Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: VanDeKoik
Terrible commentary. Relies on low-hanging fruit and a ignorance of styles and movements.

Watson wasn't pretending to teach a survey course of styles and movements.

He was explicating the totalitarian intent of the "brutalists." And as I'm sure you know, that term, "brutalism," is one that is proudly used by advocates of modernist architecture.

If you want a little more scholarly overview of the same topic, there is Tom Wolfe's "From Our House to Bauhaus."

11 posted on 06/30/2017 2:21:11 PM PDT by shhrubbery! (NIH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: shhrubbery!

Brutalism =/= the sum whole of modern architecture.
It is just the low-hanging fruit that launches a million diatribes about how anything not neoclassical, Gothic or Victorian is garbage architecture.

And it isn’t proudly used by architects. It was a style that was controversial then as it is today. And yes lots of it was garbage, and a few examples were somewhat good for the time.

He also puts up an image of the Pompidou Center for some reason. A building that isn’t remotely in the same league as a Stalinist apartment block. It is one of Paris’s biggest draws, along with that tower that was also considered to be be a building that “sucks” when I was built.


21 posted on 06/30/2017 2:30:52 PM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson