Brutalist Churches
51–60 of 81 posts
Re: Brutalist Churches
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not natural A point of brutalism is "form follows function and "showcase the bare building materials" (1) - in other words, that's how the material looks, naturally. Bare, unpainted concrete is in fact more natural and honest than painted concrete. And brutalism deliberately leans into that naturalism (of modern materials). 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture
The impression of Unnatural comes from the fact, that brutalist forms don't exist in Nature. Concrete is everything but not a natural material. Showing it isnt natural. I am still buffed they are people defending brutalism. It is one of the biggest mistake in Architecture and one day these buildings will vanish.
Bricks and glass panels also don’t exist in nature. Only we humans bring them about, just as we do with concrete.
Re: Brutalist Churches
#53Shouldn't churches evoke feelings of divinity instead of oppression? (I know it's popular to hate on brutalist architecture, but really isn't a place of worship the last place you'd want it?)
Gothic architecture also feels oppressive, at least to me. I believe that is working as intended; dread and awe bring us closer to the divine.
Re: Brutalist Churches
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
The impression of Unnatural comes from the fact, that brutalist forms don't exist in Nature. Concrete is everything but not a natural material. Showing it isnt natural. I am still buffed they are people defending brutalism. It is one of the biggest mistake in Architecture and one day these buildings will vanish.
Bricks and glass panels also don’t exist in nature. Only we humans bring them about, just as we do with concrete.
Yes, it would be more natural to live in a cave or a wooden hut. There's a long essay on the subject from a guy named Ted who put it into practice.
Re: Brutalist Churches
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not natural A point of brutalism is "form follows function and "showcase the bare building materials" (1) - in other words, that's how the material looks, naturally. Bare, unpainted concrete is in fact more natural and honest than painted concrete. And brutalism deliberately leans into that naturalism (of modern materials). 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture
The impression of Unnatural comes from the fact, that brutalist forms don't exist in Nature. Concrete is everything but not a natural material. Showing it isnt natural. I am still buffed they are people defending brutalism. It is one of the biggest mistake in Architecture and one day these buildings will vanish.
Brutalism is beautiful
Re: Brutalist Churches
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
The impression of Unnatural comes from the fact, that brutalist forms don't exist in Nature. Concrete is everything but not a natural material. Showing it isnt natural. I am still buffed they are people defending brutalism. It is one of the biggest mistake in Architecture and one day these buildings will vanish.
Bricks and glass panels also don’t exist in nature. Only we humans bring them about, just as we do with concrete.
The forms used in classical architecture are way more natural than just stupid plain concrete.
Re: Brutalist Churches
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
They tend to look like something someone who didn’t give a shit made. “I just need a box for people to be in, who cares what it looks like?” The example brutalist churches in another post here look like someone doing a horrible experiment in the Sims made buildings without bothering to use anything but some default wall texture they found buried in the dev tools that doesn’t even tile very well, because they just nee…
I don't see it that way at all. A lot of care and thought went into these designs, and they evoke the kind of awe you would expect from a god's house. These aren't just hulking concrete bunkers like some of the institutional brutalism you see.
Maybe these architects should think, why their "well thought" experiments just look lazy designed.
Re: Brutalist Churches
#58These all look like churches that I would encounter with blood everywhere in the middle of a first-person shooter. They also look like total acoustical nightmares. All that echo-ey concrete, yikes.
Brutalist architecture can be done with good acoustics in mind, it just takes the same sort of planning & design that a non-brutalist building also needs. The Barbican Centre in the UK is a very famous example of a music (and arts) venue with brutalist architecture, and while its acoustics are considered good but not amazing (or "serviceable", to use the description of conductor Sir Simon Raffle), it could have been…
I lived there for a year (there are blocks of flats there) and I found it to be a great place to live.
It feels very pleasant once you get to know it.
Re: Brutalist Churches
#59Shouldn't churches evoke feelings of divinity instead of oppression? (I know it's popular to hate on brutalist architecture, but really isn't a place of worship the last place you'd want it?)
Gothic architecture also feels oppressive, at least to me. I believe that is working as intended; dread and awe bring us closer to the divine.
Not to me. I find it uplifting and joyous. I find the same of the best of the modern churches (brutalist or otherwise0
Re: Brutalist Churches
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brutalist architecture can be done with good acoustics in mind, it just takes the same sort of planning & design that a non-brutalist building also needs. The Barbican Centre in the UK is a very famous example of a music (and arts) venue with brutalist architecture, and while its acoustics are considered good but not amazing (or "serviceable", to use the description of conductor Sir Simon Raffle), it could have been…
I lived there for a year (there are blocks of flats there) and I found it to be a great place to live. It feels very pleasant once you get to know it.
Ooh, I've never been in any of those flats, but always thought I'd enjoy living there - glad to hear that you did enjoy it!