OPINION

Hunstanton School by A, and P. Smithson from ebe nor-th-wesr, 'This is clearly a fine werk.'
Rlghr: housecraft room, '1 find the interior rarher- atar-k and barren for 01 schcol.'

The Neto Brutalism,' a subject whiclt Itas been mucli under discussion in this country
andfraught with misunderstanding, now comes under the scrutiny 010ur
anonymollS panel. We urge readers to send us their views, which we will publish,
space permitting, with comments by the panel.

Next month: 'Tlle Scope of Total Architecture' by Walter Gropius

Thoughts in progress The New Brutalism

lt isn't at all easy to find out whar Brutalism
means in spite of all the polemice it has provokcd.
In the days when thc Hunstanton school was being
built and the designs for the housc in Soho were
publishcd, 1 and, 1 imagine, many othcrs, thought
that basically it rcprcsented a revolt against many
of the characterlstic features of post-war British
architccture, the lack of rigour and clcar thinking,
the romantic pastichcries of the Festival of Britain
and its offspring, the free, empirical manncr
derívcd from Swedcn and the loosc handling of
prcfabricated elements in works like the Hertford-
shire schools. 1 imagined that the Brutalists
opposed to aH this a recall to lhe basic classical
organization of the parts of a building into an
organic whole. They thought with Corbusier and
lhe archilects of the Renaissance that this whole
cxisted as an apprehcnsible image lo which nothing
could be addcd and from which nothing could be
taken. Thc Brutalist method of achieving Ihis
c1assic wholeness was by a close concem with the
qualities ofmatcrials' as found' and by a passionate
moral earnestness about the clear exhibition of
struclure.
This view of Brutalism was rathel' shaken by MI'.
Banham's article in the Archilectural Review of
Dcccmber 1955, in which he implicd that the
Brutalists had abandoncd any idea of c1assic sym-
metry for an a-formal approach based on topology.
Tapology is here used in a very advanced mathe-
matical sense; it regards a brick and a billiard
ball as being the same shape and even a tea cup
and a gramophone record. Plato and lhe Absolute
were now, according to Mr. Banham, very much
frowned on in Brutalist circles. 00 the face of it,
a-formalism itse1f is nothing very ncw; it was a
major standby of Gothic architects and was not
unknown in the Renaissance. Unfortunately,
there are no Brutalist buildings actually built
which exhibit this conception, and 1 cannot see in
what way the plan and drawing for Sheffie1d
University, with which Mr. Banham iIIustrated his
articlc, arc more a-formal or topological than, say,
the Piazze before the cathedrals at Bergamo or
Montepulciano,
Tes, ofcourse, olle qf the lroublts ahoul assess¡'lg Brulalism
lhat llure is a good dea! oJ literature and 7Iol malry
huildillgs. Indeed, we llave a lendetlcy lo take architeclure
lhrough a lilerary scruIJ. WheIJever all architect hegins
lo build or even lo think ahoul huilding, lhe allalysls
quickly gather (the arelliteet himself frequetltly al l!leir
htad), and many ideas tllat mig!ll llave been lzeljifu! in a
quid way become so codified (¡lid rigidified and t!leir
importance so írfíated that lhey become positively dangerous.
It often looks as if the ardiítect was developillg into a
lecturer eVe1J in the very act of creatiug his building and
that the building toasin a sense a comment 01/ itself.
1 think you haoe lo síart untl¡ scmething that actually
esists as a piece of architecture and the oboíous thing is
the Hunstanton school, ]11[1', Banham ioílt not admít litis
building lo the Bnaalist callon, but it secms to me that
ít is loo doseíy linked unth Brutalism to be ígnored
altogether. This is deariy a fine work, the Purítan idea
is here mode memorable by good design, bul 1 certainiy
wonder if ils qualit,yis due lo allylhing thae can defillíte!.;'
be caUed Brutalist, The materials are aU vel)' caTe/ul!.;'
selected alld lhey are 01l!;' 'liS fOUfld' in an extreme!.;'
specia!i::.ed setlSe. This is a good buildillg hecause it
observes, wit!l an UTlcomjJromisillg rigOfIr, lhe classic
proprieties in its jJroj){)rliolls and in the disposition of its
masses alld t'o!umes. The more specifica!ly Bruta!isl
elements, sudl as the unlreated materia!s and t!le exposed
pipes alld ducts 1I11d conduits, do 1101 add OIryl!lillg llt llU
as far as 1 call su.
1 agree with you about the merits of Hunstanton,
though 1 do find the interior rather stark and barren
fol' a schoo!. The subtle arrangement ofspace may,
1 suppose, do something for the children, but
surely they need sorne softening of their environ-
ment, sorne cushioning against the rigours of steel
and concrete, After aH, the demands ol' human
beings and bales of dbth "are not the same, A
human being should not be askcd to live 01' work
01' learn in a smaU warehouse.
1 t!link it is J!l'ecise{J' the e!imilzalíoll of humallisticfrills
whicll makes t!lis building. Glass tl1ld brick alld stu!
call form all euvirollmeul as human and satiif.ying as at~J'
other malerials if t!le areltilect kllows }IOW lo use lhem,
But 1 t!lÚlk lhe Smithsons reali::.ed, after HUlIslallton,
lhat tltis particular mallller whidl derived, wilh w!latever
refillements, from Alies vall da Rolu, was not cajJable of
extended deuelop11lenl. The master himself has real!;'
taken it about as far as it will go, The Smithsoll.r
cleariyfell lhey must moue on,
11linols Instiwte ofTechnology by Mies van der Rohe . • The master himself has taken this particular manner about as far as
it will go.'
But wherc have they moved lo? It seems to me
very difficult to tcll when we havc nothing but
statemenrs and a few drawings. 1 don't scc what
you can do about an architectural movement that
hasn't produccd any actual buildings.
But ít is large!.;' j)atr01lage and luck thnt decide wllich
buildings actually gel produced. It ís 1/0 criticism of atl
architectuml mooement that it call't gel its buíldíngs built.
A grcat dea! of lile creditfor archítectural progress must go
to lile j)roj)llets WIIO, althougli tlley themselnes may not
haoe built much, 01' índeed anything, did contriue to
gel tke ideas mooing. Tite Futurists are a good exomple
oJ lllÜ, Tlley did nol build allytlli71g, but tlleir ideas
jlermeated alld leavened t1le w}wle of the modem moue-
ment.
Oh comc, 1 am quite SUl'e that if Albel'ti, fOl·
example, had written himsclf into the ground it
wouldn't have made any difference had he and his
colleagues not turned h:s words into buildings aH
over Italy. And 1 am not so sure about the
Futurists either. It is no doubt important for the
art historian to know that they got in fil'st with
many of the ideas later expressed by betlcr-known
figures. But the true pionecrs of the modern movc·
ment, thc men whose ideas have really had an
impact, are those who could put behind thcir
words something they themselves, 01' thdl' clase
associates, had actuaUy built.
But stiII 1 naturally agrcc that we must look at
Brutalist ideas arreI sce how fal' they wiII take us,
Mr. Banham states three basic principIes: memor-
ability as an image, dear exhibition of structure,
and dear exhibition of materials 'as found'. 1
cannot see anylhing here which isn't derived fairly
directly from Vers ulIe Arcllilecture. Corbusier
recognized incidentally that ' brutality , 01' ' rough-
ness' was only one among thc many moods of
architectUl'e, For a new idea, one COmes back to
the cmphasis on a-formalism and topology; this
does contrast with Corbusier's penchant fol'
(colltillued overltaf)

111
uplnlon
(COJltilluedfrolll preoíous jJGgC)
axiality, sincc Corbusicr in fact rctained thc classic
idea of disciplines. This tradition secms to me a
pcrfcctlv valid arre; indeed, 1 faney that it is tho
only intellectualiy satísfacrory architectural tradition
and it is, of coursc, prcscrvcd al Hunstanton. Tite
stcrility of sorne of its cxponents is not in itself a
rcflcction 00 its validity. Indccd, in the hands of
Corbusier, it clcarly opcncd up new horizons.
This is not to say that thcrc is anything wrong in
the Brutalists following anothcr path ir thcy are
convinced it lcads somewhere. 1 am, hOWCVCI', a
littlc worried by the jumble of simplicity and
obscurity to be found in the various ' statcmcnts '
made by lhe Smithsons. A rcmark such as ' il is
neccssary to create an architccturc of rcaJíty', just
put down without an)' indicalion of the sort ol'
connotalion Ihat the word 'reality' is mcant to have,
can, 1 think, only be intended lo create an aura ol'
profundity and mystification. Again, we are lold
that 'a rcalization of the affinity which can be
established between building and rnan is al the
root of Brutalism.' This seems to me to be either
completely rneaningless 01' a watel'ed-down version
of one ofGeoffrey Scott's more doubtful ideas. The
gl'and conclusion is as follows: '\Vhal is new aboul
Brutalism among movcments is that it finds its
closest affinities, not in a past architectural style,
bul in peasant dwelling forms. 11 has nothing to
do with craft. ''\Te sce architecture as the direct
result of a way of Iifc.' Bul al'chitecture which is
reaHy the direct result of the way oflife of a modero
industrial societ)' can hardly have rnuch affinily
to peasant dwelling forms. To accepl as the basis
for the architecture of a complex society> the
limitalions from which a simple community could
not escape, is to be as pure an obscurantist as any
Victorian Goth. Wc are not bales of cloth and we
are not peasants eilher.
I don'! tFtink,)'Ou ought lo savage the Smithso1l.f quite so
vigorous()'. Most modem archilects-Corbusier, Mies
van der llor/e, Groj)ius and Frauk Llo)'d Wrighl among
lhem-have roriUm I!liTlgs lOhich lOon' 1 slaud uj) lo even
the simj)lest sort of lilerary ana()'sis. Tite architecl
nolOada)'s fals compelled lo e>.j,[ain in lOords lOhat he js
doiTlg and lOrry he is doillg it, or lOhat lu lOould like lo do
aTld lOl/)' he lOould like lo do il, bul jt real!)' isn'l hisjob.
It is not rohat lhe Brulalisls jm! 011 paj)er lhal malfers
so muelE as tfu gmeral altitude, lhe general sj)iril lOhich
i,iforms their lOork. Th0' rej)resen! mI esst71tial reactioll
againsl !he methods qf trlOse architects wrlO kuelO by heart
al! the !rieks 01 modem arcflileclure, but had forgotten
wlwl it lOas abolit. Tlle)' elear!>' uTlderstood tha! a
constaTll refillement 01 delail can oul)' be devilalizing.
When an urgmt idea has lo be eXjJftssed, il can qftm
onl)' be lloue b)' nol lamj)crillg wilh the roug/¡ objtct, b)'
lettillg lhe objecl itself bear, loitllOU! arD' iTllerftrmcc, the
fuU significance 01 the idea. Tlllls lhe BrIllalist reeaIl to
firsl j)ri'lclj¡[es lOas uecessar;' and admirable; lhe trollble
is t/lll!)'OU can't produce archilcclure by mere!;' remilldiTlg
,)'Oursdloffirslj)rincij)les. Therewasevu:.yt/¡illg tobesaid
112 Architettural Dcsign April 1957
Abcve: the Piazza
vecchla and tbe Piazza
del Duomo, Bcrgamo. A-
formal yet svseemae¡c
Left: The Smithson's de-
sign for- the Sheffield
University extensicns
ccmpeelrlon, A·formal
yet syscematic?
Key te plan: I entrence
2 sencte hl:/use 3 Arts dept.
for their insistence 011 gettillg doion lo brass tacks, but 1 don't knou: about cll that. In spite of eietything,
t/u')! seem ío stay down tñere far too long. However Lthink íhat there is more virtue in Brutalism than in
attractice it ma)' sotmd, the cult 01stork simj)lici!y has iís90 per cent. of the archiíectural thecrieing that is
dangers, Sir ]osrma Reynolds very aj)t!)' said: 'When going 011 al presento But the three Brutalist
símplicisy, instead cf beíng a corrector, seems to set up ¡ dogmas' : a-formalism, trutñ lo structure
for berself; thot is, iohen an artist seems lo valuc himseíf materials as found, only toucli the fringe of arclli~
sole!>' ujlon this quaIU)', such mI ostentatious display of tecture and Leaue the real problem of creating specífic
simj)licil)' becomes then. as dísagreeable and as uauseolls buildings almost exactiy where it was. Obviously,
as a,!)' other kind of affictalion.' Ir semis to me that mry Brutalism is immature and íll-defined at present, hui
of these fcmudations, aTry qf these "isms ', con easiíy 1 íhink the Bnüalists would do well to pause and
become a curse. ThC)' Iimít the good ardiitects, ioho find review the situationfrom time to time and consider if
themseloes lid to the tails of their manifestos, thq they are not in danger 01 rajJidly reaching a dead end.
bifuddle lhe lcss good, lOllo lllink lrla! lhq llave solved All formulatiom lend to rigidity and ore hound to
thtir jlroblems when al! they have go! is asevere attack qf comj)romise llw j)articular solutions qf jJarticular
verbal indigeslion. W/lat really maltas lo an are/dtce! problems. 1 think al!)' aUempt to j)roduce a priori
is maturity in the creation and orgonization tif1Or111s solutiolls in architecture can only lead to steriliry.
and in the handling of maierials,. this will neva be Every individual building will, in the COllrse qf
enhanced by his rmmillg after isms. He SllOU!d lcalle iis creation, j)roduee its own laws and it is these
that lo the architeetural jourtlalists. bifore all)'thiTlg else that the architect must ul1dersland
1 agree about these limitations. The Brutalists and aecej)t.
were right lo support simplicity, to mSlst, for Ves, aoy clase 1'ormulation-in criticism as well as
example, on simple detailing, and to avoid the in architecture-is likely to lead to trouble. Where
use of elaborate finishes which would never get we are going will only emerge when we gel there.
maintained in present conditions. But, by leaving The diffieulty ol' the criticism and analysis of
things there, they have cut themselves off from architccture, as indeed 01' any other art, is that
everything but the lowest levcl of response. there are two contradiclOlY faets that have got to
Bllt sure!)' lhe jmint is tha!for mos! )'o/mg archilect,r t!le be borne in mind. One is that there are absolutc
old re.fjJOlIses '10 longer work. They aresimj)!.;' Tlol moved and . ~ternal standards, valid and unchanging,
alD' more b)'lhe ancien! -f)'l1lbols of oursociery, the accepted challenging equally and judging egualIy Corbusier
patterns of C/mrcfl ltlld Stale. Thry have lo s!rij) off lhe and Ictinus, Mies van der Rohe and Palladio,
cOj)e aTld the long robe lo gel dOlOll to lhe esseTllial human Bulterfield and the builders of Chartres. Ir such
beiTlg undemeath. JTldeed, lile)' can barel)' stop lllere, standards did not exist, there would be no point in
!hey llave to j)tTletralc evC/l daj)er lo lhe very skeletor; criticism at aH. At the same time, standards are
itse/f, lile fundamental bones. JI is TlO IIse dej)loril/g lflis, constantly changing as social and economic
it is afacl tflll! musl be accej)fed. conditions change, as taste and ideas change, as
You rnake it aH sound like a more radical version rnatel'ials change, and merery as architects grow
of Puritanismo The accepted patlerns in Church up and gel tired of listening to thcir fathers'
and State arc just what Cromwell and his col- prejudices and ol' building in any way they rnight
leagues rejected, but theír rcjection was made in conceivably have approved. The chair is constantly
the pursuit of a more truly ordinate response. bcing whipped l'rom undel' the critie just when he
Certainly to respond to nothing but the skeleton, is at the height of his pontification, and he can
which can incidenlally only be reachcd when the do nothing but run after il. These two views wiII
human being is dead, is l'igorous enough. But if seem contradictorYi indeed they are contradic-
the basic responses which have kcpt society going tory, which is why criticism is so inferoally difficult.
since the days of Sumer and Akkad are really no The Pinza Vecchia, Bergamo, looking towards the
longer possible and there is nothing left bul the Palazzo de tia Ragione and the Piazza del Duomo
naked individual, the forked stick, the reed that
has ccased to think, thcn 1 don't sce how we can
hold out very much longcr. However, 1 faney
that the Brutalists only take this line when thcy
want to be very profound and braveo Probably it
\vould be truer, though not much more comforting,
to say that lhey subscribe to the basic heresy that
whatever exists has artistic significance. It is a
hcresy which expresses ilself in various ways; like
every menacing heresy it contains a grain of truth,
but it seems to me just as much a killer for aH arl
above a nursery level, for aH architecture aboye the
shed. Perhaps the Brutalists would say: 'And so
much the bettcr.'

e new brut:alism: Alison and Peter Smithson answet- the cr-ltfclame on the opposite page
Acadernieism can be defined as yesterday's
wers to today's problema, then obviously the
.,jectives and esthetíc techniques of a real archi-
ture (01' a real art) must be in constant change.
the immediate post-war period it seemed ímpor-
t to show that architecture was still possible, and
~determined to set against loose planning and
jm-c-abdícation, a cornpact disclplined, archí-
ecture.
imple objectíves once achieved chango thc situa-
ion, and the tcchniques used to achieve them
ame usclcss.
new objectives are established.
rom individual buildings, discíplined on the
",hole by classical esrhetic techniques, we moved
lito an examination of the wholeproblem ofhuman
ciations and the relationship that building
d communíry has to them. From this study has
wn a eompletely new auitude and a non-
lassícal esthctlc.
y discussion of Brutalism wiII miss the point if
'~/(foes not take into aceount Brutalism's attempt
~() be objective about 'reality '-the cultural
the modelling of che baJcony recesses and thc use of
i~'~~~;'m, hardwood and glass crcatc a rich and dramatic
thc crispness of the dctailing and the straightforward
'/\"P'''';oo of function creatc a positivc architecture which
not rely (like Evclina) on applied features
objectíves of society, its urges, its techniques, and
so on. Brutalism tries to face up to a mass-produc-
tion society, and drag a rough poetry out of thc
confused and powerful forces which are at work.
Up to now Brutalism has been discussed stylistically,
whereas its csscnce is ethieal. A. & P. Smithson
Counter-Opinion: Picton Street housing
scheme (See A.D. February, /957)
When you think of rhe nced therc is for archi-
rectural cnucrsm it is very sad that Architecíural
Designis ' Opinion ' looks as if it will turn out so
badly.
res, 1 felt an immediau reactiaú against the anide 0/1
Pícton. Street wheu 1 read it, but don't )'OU think that as
zee l/re lo express opinions we shouldfirsl let our readers
know whose they l/re?
I agree, but dare we eonfess that we are the archi~
tects for the seheme? There-now I've done it.
Bul let me add that the opinions and conclusions
here are ours, and not those of the L.C.C. (lhe
malter is, so to speak, our personal pigeon).
There ate of cOU/'5e jmfeetly valid crieicisms iJl the artiele
alld we wOlddn'e elaim thal la)'out, illtemal j)lalllling,
detailillg 01' indeed (/Iry other aspect cif the scheme was
jmJeet.
I agree. The scheme is not un ideal solution to
city living, and the phrase 'a positive twentieth~
century Ul'ban architectul'e which would take its
place in u living metl'opolis,' though un emotional
one, is useful as leading one on to sorne as yet ill-
defincd goal. Thel'e are intcresting ideas in the air
-to name duee: a returo to layouts of linked
squares and courts, the devclopment of tower slab
blocks, and the cluster arrangement of dwellings,
both as ground pattern and vertically. Ineiden-
tally the layout reproduccd is mislcading since it
doesn't show existing roads which had to be kept,
and airily includes the sites of two schools, a library
and a chureh hall. ...
J17e are louchillg hete on the old problem tltat in j)roáucillg
a W(Jrk of architecture there are more factors limitillg the
solutjoll than in most olha artJorms, but 1 fiellhe critjc
Ü eutitled lo ignore these andjudge Ollly thefi1lal resulto
I agree. 1'0 adopt any other COUl'se leads to the
premise that a pictul'e painted by a man standing
on his head is better than the same pieture paintcd
by the same man standing on his feet, beeause it
was more diffieult to produce. '\lhat annoyed me
was the number of tricks used consciously al' un~
consciously to seU the article. For example, the
opening pal'agraphs, damning in advance before a
single argument has been put fon.. .ard; or the hoary
old deviee of a well~composed sunny photo of
something you want to pl'aise and a badly com-
posed dreary photo of something you want to
condemn-admittedly this trick is almost univer-
sally used, and admittedly also the photos of the
. very pleasant small block of flats' were both
stinkers. Again there was the use of emotional
phrases-though it takes a good man and a super~
human eritie to l'esist the smart phrase-' an assel'~
tive shoddiness,' 'half~hearted urban grassiness'
and ' drab eorrugated faJ;ades ' for examplc.
1"es, surefy these mark a desce1/f Jmm criticism lo j)roj)a-
ganda. Nolice how lhe apj)arently harmless word
, corrugaled' becomes by COlltext and association ti term
q( abuse. The mea1luess of lhe metllod is paralleled by
a eerlain lhilllless in some of lhe argu11Jmls, which are
in llry opi1lioll 1/0 more tfWII persollal prejudice. 17¡ repIy
Opinion
[Tlle panel discussed Brutalism 011 the basis of the auail-
able material; sínce thai the Smithsons hace compleud
uveral tñeoreíical housíng studies [or ClANIlO and, in
collaboration with Amis, W. & G. Howell, Killick,
Jellkills and Meyrick, produced a project for the S)'dlley
Opera House Ccmpetítíon, iohich. is shoum above.]
Let:t:ers t:o t:he edit:or
to the assertion that ' tlle channels just lie against the . • .
roof line . . . iohicñ is thoroughIy dejmssillg,' what is
there lo say but 'it doesn'e deoress me, so there? Again
one can only say about the roof house ' well I like ie,'
which is tite reaction of about hal] lile oísitors to the site,
the othsrñaif disliking ít.
Thcrc is a fundamental point here surcly, thar when
the scheme ís finishcd in ayear 01' so it will be there
for people to see and judge for themselvea, which
is bettel' than writing about it in its present very
incomplete stale. Incidentally, we are now skirting
the question of the function of critics (and eaIling
the article ' Opinion ' doesn't disguise the fact that
'it is criticism) and I think thel'e is something to be
said fol' the dictum ' If yon like it say so, if yon
don'l, shut up.'
Oh, l think one must allow eondCllJllatioJl as well as
praise, bue ill t!lis case there are errors ofJact. To sa)'
that 'problems oJ pedeserian access, car-parking ami
finding somewllere reasonable for chUdrm to jJlay are
quile unsolved' implies tltat 110 attempl has bem made lo
solve tllem, wllich is simjJ/y nol true, alld is 110t lhe same 1I
as so,ying that the solutious are il1adequale, whieh ma)'
I
possibly be the case.
Thcse are rarcly smaU poinls, but a larger issue is
raised by the complaint that the big block could be
twenty eells longer 01' five eells higher. Now ir
seems to me that in a building of this type, whcre 1
identical e1ements are added together verticaUy and
horizontally, the onIy way of limiting the design
and turning it into a finite composition is by putting
a frame round it, and it could still be extended by
having a Ial'ger frame, though it wouId then become
a different building just as ours wouId if it wel'e
larger al' smaller.
1nfael )'Ou suggesl we migltt llave basedour design 0/1 a
huge radio cabjllet jor mOr/ster valves ralher than lile
tnormous egg bo.>: Jor gigan/ic eggs we actllally had in
mind-well tllat might have bUIl to exjmss ti more
conlemporary image. To say t!le Jour~storey blocks are
'infillillg chopped off Ú¡ arbilrary lmgells lo fit in' is
almost correct, e;rcept lhal if lhe c/¡ojJping is done to fit jI!
(with the various bits of lhe site) it cannot surely be
arbitrary, and in t/¡is case to make a series 01 finite
comlJositiolls of dijJermt leugt/¡s of lhe same element
wOllld he a/JjJallingly trite; aJter ali, mal!)' pleasaut
Georgiall streets COl/sist qf idmlical e!cments added
together.
Bewarc, you have a double-edged argument thel'e
because some of the streets and most of the squares
have applicd features which tl'Y to make one
composition of the gl'oup. But in this case it is
dangerous to assume that past forms are the only
vaIid ones, or indecd lhat the past role of the
architect is the only desirable one.
Yes, alld this demand Jor finite eomposiliolls alld lhe
refert1lce to lack oJ archileclr¡ral eontmt in lhe small
bloeks, together wit/¡ lite condemnatioll oJ' thilllless' aud
its implied desire for more weigltl-SlljJerjluous weigh!,
siuet tlu sclteme exists without it-seems to me lo lead
lhe architect back lo tite role qf lhe mal! who 'arts it up,'
a retrograde step surefy.
\,\'ithout knowing what the authors had in mind
one can only relate the desil'e fol' more weight to
(contiuued overleaJ)
113