. Modern art, modern lit, modern music, modern architecture…all are garbage. The left destroys everything it touches. Thanks to them, art is dead, lit is dead, music is dead, and architecture has been dead since the 70s.