Content deleted Content added
Robminchin (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Architecture|importance=top}}
{{old peer review |archivelink=Wikipedia:Peer review/Brutalism}}
▲|}
== web design ==
Line 21 ⟶ 16:
== "Brutalism" vs. "New Brutalism" ==
I'd argue that Brutalism requires a minimal number (preferably zero) of non-right-angles in the design, and certainly no curves. New (Neo-) Brutalism still retains those ideals, but can use angles less than 90 degrees/
Hi.
I'm currently
* The term Brutalism was formed by Le Corbusier (French speaking as betón brut is French) and spreaded via [[Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne]]. There's not much written I found about that.
* The
* The (first) Banham Article I found is from 1955. Furthermore it is about "New Brutalism", not Brutalism. His approach is widening the limitations of "Brutalism" so also Villa Göth (1952) or Hunstanton School (1949-1954) is covered (which would usually not be considered Brutalism). This worked yesterday, today it's asking me to register: https://www.architectural-review.com/rethink/viewpoints/the-new-brutalism-by-reyner-banham/8603840.article
* Cite from the 1955 Banham Article (about Hunstanton school): this is a building that some brutalists can apparently accept as constituent new brutalist structure
Line 212 ⟶ 208:
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? [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 01:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
: Capital "B". [[User:LoopZilla|LoopZilla]] ([[User talk:LoopZilla|talk]]) 09:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
::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. —[[User:JamesLucas|jameslucas]] [[User talk:JamesLucas|<span style="font-family:monospace;letter-spacing:-.5px"><sup>▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄</sup></span>]] 14:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
== A contradiction ==
Line 257 ⟶ 254:
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.
[[User:Curdigirl|Curdigirl]] ([[User talk:Curdigirl|talk]]) 01:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
External links are the links from other websites to connect with your current content which is relevant [[User:Parvinkhatun|Parvinkhatun]] ([[User talk:Parvinkhatun|talk]]) 21:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
== Criticism and reception ==
Line 379 ⟶ 378:
:::"Recent edits have been for the worse." If you can support this claim with any sources or coherent arguments beyond your issue with "Beton Brut", that’s be great. As it stands, you removed a sourced claim describing the kinds of materials associated with the style, and replaced it with an '''unsourced''', vague claim about “concrete, and sometimes brick." If you could point out an element of the lede which is inaccurate or unduly repetitive, with sources to back up your perspective, I'd be grateful. Otherwise, I consider my edits a useful roadmap for how the rest of the article should be improved—with core, important ideas summarized clearly for the average reader.
:::Also, the current picture of the Villa Göth is low quality in my opinion—the landscaping is in disarray, covering part of the house, and the angle doesn’t emphasize what is unique about the structure—its geometric, boxy design. [[User:Gentlecollapse6|gentlecollapse6]] ([[User talk:Gentlecollapse6|talk]]) 20:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Again, for your clarification, the lead is supposed to act primarily as a summary only. Citations are not typically needed, but can be used, in the lead. That visitors may or may not read beyond that is arguable but also irrelevant. It's their fault if they don't - it's not justification for packing every little factoid there. Your prior edits added repetitive statements and you're doing it again. You now have two sentences in the first paragraph of the page that are overlapping and saying the same thing in different ways. There's no sources required here - just read it. Sometimes less is more. [[User:Jtfolden|Jtfolden]] ([[User talk:Jtfolden|talk]]) 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
:So your position is that the lead for a poorly-sourced and vague page should also be equally poorly-sourced and vague? And that adding clear, summarizing statements about the subject to a lead is a '''bad''' thing? If my straightforward (sourced) claims about the style are indeed correct, then you could help by making sure they’re reflected in the article in more depth.
:Also, if you could point out the two sentences which communicate the same things, I’d appreciate it. As it stands, I see one sentence broadly summarizing the movement's approach, and one sentence describing particular elements of a typical design. (For example: a log cabin could be said to feature "stark, minimalist design that showcases the structural elements and building materials", but nobody would argue that Abe Lincoln was a brutalist, now would they? The specifics—concrete, geometric fixations, intimidating size, muted colors—matter.) [[User:Gentlecollapse6|gentlecollapse6]] ([[User talk:Gentlecollapse6|talk]]) 22:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
::Trying to put words in my mouth won't get you anywhere. If I feel they are all "clear, summarizing statements" then I won't have a problem with them. If you're concerned about readers not moving past the lead then accurately reflecting the content of the page in the summary and avoiding being too repetitive or wordy about it would be beneficial, right? If I think something can be stated more concisely, then that is what I attempt, per wp:layout. The same holds true for citations in that area since it's commonly sourced below, etc. I still think the lead could use improvement in regard to summarizing the cited information in the History and Characteristics sections in particular but I'll return to it when I get a minute. [[User:Jtfolden|Jtfolden]] ([[User talk:Jtfolden|talk]]) 23:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
::::As stated above, I don’t understand which elements of the “characteristics” section can currently be lost without the definition becoming needlessly vague, but suggestions welcome. [[User:Gentlecollapse6|gentlecollapse6]] ([[User talk:Gentlecollapse6|talk]]) 13:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
:::The article for the [[Villa Goth]] references a 2001 book by an apparently popular architecture critic, Rasmus Wærn, to say Brustalism "is also an approach to architecture, a striving to create simple, honest, and functional buildings by, for example, not allowing them to create associations or emotions", "a reaction to the architecture of the 1940s", "characterized by a retrospective nostalgia." This article says none of that. This article references a letter from Asplund to Banham, apparently the earliest recorded mention of the term known and the inspiration for the first book bearing the title New Brutalism, but no letter is mentioned in this article. It is only by reading the article on the Villa Goth that I find that the inside of the Villa Goth does in fact incorporate breton brut... well, the bathroom is raw concrete as it were. This is all very interesting stuff whether you are for or against brutalism. I was looking last night at some "brutalist playgrounds" which have been almost obliterated off the internet by a copy of one by a group called [[Assemble (collective)|Assemble]] winning a Turner prize, a sort of foam brick reconstruction of the playground for that refurbished Park Hill in the article. I am counting only 8 images in the article outside the gallery and the same in the gallery itself. I think I could easily fit 30-40 images in this article, and that's probably how many it would need to give a representative view. This day last week there was about 20 images in the article. It's a visual genre really, isn't it? <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]]</span> 07:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
::::In light of this, it’d probably be more helpful to show a picture of the interior of Villa Göth in order to illustrate accurately to a reader what a typical brutalist design looks like, which should after all be the primary purpose of images on this page—not simply "here's a building called brutalist! (which may or may not differ greatly from the majority of examples in the style)". [[User:Gentlecollapse6|gentlecollapse6]] ([[User talk:Gentlecollapse6|talk]]) 13:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::I agree that also having interior photos of buildings like Villa Goth, and especially Hunstanton School, would be helpful. The problem is that there aren't a lot that are both good and 'free' readily available for use within wikipedia that I have found so far. Some of the issues in the "Brutalist Revival" of the last 15-25 years is an over-simplification of the movement as just a style, only concerned with concrete, and with attention mostly paid to the exterior. Those actually discussing this movement in the 1950s and '60s talked about it as an approach to design of the entire structure, inside and out, and the honest use of any 'raw materials' fit for the purpose. The Smithons described it as an ethical concern. Volcker even outright stated that Brutalism could NOT be understood stylistically. Banham tried to shoe horn the movement into stylistic terms more than any other, perhaps, and is most responsible for popularizing the term but even he admitted that it "eludes precise description". However, Brutalist structures like Villa Goth, Hunstanton and numerous others that use brick are under-represented on this page, too. If you go to a site like SOS Brutalism you will indeed see vast amounts of concrete, particularly institutional buildings, but there are also many showcasing lots of brick or featuring other materials. A few are specifically tagged but the majority are not. [[User:Jtfolden|Jtfolden]] ([[User talk:Jtfolden|talk]]) 20:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
::::A good deal of the Characteristics section currently covers the topic of Brutalism being used to describe an approach to design, including an ethical or 'honest use' of materials, rather than just a style. It doesn't use anything from Rasmus Wærn, however, but I'll look at that again and see what might be good here. Regarding the "Asplund letter" in question - it was written in 1956 and sent to Architectural Review where it was published in the August issue of that year. Banham later included part of it in his book, released 1966. It's not the first use of the term in print but merely Asplund's explanation, after the fact, of how the term 'nybrutalism' came about back in 1950. The letter is actually used as a citation here. We could probably do with a better description of Villa Goth on this page to tie some things together. [[User:Jtfolden|Jtfolden]] ([[User talk:Jtfolden|talk]]) 20:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
We have a well-developed History section, as well, so we don't need to pack the lead with lots of repeated or conflicting information. There is NO DOUBT that Le Corbusier influenced the movement greatly, particularly later on, (and this is essentially stated in the History section more than once) and that Beton Brut represents a sizable portion of example buildings. However, the suggestion that the phrase "Brutalism" originated with the term "Beton Brut" is apparently a neologism. It's a claim made years and decades after the fact and then repeated without evidence (as was the case for your citation in the lead previously). It's also important to note that the earliest Brutalist structures (such as Villa Goth, Hunstanton School, Sugden House, Lyttelton House, etc...) really don't have any measurable connection to Le Corbusier.
As far as the Villa Goth picture, it's not perfect but it's still far more representative of the structure then the grayscale, reversed photo prior. [[User:Jtfolden|Jtfolden]] ([[User talk:Jtfolden|talk]]) 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
== Italy is fully missing ==
See for instance [[Giovanni Muzio]]. [[User:Arminden|Arminden]] ([[User talk:Arminden|talk]]) 10:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
== Prefab buildings as brutalism? ==
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? [[Special:Contributions/194.230.148.211|194.230.148.211]] ([[User talk:194.230.148.211|talk]]) 11:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
== on university campuses : add information on Puaka-James Hight Building ==
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. [[User:MitchellMatchbox|MitchellMatchbox]] ([[User talk:MitchellMatchbox|talk]]) 21:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
== History section completely unrelated ==
The whole article is basically about new brutalism, not brutalism. You wouldn't make an article about classical and only talk about neo classical would you?... [[User:Esteban Outeiral Dias|Esteban Outeiral Dias]] ([[User talk:Esteban Outeiral Dias|talk]]) 12:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:The article is about the architectural style commonly known in English as brutalism, which was occasionally referred to historically as 'new brutalism'. But if someone talks about brutalism, this is what they are taking about. There are suggestions that "new brutalism" may have started as a joke (paralleling the various neo- movements) as there is no recognised 'old brutalism'.[https://www.spiked-online.com/2016/02/25/brutalism-and-the-word-was-made-concrete/] [[User:Robminchin|Robminchin]] ([[User talk:Robminchin|talk]]) 15:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
| |||