Talk:Brutalist architecture

message: I added a mention of the recent trend of "brutalist web design" that has recently been getting press (I gave just one citation but there's a fair amount more coverage out there).  Another editor took it out and moved it to the web design article, on the basis that this current article is about architecture, so the addition here was out of place.  
I'll defer to others here but I thought it was a reasonable addition to the current article as well, since it documents the influence of the brutalist architectural movement in areas outside architecture, which is imho of some relevance to the architecture article.  So I'd support adding it back, maybe with different phrasing per the above.  It's not a big deal either way, but I'm mentioning it here in case anyone else has thoughts.  50.0.121.79 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  web design 

message: What is this supposed to mean? I have never heard this expression before, and I am a 64-year-old native speaker of English.213.127.210.95 (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a case example of" (photograph caption) 

message: In this article the initial "B", when it is not at the beginning of a sentence, is sometimes set in capital and sometimes in lower case. Which should it be? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Capital "B". LoopZilla (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of a capital 'B' here is nonstandard. Typically a movement is capitalized if it's named after a proper noun (e.g. Platonism) or if its derived from a language that tends to capitalize nouns as German does (e.g. Bauhaus). Brutalism meets neither of these criteria. The OED doesn't capitalize 'brutalism'. I would favor following its example. At this moment I don't grasp the difference between 'brutalism' and 'new brutalism', so I can't say if the latter should be capitalized. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 14:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital or lower case? 

message: Early in the article this sentence appears."Architects Alison and Peter Smithson are believed to have coined the term "Brutalism" "
Later this appears. The term "Brutalism" was originally coined by the Swedish architect Hans Asplund to describe Villa Göth in Uppsala"71.36.157.252 (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look at the sources and it appears that the Smithsons got it from Asplund. So I resolved the contradiction by crediting the Smithsons with introducing it to the English speaking world. Does that seem a reasonable resolution? Possums (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

text: There is no contradiction. Asplund used the term "Nybrutalism" (New Brutalism) originally. This was introduced to the english speaking world by the Smithsons and Banham. Neither "Brutalism" or "New Brutalism" were used in architectural circles prior. Jtfolden (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

text: @11 west: please reconsider your methods of interacting with other editors.  Dial it back, and treat other editors with respect. If you treat Wikipedia as a battleground and other editors as opponents, you won't make much progress.  Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A contradiction 

message: Hi fellow Wikipedians,
As someone not very knowledgable in architecture, I found the lead section very confusing, as it doesn't give a proper definition of Brutalist architecture nor does it highlight some of its defining features. The lead section should start off with the most important facts followed by less important facts. It may be helpful to define modernist architecture too. I would've rewrote it myself, but again, I'm not exactly an expert in this field. Thanks! Ganbaruby (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead rewrite 

message: We don't need external links to personal blogs on Wikipedia. I've removed several links to blog sites which were listed in the External Links section. See WP:EXT external links.
Curdigirl (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: As sharp as The Prince Charles' quote in this section may read (Luftwaffe/Rubble), it is not tied to a Brutalist building at all, but rather to Richard Rogers' 1987 Paternoster Square redevelopment proposal. Neither Richard Rogers as an architect, nor his specific plan for Paternoster Square were Brutalist in spirit or nature, therefore I will be delighted to remove this and transfer it to the Wikipedia article about Post-Modernism (in all honesty, I'm rather inclined to do that with many other parts of this here Brutalist Architecture entry, but one thing at a time). Sadly the original source was easily taken out of context in this case to apply to Brutalist architecture. The source referring the episode in its actual context is here :
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/5317802/The-Prince-of-Wales-on-architecture-his-10-monstrous-carbuncles.html  11 west (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and reception 

message: It was captioned "Villa Göth (1949) in Kåbo, Uppsala, Sweden. "Brutalism" was used for the first time to describe this house." 
I have now corrected it to
"Villa Göth (1950) in Kåbo, Uppsala, Sweden. "New Brutalism" was used for the first time to describe this house." My source is of course "The New Brutalism , Reyner Banham, Architectural Press, 1966 edition, pp10" but also its Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_G%C3%B6th — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11 west (talk • contribs) 
:You may not cite Wikipedia articles in references. Stick to external sources, and remember that you're having a meta discussion on whether Banham originated the term - that requires additional sourcing, not from Banham, but from later scholarship by others. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section : Villa Goth photo 

message: There's another assumption made here, that isn't cited appropriately. The phrase : "This was picked up in the summer of 1950 [4] by a group of visiting English architects, including Michael Ventris, and Alison and Peter Smithson.[5][2][6]" Alison and Peter Smithson's direct "adoption" from the Asplund term in 1950 doesn't derive from any of the cited sources. Neither I found any evidence that the Smithsons visited Sweden that year. Instead, there's consensus that it was Oliver Cox, Graeme Shankland and Michael Ventris who brought it back to England, where it apparently "spread like wildfire among a certain faction of young English architects" These are the changes I propose 
- I rephrase to indicate that it was only Oliver Cox, Graeme Shankland and Michael Ventris who brought it back to the UK, and not the Smithsons
- I have moved Alun's citation Whats is Brutalism? https://vimeo.com/78931268 by director Alun Bull temporarily to the next sentence, which is correctly placing Alison Smithson not utilising the term publicly before 1953. (Not a very useful citation, perhaps better suited for the Further Resources section. I am happy for this to be more suitably placed elsewhere or even removed) 
- I have left the Guardian citation from Meades which correctly attests to the above https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/feb/13/jonathan-meades-brutalism-a-z
- I have removed the citation from Golan https://web.archive.org/web/20070830232044/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0422/is_2_85/ai_104208984/pg_3 as it doesn't point to the Smithsons importing the term first hand 
- I am adding the new citation from VIDLER, ANTHONY. “Another Brick in the Wall.” October, vol. 136, 2011, pp. 105–132. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23014873 which clearly attests to the fact 
- And last Banham relates the same story. Oliver Cox, Graeme Shankland and Michael Ventris, not the Smithsons. 11 west (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure whether you are using the Source or Visual Editor but be careful when removing or editing citations. The Golan link was used somewhere else in the page and was broken somewhere along the way by it's removal. I have fixed it. Jtfolden (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section : New Brutalism coming to Britain 

message: It would be very helpful to provide a correct chronology of important events related to Brutalism in the history section, as dates currently go back and forth. This is justified, as contemporary discussions often used the term "New Brutalism" to retrospectively add buildings to the canon. I am oriented towards offering an absolute timeline based an all existing mentioned buildings and episodes currently in the History section, as such : 
  
- 1946 and the Mies Van Der Rohe as the "first completed building to carry the title of New Brutalist" 
- 1950 Asplund and Villa Goth, the first recorded use of New Brutalism (Nybrutalism)
- 1952 Le Corbusier Unite D'Habitation and the "verbal formula" story   
- 1953 The Smithsons and their (unbuilt) SoHo house story as the first public mention of New Brutalism in the UK 
- 1953 Le Corbusier's Chandigarh      
- 1954 The Smithsons and Hunstanton School as "the first building completed in the world to be called "New Brutalist" by its architects" 
- 1955 Le Corbusier's Ronchamp
- 1955 Sugden House justified as above 
- 1955 Reyner Banham's essay to bind the above, and adding the art-brut story (and I would be fine to the Smithsons nickname story around here too as a contemporary truth, although this is not related until 1966)
I believe this would offer to readers a much clearer idea about the gradual shaping of various architectural and art influences into a coherent movement. Any thoughts? 11 west (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is helpful, but please be aware of Wikipedia's no original research policy - you may not string a series of facts together and draw a conclusion that is not explicitly present in a reliable source. Find scholarship that states a conclusion on the origin of the term, not what Banham or Asplund say, and cite that. There have been many, many words expended on the subject of Brutalism by lots of architectural scholars. You need to look in sources from the 1990s and beyond, not in Banham's books. Banham was undoubtedly influential, but itf the topic is the origination of the term, you need later scholarship that looks at how that came to be. Acroterion (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Additional observations: Please remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary source that summarizes the views of reliable secondary sources. On the subject of whether Banham coined the term (leaving aside whether he popularized the term), Banham himself would be a primary source. Primary sources are to be avoided, or used with great care. Since the subject is about Banham's usage (or Asplund's, or Le Corbusiers's) we need references to scholars who aren't Banham, Asplund or Corbu. Acroterion (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Also, the reference to the IIT in Chicago as the "first completed building to carry the title of New Brutalist" is a misreading of Banham's text. The exact wording on page 17 is "Yet the first completed building to carry the title of 'New Brutalist' was not Corbusian; rather it was the most precise imitation of the building style of Mies Van Der Rohe outside the USA by that time..." The keywords here are "outside the USA". He is referring to Hunstanton and more clearly states this claim again on page 19 of his book. Too, though this edit was incorrect, even if someone decided in 1966 to describe a random building from 1946 as Brutalist, that doesn't mean the first usage of the term suddenly moves back in time. I do not believe a building can be the first to carry a title when the title in question did not even exist yet. This is why, on the topic of origination, that clear and well supported citations are needed to radically alter the history, imo.   Jtfolden (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology discussion 

message: See for instance Giovanni Muzio. Arminden (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italy is fully missing 

message: It seems to me that there is a sort of confounding of prefabricated panel buildings as brutalism. In the picture examples we have several examples of these sorts of prefab panel buildings (known in German as Plattenbauten), yet I would argue that these are separate from Brutalism. Whilst they do use concrete, I'd say they are quite distinct as an architectural phenomenon from Brutalism. I'd say Park Hill Estate however is Brutalist whilst the buildings in Talnakh aren't. What do we think? 194.230.148.211 (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prefab buildings as brutalism? 

message: There should be some added information or a picture on the Puaka–James Hight Building at University of Canterbury. As it has significant importance in the southern hemisphere, and New Zealand. As well it is a surely to be one of the taller brutalist buildings on University campuses. MitchellMatchbox (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  on university campuses : add information on Puaka-James Hight Building