Oct 17·edited Oct 17Liked by Étienne Fortier-Dubois
Thank you for the links!
I generally don't care for Le Corbusier's works but the Tower of Shadows is quite nice and I was thinking about what was nice about it.
A common criticism of Brutalism is that the buildings can be copied and pasted anywhere, irrespective of their environment. But "Tower of Shadows" isn't like this, since it responds to how the Sun casts shadows on the particular location. Le Corbusier apparently created the building with this in mind: "it is possible to control the sunlight in the 4 corners of a building, play with it even in a hot country and finally obtain low temperatures." This seems very different from his plans for Paris, which seemed disconnected to the regional particularity of the city.
It's also nice how the Tower uses concrete in a less heavy-handed way? It's hard for concrete to be beautiful since it's like a thick block of rough uniformity, lacking depth or variation. But with the Tower, because the pieces are so thin and they're mostly just a frame to see through, the effect works. I'm contrasting this to the Chandigarh Capital Complex, which I think it is uncomfortable to look at because it seems like he's trying to make light, dynamic shapes with a material that is contrary to that purpose.
I go back and forth about brutalism and Le Corbusier, and the more I think about it the less I feel I can articulate why people dislike them. "Can be copied and pasted anywhere" is a plausible hypothesis, but as you point out it doesn't apply to all brutalist buildings, and it's true of a lot of other styles that don't draw as much distaste as brutalism does. I wonder if it has more to do with the associations of brutalism (e.g. with large-scale government redesign plans, communism etc.), or perhaps with the fact that concrete decays not as gracefully as other construction techniques? I need to write more about this.
My impression is that most people find brutalism to just look viscerally uncanny. If you look at, say an English cottage, it somehow appears to integrate with its surrounding countryside environment. Maybe due to its materials? Shape? Homeliness?
But it seems like wherever you put them, the sharp, concrete cubes of Brutalism stick out like sore thumbs. Concrete doesn't really look like rocks or stone or wood, and subjectively the material looks kind of dry and barren. It's kind of like how plastic just looks viscerally fake and it's hard to make it look beautiful. I also agree with your idea that concrete doesn't decay very gracefully — it easily attracts dark casts.
I think another aspect is the lack of physical depth in Brutalist architecture. If you look at the most popular architecture (based on tourism, people voting with their feet), there are rarely flat walls or roofs. Instead, many separate pieces tend to be joined together, panels break up uniformity, and this makes the materials feel more dynamic and interesting. Even if you look at a normal wooden door, panels give it more depth than a flat concrete door.
Though some people deeply enjoy Brutalism! I think there's an aesthetic of maximal efficiency and even overcoming the limitations of nature that some people appreciate.
I don't know, my city has a masterpiece of brutalist architecture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_67), and it feels deep and complex and not flat all all. It's generally well-loved too. Actually perhaps the answer is that brutalism can be just as great as other type of architecture, and sometimes is, but it's a style that's easy to do poorly (partly because concrete is cheap so cheap buildings are often made from it), and so most examples people see or think of are bad. And for other styles, a poorly done building is just forgettable; for brutalism it becomes an eyesore due to those flat surfaces, lack of natural materials, and tendency to have visible decay.
I read an anecdote recently from someone who taught an Urban Sociology course for many years. Their first assignment to students was always a comparison of Le Corbusier and Mole’s house from The Wind in the Willows — modernism vs. vernacular. He never asked them to take a side, but they inevitably did. He observes that for many years (this article was published in 2005), students strongly came down in favor of Le Corbusier, but more “recently” they had been in favor of Mole, and in the intervening period they felt deeply confused about what they should approve of (introductory architecture students trying desperately prove that they were what they aspired to be). Yet despite their diametric opposition, neither side ever completely won out.
I think both styles have their better and worse executions, and that makes all the difference. Modernism can feel brutal or resplendent, vernacular can feel shabby or cozy. I would perhaps put this in terms of micro-fit (does the individual fit within the confines of the architecture) and macro-fit (does the architecture fit within the confines of its surroundings).
Thank you, this comment means a lot. Out of all of those logos my favorite has to be the mysterious "Terrafirma Dyip" Looks like it could serve as the branding for a local bus service in a city of <50,000 people somewhere.
I really liked this article. A lot of the links were really interesting. Thanks! I hope you'll do more of them.
Coincidentally, I've also begun reading Fahrenheit 451. I had heard it was a story about WWII, where the main character falls out of time and begins to experience it non-linearly, eventually being sequestered by aliens. I was a bit disappointed to find that it was actually a rather dull book about a dystopian future, where you know it’s dystopian because people don’t appreciate nature, and it’s considered strange to take an interest in other human beings. At about 15% into the book, still not seeing any falling out of time or aliens, I checked to see if there had been some confusion.
It is fascinating! It seems to help me understand how the process of writing essay works. You read a lot about your predilection themes, but also the news and random stuff, as the books strangers left in the small-public-anonymous-outside-library-box next to your house.
I tend to forget that you’re writing an Atlas, so you’re an explorer! A cartographer!
Continue being curious! Thanks for all the discoveries!
Thank you for the links!
I generally don't care for Le Corbusier's works but the Tower of Shadows is quite nice and I was thinking about what was nice about it.
A common criticism of Brutalism is that the buildings can be copied and pasted anywhere, irrespective of their environment. But "Tower of Shadows" isn't like this, since it responds to how the Sun casts shadows on the particular location. Le Corbusier apparently created the building with this in mind: "it is possible to control the sunlight in the 4 corners of a building, play with it even in a hot country and finally obtain low temperatures." This seems very different from his plans for Paris, which seemed disconnected to the regional particularity of the city.
It's also nice how the Tower uses concrete in a less heavy-handed way? It's hard for concrete to be beautiful since it's like a thick block of rough uniformity, lacking depth or variation. But with the Tower, because the pieces are so thin and they're mostly just a frame to see through, the effect works. I'm contrasting this to the Chandigarh Capital Complex, which I think it is uncomfortable to look at because it seems like he's trying to make light, dynamic shapes with a material that is contrary to that purpose.
I go back and forth about brutalism and Le Corbusier, and the more I think about it the less I feel I can articulate why people dislike them. "Can be copied and pasted anywhere" is a plausible hypothesis, but as you point out it doesn't apply to all brutalist buildings, and it's true of a lot of other styles that don't draw as much distaste as brutalism does. I wonder if it has more to do with the associations of brutalism (e.g. with large-scale government redesign plans, communism etc.), or perhaps with the fact that concrete decays not as gracefully as other construction techniques? I need to write more about this.
My impression is that most people find brutalism to just look viscerally uncanny. If you look at, say an English cottage, it somehow appears to integrate with its surrounding countryside environment. Maybe due to its materials? Shape? Homeliness?
But it seems like wherever you put them, the sharp, concrete cubes of Brutalism stick out like sore thumbs. Concrete doesn't really look like rocks or stone or wood, and subjectively the material looks kind of dry and barren. It's kind of like how plastic just looks viscerally fake and it's hard to make it look beautiful. I also agree with your idea that concrete doesn't decay very gracefully — it easily attracts dark casts.
I think another aspect is the lack of physical depth in Brutalist architecture. If you look at the most popular architecture (based on tourism, people voting with their feet), there are rarely flat walls or roofs. Instead, many separate pieces tend to be joined together, panels break up uniformity, and this makes the materials feel more dynamic and interesting. Even if you look at a normal wooden door, panels give it more depth than a flat concrete door.
I think it's possible to make nice architecture with concrete (The Romans made this many-layered cupola with a good quality concrete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pantheon_cupola.jpg) but I find that brutalism doesn't usually create shapes that look cohesive. For example with this building (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vista_Teatro_teresa_carre%C3%B1o.jpg), It doesn't look like the parts are gracefully connected with each other, but it's as if they were tacked on with brute force.
Though some people deeply enjoy Brutalism! I think there's an aesthetic of maximal efficiency and even overcoming the limitations of nature that some people appreciate.
I don't know, my city has a masterpiece of brutalist architecture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_67), and it feels deep and complex and not flat all all. It's generally well-loved too. Actually perhaps the answer is that brutalism can be just as great as other type of architecture, and sometimes is, but it's a style that's easy to do poorly (partly because concrete is cheap so cheap buildings are often made from it), and so most examples people see or think of are bad. And for other styles, a poorly done building is just forgettable; for brutalism it becomes an eyesore due to those flat surfaces, lack of natural materials, and tendency to have visible decay.
I read an anecdote recently from someone who taught an Urban Sociology course for many years. Their first assignment to students was always a comparison of Le Corbusier and Mole’s house from The Wind in the Willows — modernism vs. vernacular. He never asked them to take a side, but they inevitably did. He observes that for many years (this article was published in 2005), students strongly came down in favor of Le Corbusier, but more “recently” they had been in favor of Mole, and in the intervening period they felt deeply confused about what they should approve of (introductory architecture students trying desperately prove that they were what they aspired to be). Yet despite their diametric opposition, neither side ever completely won out.
I think both styles have their better and worse executions, and that makes all the difference. Modernism can feel brutal or resplendent, vernacular can feel shabby or cozy. I would perhaps put this in terms of micro-fit (does the individual fit within the confines of the architecture) and macro-fit (does the architecture fit within the confines of its surroundings).
This entire post was worth it for the Mexican ice hockey league logos alone. In a similar vein, I highly recommend checking out the Philippines basketball teams: https://www.deviantart.com/llu258/art/PBA-Philippine-Basketball-Association-Team-Logos-856931082
Thank you, this comment means a lot. Out of all of those logos my favorite has to be the mysterious "Terrafirma Dyip" Looks like it could serve as the branding for a local bus service in a city of <50,000 people somewhere.
I really liked this article. A lot of the links were really interesting. Thanks! I hope you'll do more of them.
Coincidentally, I've also begun reading Fahrenheit 451. I had heard it was a story about WWII, where the main character falls out of time and begins to experience it non-linearly, eventually being sequestered by aliens. I was a bit disappointed to find that it was actually a rather dull book about a dystopian future, where you know it’s dystopian because people don’t appreciate nature, and it’s considered strange to take an interest in other human beings. At about 15% into the book, still not seeing any falling out of time or aliens, I checked to see if there had been some confusion.
Story Of Your Life, Ted Chiang, is about non-linaerly time and aliens, but not wwII
The name of the book was actually Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut. It was very short and very good, unlike Fahrenheit 451.
Yes, Slaughterhouse-Five is excellent! If you like Vonnegut's style I also recommend Cat's Cradle
I will definitely check it out.
It is fascinating! It seems to help me understand how the process of writing essay works. You read a lot about your predilection themes, but also the news and random stuff, as the books strangers left in the small-public-anonymous-outside-library-box next to your house.
I tend to forget that you’re writing an Atlas, so you’re an explorer! A cartographer!
Continue being curious! Thanks for all the discoveries!
😊
18: The New Testament is there, too! The head of John the baptist is done well, the Holy Ghost was a debatable choice: https://thebrickbible.com/legacy/the_life_of_jesus/jesus_is_born_02/lk01_35.jpg
Very interesting - great idea to do this once in a while