ARCHITECTUREOFAFFECTconceptionsofconcreteinbrutalistbuildings

MarijkedeWal

MAThesis

2017

Supervisor:LászlóMunteán

DepartmentofLiteraryandCulturalStudies

RadboudUniversityNijmegen

2

László,

köszönömhogyhittélbennem

3

CONTENTS

PREFACE 04

INTRODUCTION 06

I

WORLDOFCONCRETE 10

ubiquitousutopias 12

criticalregionalism 15

brutalistsensibility 17

II

ARCHITECTUREOFAFFECT 21

concreteaesthetics 26

architecturalpolemic 27

asfound 29

humanhabitat 33

refrain 36

urbanpoetry 38

katewood 39

affectivevoices 41

nostalgicremembrance 42

refrain 47

radiantcity 49

soliddarkness 50

thealchemist 53

déjàvu 57

refrain 60

CONCLUSION 62

SAMENVATTING 67

REFERENCES 70

4

PREFACE

‘Hetislentemaarbetonbloeitniet’.AslongasIcanremember,thissloganadorns

oneofthemanynearbyrailwaybridges.Tastingthetypographicaldelightsofthis

particularurbanart,IbelieveIwassevenyearsold,musthavemarkedthebeginning

ofmyfeelingsforconcrete.Somehowitwasabletocomfortme—justbeingthere.

OnlymuchlaterIrealisedthatinconcreteIrecognisedthemother

Ihadmissed.Webothgrewolder,therailwaybridgeandme,andmylovefor

concretegraduallydevelopedintoaninterestinarchitecturewithapreference

towardsthetactilityofgenuinebuildingmaterials.I’vealwayspreferredtouchingand

layingbareinsteadofconcealingandcoveringup,which,Iguess,isrootedinmy

perpetualquestforauthenticity.Andsoisthisthesis.

MarijkedeWal

Voorburg,spring2017

5

Itwantstobeintouch.Itwantstobetouched.

KathleenStewart

6

INTRODUCTION

‘Itdidn’tseektobepretty;itdidn’tseektosoothe’.Inthefirstpartofthediptych‘Bunkers,BrutalismandBloodymindedness:ConcretePoetry’(2014),writerandfilm-makerJonathanMeadespresentstheratherdisturbingcontextofthearchitecturalmovementofthemid-twentiethcentury.Today,muchofitsarchitecturehasfallenoutoffavourandmanyofitsstructureshavefallenintodecay.Consequently,theBrutalistlabelhasbecomequitecontemptuous.

The followingworkoriginates in affective experiences of architecture. Bornbroadly

frommy love for both fields—architecture and affect—itwas driven by a desire to

consider Brutalist architecture less the contemptuous label it has now become but

rather a metaphor in which its concrete challenges the corporeal. Over the past

decades,andparalleltoarenewedinterestinthebuiltenvironment,architectureand

affecthavetakenanincreasinglyimportantpositioninculturalandurbanstudies.The

attention to the precarious topic of Brutalism and to the material and cultural

significanceofconcretehasincreasedaswell,althoughonasmallerscale.Forexample,

JohnGrindrod’sConcretopia:AJourneyaroundtheRebuildingofPostwarBritain(2013)

and Adrian Forty’s Concrete and Culture: A Material History (2012) offer valuable

insights intothetopicsofBrutalistarchitectureandconcrete.However,exceptfora

fewcrossoverssuchasJuhaniPallasmaa’sTheEyesoftheSkin(2007)andJillStoner’s

Toward a Minor Architecture (2012), there is a lacuna in the literature on the

interrelation between these topics. They function largely independently, not in the

least aware of each other’s existence. Contemporary critiques regarding the use of

concrete in modern architecture, and in particular the often ruthless criticism on

Brutalistconcrete,havemadefurtherresearchinthisareaperhapsanungratefultask.

A task, maybe, of trying to meet the unspoken expectations of discarding both

movementandmaterialofacertaindissonance.

Increasingly,ourtactile impressionsof thebuiltenvironmentareantagonising ina

sensethat‘ourvisualworldisnotalwayscongruentwithourspatialone’(62),asJill

StonerexplainsinTowardaMinorArchitecture(2012).Weturnourheads,literallyor

figuratively,asifnottofaceourdeepestpain—inthewordsofMaritaSturkenandLisa

Cartwright,‘becausewedonothavethemeansforunderstandingandcomingtoterms

7

withwhat is right before our eyes’ (2009, 6). In his essay ‘Beauty andDesecration’

(2009), Roger Scrutondescribes the statewhichwe findourselves in, and towhich

modernsocietyhascontributedconsiderably,asfollows:

Thehasteanddisorderofmodernlife,thealienatingformsofmodernarchitecture,

the noise and spoliation of modern industry—these things have made the pure

encounterwithbeautyararer,morefragile,andmoreunpredictablethingforus.Still,

weallknowwhatitistofindourselvessuddenlytransported,bythethingswesee,

fromtheordinaryworldofourappetitestotheilluminatedsphereofcontemplation.

It’sathin linebetweenthis lingeringdesireforaestheticsandtheferventpursuitof

prettiness as hinted at in Meades’ programme. As the emergence of Brutalism’s

disturbing architecture was possible only within a similar context, so was the

degeneration of values, and the fallacy that followed has ruled out the lesser-

understoodmovementofthekindofaestheticexperienceScrutondefines.

Thisthesisisintendedtoexcavatesomeofthepreconceptionsthathavecontributed

totheconnotationofadisquietingforceinarchitecture,withallitsconsequences.At

thispoint,Iconsiderthemthebasisformyresearchquestion,namely:inwhatways

doesthedisquietudeofBrutalismturntheeverydayexperiencewithconcreteintoan

affectivearchitecturalencounter?Thus,thepurposeofthisthesisistoquestion,and

ultimately show, the intrinsic value of Brutalist buildings, in other words, the

architecture’sabilitytoaffect,byindicatingtheaffectivequalitiesofthemanifestations

thatIhereafteranalyse,or,howtheseaffectsarebuilt.Iarguethatitispreciselythe

movement within which these structures have been erected that enables us to

experienceitsarchitectureatfullstrengthforitsabilitytoaffect.Affecttakesplacein

theencounterwitharchitectureregardlessofouremotionsandreactions;ourbodies

becomeawareofitthroughafullrangeofsensations.Inanefforttoexplainthebinary

opposition between perception and sensation, or, as Bryan Lawson argues in The

Language of Space (2001), ‘the difference between unconscious expectation and

experiencedreality’ (43),andtoshowthat it isnot justavisualrejectionbutareal,

visceralforcewhichhasitsrootsinthedepthsofourbeing,Iwillreturntothesemiotics

ofthemetaphorand(re)connectthebuildingwiththebodythroughtheoriesofaffect.

8

Architectureandthebodyhavealwaysbeencloselyrelated.InTheEyesoftheSkin

(2007),inwhichthisinterrelationisdiscussed,JuhaniPallasmaawrites:‘Everytouching

experienceof architecture ismulti-sensory; qualities of space,matter and scale are

measuredequallybytheeye,ear,nose,skin,tongue,skeletonandmuscle.Architecture

strengthenstheexistentialexperience,one’ssenseofbeing intheworld,andthis is

essentiallyastrengthenedexperienceofself’(41).Pallasmaaherewithemphasisesthe

importanceofcorporealcontact,andmainlythatofthetactilesense,intheexperience

andunderstandingofbothourselvesandtheworldthatsurroundsus;throughtouch

wemeet.Contiguity, inturn, istrulytouching.Touchoffersanhonestconfrontation

withourselves:itnotonlyquestionsbutalsolaysbarewhatishidden,whatwantsto

be known—regardless. It awakens within us a susceptibility for the literal yet oft-

forgottenimpactthebuiltenvironmenthasonusthroughtheseaffectiveexperiences

ofarchitecture.Pallasmaarecognisesthe(re)discoveryofourneglectedsensesinanew

awarenessthat‘isforcefullyprojectedbynumerousarchitectsaroundtheworldtoday

who are attempting to re-sensualise architecture through a strengthened sense of

materialityandhapticity,textureandweight,densityofspaceandmaterialisedlight’

(37).

InsightintotheworkofStoner,LawsonandPallasmaa,amongothers,hashelpedme

lay bare some of the sometimes painful similarities between concrete and the

corporealinthesignificationofthreedifferentmanifestationsofBrutalistarchitecture.

Theoriesof affecthaveprovedessential in the identificationand recognitionof the

differentprocessesatwork; theyallowfora trueunderstandingof thisarchitecture

fromwithin.

Thisthesisconsistsoftwoparts.Inthefirstpart,Itheoreticallyexploretheworldof

concrete. In the first chapter, the appearance of fair-faced concrete in modern

architectureisstudiedwithaclearfocusontheonsetofBrutalism.Overallcriticismon

theculturalcontentofconcreteisdiscussedinthesecondchapter.Inthethirdchapter,

the sensibility that lies at the heart of Brutalism is contemplated. Together these

chapters reconstitute the context inwhichBrutalismwill be further analysed in the

secondpartofthisthesis.Inthatpart,andasfaraspossible,Isetforthatheoretical

frameworkof affect,which is complimentedby three case studies. Each case study

9

partly represents Brutalist architecture, ultimately providing a multidimensional

depictionofthemovement.

ThecorrespondencebetweenBrutalism’srationaleandtheoriesofaffectisstriking.

WhatIrénéeScalbertidentifiesasthevantagepointofBrutalism,namelytheaspiration

‘todisposewiththenotionsofbeauty,oflanguageandofform’(2000,78),reflectsmy

purpose for the following case studies. The first one is a close reading of Reyner

Banham’sessay‘TheNewBrutalism’(1955)inwhichIwillarguethedisposalofclassical

notions of beauty. In the second case study, a film analysis of Joe Gilbert’s short

documentaryBARBICAN|UrbanPoetry(2015),Ishalltryanddisposeofthenotionof

language.Thethirdcasestudy,whichisavisualanalysisofLeCorbusier’sbuildingUnité

d’Habitation(1952),containsmysuggestionforthedisposalofthenotionofform.In

Brutalism, these dispositions enabled the material ‘to order itself with little or no

interventiononthepartoftheauthor’(Scalbert2000,78).WhatScalbertidentifiesas

the only accepted practices in Brutalism, namely those of ‘finding, choosing and

juxtaposing’(78),resemblemyapplicationsinthisthesistoultimatelyarguetheanti-

aesthetic,ortheaffective,ofthepreviouslymentionedmanifestations.

From different viewpoints, the essay, the documentary and the building clearly

critique Brutalism. Hopefully, the following discussion will not only contribute to a

betterunderstandingof theoverall criticismonBrutalismbutwillalsoallowfor the

emergence of a ‘sensate perception’ (Highmore 2010, 121). Thus, Ben Highmore

beautifullysummarisesAlexanderBaumgarten’saestheticexperiencewhichentailsthe

resolution of the difference between expectation and reality. This difference often

appears from contemporary criticismon Brutalism and is the starting point for this

research. Terry Eagleton explains the field of Baumgarten’s aesthetic experience as

‘nothing lessthanthewholeofoursensate lifetogether—thebusinessofaffections

andaversions,ofhowtheworldstrikesthebodyonitssensorysurfaces,ofthatwhich

takesrootinthegazeandthegutsandallthatarisesfromourmostbanal,biological

insertionintotheworld’(121).Affectarisesinthissensatelife—itisaffect.Howthe

worldstrikesthebodyresemblesanarchitectureofaffect.

10

IWORLDOFCONCRETE

Concreteiseverywhere.Asthefabricofthecity,itisthemostwidespreadmaterialinthemodernbuildingpractice.Knownsinceancienttimes,ithasbeenhypedforitsavailability,constructivestrengthandresilience,andheckledaboutitssupposedcheapness,itsfrequentuseinrepeatedandstandardisedelementsand,ultimately,itsvisualunease.Inanycase,concreteispartofalivelydiscussion.

Ihavealwaysbeendeeplytouchedbythefactthatconcreteisessentially‘innocentof

architecture’(9),asAdrianFortysurprisinglystartshisjourneyintoitswondrousworld

inConcreteandCulture:AMaterialHistory(2012).YetatthesametimeI’mwellaware

thatmyfeelingsdonotrepresenttheprevailingtendency—notbyfar.Fortydescribes

itbeautifully:

Anelementofrevulsionseemstobeapermanent,structuralfeatureofthematerial.

Muchofwhathasbeenwrittenaboutconcretehastriedeithertoignorethis,orto

convincepeoplethattheirfeelingsaremistaken.Itisnotmypurposetotrytoexplain

awaythenegativity thatconcreteattracts,nor topersuadepeople thatwhat they

finduglyisreallybeautiful.Thisisnotanapologyforconcrete,meanttowinpeople

over to it. Themany attempts,mostly originating from the cement and concrete

industries, toput a better faceon concrete strikemeasmisguidedandpointless.

Thereismoresense,Ibelieve,inaccepting�thedislikepeoplehaveforconcretefor

what it is, and in finding room for that repugnance within whatever account of

concreteweareabletogive.(10)

Therefore,thediscussioninthispartshowsaparallelwithForty’sworkinthesense

thatIfirstandforemostseektounderstandthematerialityofconcrete.Fortyidentifies

thisastheability ‘todealwith itspresenceeverywhere’,namely ‘concrete inall the

diversity of its applications’ (9). Within this diversity it is neither the technical

proportionsnortheconstructionalqualitiesofconcretethatIwouldliketodiscussbut

ratheritsculturalsignificanceor,touseIgorKopytoff’sconcept,itsculturalbiography.

Forthereisyetanotherthing,nexttothefairamountofcriticismtowhichit’sexposed,

11

that characterises concrete: time and again it manages to escape the attempts of

categorisation. Forty refers to this remarkable quality as the ‘resistance to

classification’(11),resultinginacertainslipperinessthatkeepsitanactualtopicinthe

critical discussion of itsmaterialmeaning. In her essay on the force of things, Jane

Bennettwouldconsiderthisthe‘materialrecalcitrance’(2004,348).Kopytoff,onthe

otherhand,discussestheevolutionofculturalsingularitiesthroughthemetaphorof

thebiographyinanattempttograspthechangesinthelifeofthesethings,allthings,

overtime.Hestates:‘Aculturallyinformedeconomicbiographyofanobjectwouldlook

atitasaculturallyconstructedentity,endowedwithculturallyspecificmeanings,and

classified and reclassified into culturally constituted categories’ (1986, 68). Starting

from an economic viewpoint, Kopytoff describes how things are valued in various

contextsandforthisheindicatescommoditisationastheprocessinwhichexchange

valueisbeingascribedtosingularities—thegreyarea,andbyfarthelargest,between

thetwooppositepolesofsingularitiesandcommodities.‘Innosystemiseverythingso

singularastoprecludeeventhehintofexchange’(70),hestates.Inotherwords,ata

certainpointintheirlifeclassificationwilloccur,whichmeansthatevensingularities

ofthenon-valorisableandthenon-exchangeablekindwillbecategorised.Thefactthat

singularitiesalwaysexistwithinacertaincontext,aneconomicframeworkinKopytoff’s

discussion, causes the classification of their cultural content to a greater or lesser

extenteventually.Suchasthequestforopportunitiestoparticipateintheexchange

processcanberegardedasanessentialpartofthebiographyofasingularity,socan

culturalcapitalbeconsidereditsdestinationatagivenmoment.

It is precisely this cultural content that is already hinted at on the book cover of

ConcreteandCulture.OneofForty’smanyimagesshowsthedetailofascallopshell

that was cast in the concrete of Le Corbusier’s Chapelle Notre Dame du Haut,

symbolising the baptism of Christ. Although Forty considers concrete a universal

medium,thisexampleshowsthatitisalwaysbothwithinacertainculturalcontextand

through the public’s culturally driven gaze that it should be valued or understood.

Therefore,thispartcontainsaliteraturereviewthataimsatanin-depthexplorationof

theworldofconcrete.Itisstructuredasfollows.Inthefirstchapter,theapplicationof

fair-facedconcreteinmodernarchitectureisstudiedwithinapost-warcontext,mainly

basedon thework of JohnGrindrod (2013) andAdrian Forty (2012). In the second

chapter,itsoftenproblematicculturalcontentisexplainedonthebasisofanumberof

12

importantconcernsthathaveappearedinthecriticaldiscussionoftheuseofconcrete

forwhichtheideasofKennethFrampton(1983a;1983b)havebeenused.Inthethird

chapter,thetruesensibilitycharacteristicofBrutalismisexploredthroughtheworkof

AlexKitnick(2011),IrénéeScalbert(2000)andDirkvandenHeuvel(2002).Together,

thesechaptersserveasthetheoreticalframeworkinwhichaffectiveencounterswith

concretewillbefurtherdiscussed.

ubiquitousutopias

In Brutalism, a new aesthetic—an anti-aesthetic, as I will argue—arose which was

mainlyseeninpublicbuildinginthe1950sand1960s.Itsmostimportantfeatureisthe

exposureofroughcastmaterial—bétonbrut,literally‘rawconcrete’—and,thereby,the

basicstructureaspartof thefinalconstruction,emphasising its functionalrelations.

SarahBriggsRamsey,whostudiedtheglobalconcreteconsumptionwithaclearfocus

onBrutalistbuildings,establishedalinkbetweenthemovement’smaterialityandits

etymology:

Thoughtheprovenanceoftheterm‘Brutalism’seemsforeverunsettled—Brutasa

nod to LeCorbusier’sBétonBrut (raw concrete),or as a playonPeter Smithson’s

rumoredAAnickname‘Brutus,’or,evenfurther,derivedfromHansAsplund’suseof

‘Nybrutalism’inreferringtothesmallcabinofhiscontemporariesBengtEdmanand

LennartHolm—concretewouldprove tobea favoredmaterialofBrutalism for its

dynamismof form, itsversatilityof function (structure/enclosure/partition)and its

unapologeticappearance.(2015,emphasisinoriginal)

Briggs Ramsey considers the changes in meaning from their origins to later use a

consequenceoftheadoptionoftheterms‘brutal’and‘Brutalist’.Separatedfromits

original context and reduced in meaning, ‘Brutalism’ gradually became a term

suggesting that ‘these buildingswere designedwith bad intentions’, she points out

(2015). And while most criticism relates to their architectural physiognomy, the

opinions on the brutality of these buildings are not unanimous. In Concretopia: A

JourneyaroundtheRebuildingofPostwarBritain(2013),forexample,JohnGrindrod

questions theirunapologeticappearance in thecontextofpost-warurbanplanning.

13

The scope of thiswork is succinctly summarised and aptly expressed in the central

question: ‘And yet, was that what actually happened? Were these architects and

plannersthephilistinebarbariansofpopularmyth?’(26).

It is not without reason that any such questions are posed in contemporary

contemplationsofanarchitecturalmovementthatmadeitsglobalappearanceatthe

time concrete was rediscovered as an important building material. Unlike earlier

critiques, these works add a different layer to the discussion by taking into

considerationtheprevailingcriticismonthemovementand,moreover,bytestingits

dominant narrative. ‘There is an accepted narrative to thewaywe think about our

postwar architectural legacy’, writes Grindrod (25). He explains, ‘That narrative is

somewhat akin to the plot of a superhero blockbuster: a team of supervillains—

planners,architects,academics—havehadtheircorrupt,megalomaniacwaywiththe

countryfor30years.Then,atlonglast,abandofunlikelyheroes—aragbagofpoets,

environmentalistsandgood,honestcitizens—riseupagainstthisarchitecturalGoliath

andtopple it inthenameofPrinceCharles’ (25).Grindrod’scritiquewouldnotonly

jeopardiseasetofnationalbeliefsregardingBrutalismbutitwouldalsoprovidethe

discussionwiththenecessaryhistoricalcontext.Theauthorstandsupforthosewho

committedthemselvestotheBritishpublicinterestfrom1945onwards,afactoften

forgotten in debates on both the ethics and aesthetics of Brutalist architecture. To

Grindrod, the history of the movement first and foremost embodies ‘a story of

ingenuityandhumanity’(33)inwhichfactorieshadbeenrepurposedtoprovideshelter

forthehomelessinordertogivethem‘adecentstartinlife’(63)—alifecharacterised

bythedeterminationtomakethingsbetter,despiteausterity.

Intheimmediatepost-waryears,the‘MakeDoandMend’attitudewasrampant.In

manyplaceslifehadtobebuiltfromthegroundupandithadtobedoneasquickly

andcheaplyaspossible.Grindroddiscussesthepost-warsituationinBritain,wherethe

governmentguaranteedtherealisationofatremendousnumberofhousingprojects.

Nolongercouldberelieduponconventionalbuildingtechniques;adifferentmethod

hadtobeusedinordertomeettheexorbitantdemand.Whilepreviouslyusedinthe

assembly of simple dwellings, prefabricated concrete was reintroduced for the

realisationoflarge-scaleurbanprojectsinalimitedperiodoftime.Grindroddescribes

oneoftheearliestresponsestothereceptionoftheseprojects:

14

Weopenedthedoorandmywifesaid,‘Whatalovelybighall!Wecangetthepram

inhere.’Therewasatoiletandabathroom.I’dbeenusedtoatoiletinthegarden.

The kitchen had an Electrolux refrigerator, a New World gas stove, plenty of

cupboards.Therewasanicegarden.Itwaslikecomingintoafortune.(40)

Formost,thenewhomeswerebetterthananyonecouldhavehopedfor;theywerea

godsendinthewinterof1946-7.Withtheirheroicformsandrobustmaterialsthese

buildingsofferedanewparadigmforurbanreconstruction.Concreteenjoyedaglobal

revivalafteryearsofbeingsomewhatdormant.

Longbeforeitspublicrevaluation,concretehadsimilarlybeenthesubjectofThomas

More’sUtopia.Morehadimagineditsqualitiesandascribedthemto‘thematerialthat

wouldtransformpeople’slives’(Forty2012,8).InMore’sUtopia,whichwasoriginally

publishedin1516,

allthehomesareofhandsomeappearancewiththreestories.Theexposedfacesof

thewallsaremadeofstoneorcementorbrick,rubblebeingusedasfillingforthe

emptyspacebetweenthewalls.Theroofsareflatandcoveredwithakindofcement

whichischeapbutsowellmixedthatitisimpervioustofireandsuperiortoleadin

defyingthedamagecausedbystorms.(Forty2012,8)

In the introduction to Concrete and Culture, Forty demonstrates the long-standing

association between More’s depiction of concrete and other utopian movements,

provingthat‘concretehasametaphysicsaswellasaphysics,anexistenceinthemind

paralleltoitsexistenceintheworld’(8).Utopianthoughtsmeanderacrossthesurface

ofBrutalism’spost-warconcrete,legitimisingitsinception.Thetectoniceloquenceof

thelayersbeneathconveysthematerialsinwhichtheirconcretewascastandreveals

theirconstruction.Concreteissingularlyexpressive;itpossessesanenigmaticidentity

ofitsown.Adeepbutdifficultrichnesslieswithinitsrawtextureandtone,resonating.

The plasticity of concrete allows for an authentic architectural expression.With its

versatility, the possibilities are sheer endless and itsmutabilitymay result inmany

different appearances. Timeworn and weathered, each of its structures is a silent,

somewhatantagonisingwitnessofchange.Throughtheirbiography,Brutalistbuildings

have become honest reflections of culture, climate and age, sharing an immediate

15

kinshipwithoneanotherthroughthecommonalityofconcrete.However,amidsttheir

ubiquitythisauthenticityiseasilymissedandaffectisoftenlostinthedullnessoftheir

everydayexistence.

‘Concreteisthematerialofmodernity;thematerialofindustrialization;thematerial

of infrastructure; thematerialof thebanal’,writesBriggsRamsey (2015).What she

recognisesasthe‘veryintentioneduseofconcreteasafinishmaterial’indicatedanew

modernity:‘thatshortwindowoftimeinthemid-centurywhenBrutalismreignedand

concrete’suseseemeduniversalinitsbuiltapplication,servingasastructure,envelope

andpartition’(2015).However,theemergingdebateonBrutalismwasthepredictorof

its uncertain future. Even now, Brutalist architecture is struggling to meet

contemporarystandardsofperformanceand,moreoften,aesthetics,whichappears

mostclearly frompostmoderncritiqueson itsheritage.Notonlyarethesebuildings

burdened by the ever-increasing demands for preservation but they are also

permanentlythreatenedbyurbanrenewallyinginwait.

criticalregionalism

At the end of the twentieth century, a number of unanimous critiques onmodern

architecture were publicly communicated and brought together in what would be

identified as Critical Regionalism. Following historian Liane Lefaivre and architect

AlexanderTzoniswho,in1981,firstpresentedtheircriticismunderthename‘Critical

Regionalism’,architecturalhistorianKennethFramptonelaboratesthesethoughtson

thelackof identity inthisparticulararchitectureinhisessay‘ProspectsforaCritical

Regionalism’ (1983). Frampton provides an explanation for the use of the term by

statingthatit

isnotintendedtodenotethevernacular,asthiswasoncespontaneouslyproduced

bythecombinedinteractionofclimate,culture,mythandcraft,butrathertoidentify

those recent regional ‘schools’ whose aim has been to represent and serve, in a

critical sense, the limited constituencies in which they are grounded. Such a

regionalism depends, by definition, on a connection between the political

consciousness of a society and the profession. Among the pre-conditions for the

16

emergenceofcriticalregionalexpressionisnotonlysufficientprosperitybutalsoa

strongdesireforrealisinganidentity.(1983a,148)

CriticalRegionalismseekstocontestModernismmainlyforignoringtheculturaland

poeticmeaning of a building. ‘The phenomenon of universalization,while being an

advancementofmankind,atthesametimeconstitutesasortofsubtledestruction,not

onlyoftraditionalcultures,[…]butalsoof[…]thecreativenucleusofgreatcivilizations

andgreatcultures,thatnucleusonthebasisofwhichweinterpretlife,[…]theethical

andmythical nucleus ofmankind’ (148). This striking argument of philosopher Paul

Ricoeur serves as the introduction to Frampton’s essay. Modern architecture,

continuesFrampton,isoftenconceivedwithouttakingintoaccounttheinfluencesof

culture and place, resulting in the persistent refusal to enter into dialoguewith its

surroundings. In these buildings specific qualities of place and region have been

replacedwithanalienatinginternationalstyle,whichledtoabacklashagainsttheuse

ofstandardisedelements,therepetitionofformsandtheuseofconcreteasafinishing

material.

Inthenineteenthandtwentiethcentury, theconceptofspacehadapredominant

role in architectural discourses at the expense of tectonic thinking, according to

Frampton.Incomplementingthenormativevisualexperience,heseesaroleforCritical

Regionalism in readdressing the tactile range of human perceptions. In so doing,

Framptonforesees,

it endeavors to balance the priority accorded to the image and to counter the

Western tendency to interpret the environment in exclusively perspectival terms.

Accordingtoitsetymology,perspectivemeansrationalizedsightorclearseeing,and

assuchitpresupposesaconscioussuppressionofthesensesofsmell,hearingand

taste, and a consequent distancing from a more direct experience of the

environment.Thisself-imposedlimitationrelatestothatwhichHeideggerhascalled

a‘lossofnearness.’Inattemptingtocounterthisloss,thetactileopposesitselftothe

scenographicandthedrawingofveilsoverthesurfaceofreality.Itscapacitytoarouse

theimpulsetotouchreturnsthearchitecttothepoeticsofconstructionandtothe

erectionofworksinwhichthetectonicvalueofeachcomponentdependsuponthe

densityof its objecthood. The tactile and the tectonic jointlyhave the capacity to

17

transcendthemereappearanceofthetechnicalinmuchthesamewayastheplace-

formhasthepotentialtowithstandtherelentlessonslaughtofglobalmodernization.

(1983b,29)

Framptonprovidesanoverviewofcaseswherethetactileandthetectonicareclearly

interrelatedandinwhichtheprocessofcreatingarchitecturalspacelargelydepends

onthisinterrelation.Heexplainsthemasbestpracticesofthekindofbuildingdesign

that goes back on the most fundamental aspects of architecture: materiality, the

processofbuildingandthespiritoftheplace.TadaoAndo,oneofthemostprominent

examplesintheworkofFrampton,explainsitratherclearlywhenconsideringhisown

creativeprocessinthelightofCriticalRegionalism‘anopen,universalistModernismin

anenclosedrealmofindividuallifestylesandregionaldifferentiation’(1983a,158).The

space-time factor allows for a multidimensional understanding of the built

environment; it relates present personal and local influences to a certain historical

awarenessintheinterpretationofthisuniversalistarchitecture.

Frampton’sbeliefintheimportanceofthecoherencebetweenformandorigincan

beconsideredabacklashagainstthesuggestedlackofidentityinBrutalistarchitecture

and,more importantly, the negativity that overshadows the entiremovement. The

considerationscoinedwithinthecontextofCriticalRegionalismandinparticularthose

offeredbyFramptonmayopenupnewpossibilitiesintheunderstanding,andpossibly

also the appreciation, of the true sensibility by which Brutalism’s concrete can be

characterised.

brutalistsensibility

Following the rough and spontaneous Art Brut of its propagandist Jean Dubuffet,

Brutalist architecture, too, pays respect to materiality in its purest appearance—a

structuralandphysicalhonesty.Butperhapsevenmorethanitsarchitectureitwasthe

underlyingaffectiveprocessthatcharacterisedthemovement.

In1953, thearchitectsAlisonandPeterSmithson, togetherwith sculptorEduardo

Paolozzi,photographerNigelHendersonandengineerRonaldJenkins,amongothers,

organisedanexhibitionofphotographicdocuments,ParallelofLifeandArt,whichwas

heldattheLondonInstituteforContemporaryArts.Duringtheirregularmeetings,the

18

artistsoftheIndependentGroup,astheycalledthemselves,broughtforwardmaterial

theyconsideredimportantanditwasassembled‘likecuttingsonapinboard’(Scalbert

2000,62).Thus,asubstantialbodyofimageswasgenerated.‘Whattheeditorschose’,

explainedHenderson,‘waswhatmovedthem;noparticulartheoryhadbeenmapped

outbeforehand’(Kitnick2011,70).Simultaneously,theypositionedthemselvesasan

affectedaudience,namely,‘artistswhodonotsomuchexpressthemselvesasmuchas

theyare impresseduponbyanoutsideworld’ (72).And it isprecisely this affective

interrelation which is characteristic of Brutalism; it appears from its different

manifestationsincludingitsimages.ArthistorianAlexKitnickclarifies:

The images that compriseParallelare less signifyingobjects than theyareobjects

stripped of references, less juxtapositions of things than ambiguities of form. As

distinguishedfromasign,whichbindstogethersignifierandsignifiedintheserviceof

representation,theimagelackssuchacompositedimension;itissimplyapresence,

anenigmaticappearance,a‘thingitself,’andassuch,itpossessesavisceralqualityas

well.(82)

Affectarisesintheautonomyofeachimage.ParallelofLifeandArtemphasisedthis

autonomyby the spatial arrangementof the images andderived its existence from

spontaneous correspondences between them. The casual choice of their size and

location, together with these emerging correspondences, ‘evoked the format of a

scrapbook’(Scalbert2000,64).

The ‘as found’wasthenoveltyofParallelofLifeandArt,writesarchitecturecritic

Irénée Scalbert and,moreover, ‘its proposition that art could result from an act of

choiceratherthananactofdesign’(65).TheBrutalistconceptwasclearlyreflected,for

example,intheheadingsfortheimages,which,accordingtoScalbert,‘emergedfrom

thematerialitself’(62).Theexhibitionsymbolised‘acompilationofpersonalinterests’

(62); it was largely autobiographical. Kitnick explains, ‘In making public the private

interests contained in their scrapbooks, however, Henderson, Paolozzi, and the

Smithsonsneverthelessallowedanaudiencetoexploretheimpactthatanewrealmof

imageswashavingoncontemporaryartisticandarchitecturalpractice’(2011,70).The

distinction between high and low culture was discarded, which appeared from the

renewedinterestintheeveryday.Inthiscontext,theeveryday,observesDirkvanden

19

Heuvel,‘isnotaninnocent,idyllicposition.Onthecontrary,itactsasthefieldforan

oftenunexpressedpolitical (and cultural) struggle’ (2002, 54).What followedwasa

visualanalogybetweendisparatethemesdevoidofanyartisticexpression.Theartists

were especially touchedby ‘theoverwhelmingbeautyof theoccasional throwaway

image’,whichtheyrecognisedin,forexample,newsphotographsandX-rays(Scalbert

2000,65).Inhisessay‘ArchitectureasaWayofLife:TheNewBrutalism1953-1956’

(2000), Scalbert also discusses Reyner Banham’s review of Parallel of Life and Art.

Banhamemphasisesthebrutaspectofthematerial,asseenintherawanduncoded

messages of these accurate representations, above everything else. According to

Scalbert, the architecture critic also recognises the spontaneous correspondences

betweentheimagesandascribesthemtothelevellingmediumofphotography;even

intheabsenceofanycontentualconnection,similaritiesofoutlineandtexturecould

be established. Opinions differ, however, on the degree of randomness of these

correspondences. Banham identifies themas ‘of a purely arbitrary and formal kind’

(65), whereas Tom Hopkinson, another critic and one-time editor of Picture Post,

argues quite the opposite. In his opinion, Parallel of Life and Art demonstrated ‘a

uniquepenetrationintothematerialworld,equivalenttoanewfacultydevelopedby

man’ (66). Hopkinson imbues the chance connections Banham made between the

imageswithadeeperhiddenmeaningbyascribingthebasicideaofthecollectionto

‘the visual likeness between objects of a totally dissimilar nature … as if one had

stumbleduponasetofbasicpatternsfortheuniverse’(66).

Ultimately, it was the idea of Hopkinson that Scalbert applied to the material of

ParallelofLifeandArt,or,moreprecisely,totheiconicimageofatypewriterwithits

componentstakenapart,whichresultedinthefollowingvisualanalysis:

Thepartswerelaidoutinsuchanartlesswaythattheyappearedtoreflectthedesire

todowithoutcomposition.Presentedinoutlineas ifona lighttable,theirtexture

became invisibleandthesenseof theirmaterialwassuppressed.Everypartbeing

discreet,theimagegavenoclueconcerningtheirfunctioning. Itwasnolongerthe

significationofthewholewhichmattered,butthatoftheparts.These,nowlostto

themanufacturer,driftedinasemanticfieldoftheirown,opentothemusingsofthe

observer.Thepartshadbecomeconstitutedassigns.Theybecamepictogramsofa

language shorn of its syntax, of a language whose grammar was not so much

20

forgottenasitwaswaitingtobespontaneouslyinventedbytheobserver.Likesigns,

theybelongedinarealmwhichwasparalleltotheworldofthings.(66)

Scalbertdrawsastrikingparallelbetweenthepartsandthefactthattogether,these

constituentpartsbelongedtoamachinethatwasusedtotranscribelanguage.‘Tothe

jinglingoffunctioningparts,totheteemingoftheirinfiniteformalcomplexity’,writes

Scalbert,‘correspondedtheproliferationoflanguage’(68).Theimageofthetypewriter

showstheBrutalistbeliefthateverything,inessence,islanguage;allthingsconstitute,

andcanagainbebrokendownto,asetofbasicpatterns.Thisconstantbreakingdown

andbuildingupofpatternsallowsforthepossibilityofmakingconnectionsbetween

theautonomousimagesofParallelofLifeandArt.Whatfollowsisthatalllanguages,

images and, thus, all things are (possibly) parallel and connected. ‘By virtue of this

immanenceoflanguage,asecretyetmorerealintimacycouldbeestablishedbetween

theobserverandtheteeminglifeoftheworld.This’,concludesScalbert,‘ratherthan

anymaterial factuality,wastheessentialmeaningofBrutalism’(68)—itwas(at)the

basisofitssensibility.

21

IIARCHITECTUREOFAFFECT

Affectisallthereis.InthisthesisIimplytheexistenceofcertainemotivequalitiesofarchitecture,oranaffectivearchitecture.Butisthisalsothearchitectureofaffect?Althoughthisworkisrootedinaffectiveexperiencesofarchitecture,Imainlydiscusshowtheseaffectsarebuilt.Itis,inessence,affect’sarchitecturethatIexploreandIwilldosobycarefullyobservingwhatconstitutesaffect(inabody,inus).

Affects are ‘things that happen’ (2), explains Kathleen Stewart in Ordinary Affects

(2007);‘Somethingthrowsitselftogetherinamomentasaneventandasensation’(1,

emphasisinoriginal).InTheAffectTheoryReader(2010),acomprehensivecollection

of essays on affect, editors Gregory Seigworth and Melissa Gregg delineate the

phenomenonasfollows:

Affect,at itsmostanthropomorphic, isthenamewegivetothoseforces—visceral

forces beneath, alongside, or generallyother than conscious knowing, vital forces

insisting beyond emotion—that can serve to drive us toward movement, toward

thoughtandextension,thatcanlikewisesuspendus(asifinneutral)acrossabarely

registeringaccretionofforce-relations,orthatcanevenleaveusoverwhelmedbythe

world’sapparentintractability.Indeed,affectispersistentproofofabody’sneverless

than ongoing immersion in and among the world’s obstinacies and rhythms, its

refusalsasmuchasitsinvitations.(1,emphasisinoriginal)

Thus,affectcomesfirst.Theorderofthe‘happening’ofaffectandourresponsetothis

happening is significant in the understanding of the phenomenon. As Stewart

emphasises,‘Howeveritstrikesus,itssignificancejumps.Itsvisceralforcekeysasearch

tomakesenseofit,toincorporateitintoanorderofmeaning.Butitlivesfirstasan

actualchargeimmanenttoactsandscenes—arelay’(2007,39).

Affectis(about)perceiving,itisthelived,abodilyorcorporealexperienceinallits

richness;asensation,abecoming,theshockthatgoesthroughus,‘resonating’(Stewart

2007,12).Affectis(about)energy;fromErnstvanAlphenwelearnthataffecthas‘an

22

energeticdimension’(2008,23).Itexistsin‘intensities’(Stewart2007,10)thatextend

beyondtheindividual;itisatthesametimeintersubjectiveandimpersonal.VanAlphen

referstoGillesDeleuze’sexplanationofaffectas‘anintensityembodiedinautonomic

reactionsonthesurfaceofthebodyasitinteractswithotherentities.Itprecedesits

expressioninwordsandoperatesindependently’(2008,23).

Affects are non-semiotic and non-representational, whichmakes them difficult to

understand. Language is based on modes of signification, whereas affects are not

‘infected’bymeaningorcontent;they‘arenotsomuchformsofsignification,orunits

of knowledge, as they are expressions of ideas’ (Stewart 2007, 40). Affective

experience, or ‘the embodiment of sensation’ (Alphen 2008, 22), could thus be

regardedas‘anexplosionofinformation,butanimplosionofmeaning’(21,emphasis

inoriginal).VanAlphen considersour strugglewithascribing theability toaffect to

objects in the context of our deep-rooted belief that objects are passive and

unconsciousmatter.Instead,

there is no reasonnot to acknowledgematter andobjects as possibly active. The

transmissionofaffectsby texts, films,orpaintings is thenno longeran imprecise,

metaphorical way of speaking of our admiration for, or dislike of, these cultural

objects.Onthecontrary,itisanadequatewayofdescribingwhatculturalobjectscan

do to us, and of how they are active agents in the cultural and socialworld. It is

preciselybecauseoftheactivityofmatterandobjectsthatliteratureandartcanbe

affective,andthatwecanspeakoftheaffectiveoperationsofart.(25)

What follows, is the observation of Ben Highmore inwhich ‘thewords designating

affectiveexperiencesitawkwardlyonthebordersofthematerialandtheimmaterial,

thephysicalandthemetaphysical’(2010,120).Anysuchexperiencerequiresthekind

of understanding that breaks with signification and does not articulate it within a

discursiveframework(Alphen2008).Moreover,againfollowingSeigworthandGregg,

‘theseaffectivemoments […]donotarise inorder tobedecipheredordecodedor

delineatedbut,rather,mustbenurtured[…]intolivedpracticesoftheeveryday’(2010,

21).

Affectsaretimeless.Theturntoaffect,however,isregardedprimarilyasabacklash

against Structuralism. At that time, and driven by demand for the concrete, as

23

Highmoreexplains,‘culturalinquiryturnedtowardamaterialismwhereabodywould

be understood as a nexus of finely interlaced force fields’ (2010, 119). As a result,

critical studies ‘of emotions and affects, of perception and the management of

attention, and […] of the senses, the sensorial, and the human sensorium’ (119)

appeared. Affect abruptly ends this past relationship between language and

philosophy;itispre-verbalandanti-verbalatthesametime.

Finally, affect exists in small things. ‘It’s one of themany little somethings worth

noting in the direct composition of the ordinary’ (Stewart 2007, 48, emphasis in

original).Mostly,however,asNigelThriftstates,‘Theaffectivemomenthaspassedin

thatitisnolongerenoughtoobservethataffectisimportant:inthatsenseatleastwe

are in themomentafter theaffectivemoment’ (2010,289).Within thesemoments

afteraffect,thebyGayHawkinsdescribed‘vivacityofanimpression’canbeexplained

assomething‘thatwasonlymeaningfulretrospectively’(2002).

Perhapsinanattempttoshowthataffectitselfisminorintheworldofthings,Iwill

hereafteraddressthreeissuesthatseemedappropriateformyresearchandinwhich

theeffectsofaffectbecomeapparent.Andbecauseaffectisarelationalphenomenon,

asitariseswithintherelationshipbetweentwoentitiesandit,therefore,requiresan

(affective)object,Iestablishalinkbetweenarchitectureandaffect.Likeaffect,Brutalist

architecture,too,‘doesnotspeaktous,itdoesnotsign.[…]Butwhateverproperties

we invest it with are the products of our sensibility, our reason, our wonder, our

disvisal’(‘Bunkers,BrutalismandBloodymindedness:ConcretePoetry’2014).Jonathan

Meades gradually strips away everything that has been added to this particular

architectureinthecourseoftime,leavingonlywhatistrulyimportant.Thus,Brutalism

has proved valuable because of its corporeal structures, or, as Alison and Peter

Smithson stated in their 1955manifesto, for its ‘reverence formaterials’, by them

alreadyatthattimeexplainedas‘arealisationoftheaffinitywhichcanbeestablished

betweenbuildingsandman’(Banham1966,46).

Aswill become clear in this part, I adhere Lone Bertelsen and AndrewMurphie’s

theory in which they propose affects as forces that ‘come from the outside, as a

challengetoestablishedforms’ (2010,145,emphasisremoved). Itcanbeappliedas

follows:something(intheircaseaship,butitmayaswellbeanessay,adocumentary

or a building) ‘is defunctionalized […], removed from the sign systems andmaterial

24

processes […]. It becomes the mark, the possibility of a new event (a new virtual

potentialforthingstohappendifferently),ofanewsetofphysicalterritories[…],and

ofanewsetofexistentialterritories(theseincludevirtualpotentials,physicalplaces,

newmodesofliving,newlaws,newsignsystems,discourses,rhetorics,newemotions

andfeelings,newpowerstoaffectandbeaffected).Insum,anewfieldofexpression

arises’(142,emphasisremoved).TothistheauthorsaddFélixGuattari’sinterpretation

of affects as ‘transitions between states’ (145, emphasis in original) and Manuel

DeLanda’s understanding that affects ‘are virtual in that they carry “unactualized

capacities to affect and be affected”’ (145, emphasis in original). A parallel exists

betweenthetrichotomyofdefunctionalisation,transitionandvirtualitythatappears

fromBertelsenandMurphie’stheory(andhopefullyalsofromthisthesis)andIrénée

Scalbert’sconclusionofthequestfor‘anunarguabletruthwhichresidedbeneaththe

trappings of form’ (2000, 78) that underlies Brutalism. Brutalist artists, Scalbert

recognises,consideredtheirworksofart‘cast-offsfromtheceaselessfluxoflife.They

weresignsorimpressionsliftedfromtheformlessnessofmatter.Oncewrenchedfrom

thevelleitiesofmatter,theseimpressionsobtainedanautonomyoftheirown,evena

kindoflife’(2000,78)—thekindoflifeI’mafter.

Affectisallthereis.Thereisnothing(else)toholdonto.

25

AlisonandPeterSmithson,GoldenLaneEstate(sketchproposal).

London,UnitedKingdom,1952.

26

concreteaesthetics

Inretrospect,ReynerBanham’sessay‘TheNewBrutalism’(1955)canbeconsideredthefirstcriticalreflectiononthearchitecturalmovement.ItexplainstherebirthofBrutalisminapost-warcontext,mostlybasedontheoeuvreofthearchitectsAlisonandPeterSmithson,andaimsatafirm(re)positioningofthemovement,whichisfurtherelaboratedinBanham’slaterworkTheNewBrutalism:EthicorAesthetic?(1966).However,atheoryandquestionsofaestheticscanalreadybeidentifiedinthefirstpiece.Inthecontextofthisthesis,IfocusonthequestionsasraisedinBanham’sessayinrelationtoBrutalismaswellastheculturalimplicationsofaclassification,ethicoraesthetic,ofthearchitecturalmovementbyaclosereadingofthetext.

In 1953, Alison Smithson gave the first account of what would become The New

BrutalismafterdesigningasmallhouseinSoho,London,ofwhichthestructurewasto

beexposedentirely;Smithsonreferredtoitas‘warehouseaesthetic’(Scalbert2000,

60). And although this particular description would not return as a fundamental

principleinlateraccountsofthemovement,itdidinsomewayestablishalinkbetween

Brutalismandacertainaesthetic.

After Smithson, the architecture critic Reyner Banham adopted the concept of a

Brutalistaesthetic,firstinhisessayandlaterastheobjectiveofhiswork.‘Thetoneof

responsetoTheNewBrutalismexistedevenbeforehostilecriticsknewwhattocallit’,

writesBanham,anditwasthoughtofas‘acultofugliness’(1955,356).Banham,who

introducedthemovementtotheArchitecturalReview in1955,definedtheBrutalist

styleasfollows:‘1,MemorabilityasanImage;2,ClearexhibitionofStructure;and3,

ValuationofMaterials“asfound”’(361).Hisessaywasconsideredhegemonicinthe

demarcationofBrutalism’sactivities,although itsvaluesandobjectiveshavealways

remained far too vague to ensure the coherencenecessary to the constitutionof a

movement.

Despitehispreviousposition,Banhamhasnotbeenabletofullyrefrainfromsome

seriouscriticism—astanceindicativeofhisfuturework.Bystating‘whatcharacterizes

theNewBrutalisminarchitecture[…]ispreciselyitsbrutality,itsje-m’en-foutisme,its

bloody-mindedness’ (357,emphasis inoriginal),Banhamnotonlycontributes to the

alreadynegativeconnotationofthemovementbutalsoclearlydistanceshimselffrom

27

it. It is for this reason that Dirk van den Heuvel (2002) considers Banham’s essay

trendsettingforthearchitecturaldiscourseatthetimeofBrutalism’srevival.Although

suchexpressionswere initiallyusedby criticswho sought to indicate the sensibility

towards materials, Brutalism gradually became associated with harsh and

unaccommodating architecture by a public ‘which apparently craved […] prettiness.

Not beauty, just prettiness’ (‘Bunkers, Brutalism and Bloodymindedness: Concrete

Poetry’2014).

architecturalpolemic

It ispreciselywithin theoftenstrainedrelationshipbetweenapublicandtheurban

environmentit inhabitswherethevisualqualitiesofthatparticularenvironmentare

assessed,whichisalsoKevinLynch’smainargumentinTheImageoftheCity(1960).

Lynchstates:

Environmentalimagesaretheresultofatwo-wayprocessbetweentheobserverand

his environment. The environment suggests distinctions and relations, and the

observer—with great adaptability and in the light of his own purposes—selects,

organizes, and endowswithmeaningwhat he sees. The image sodevelopednow

limitsandemphasizeswhatisseen,whiletheimageitselfisbeingtestedagainstthe

filteredperceptualinputinaconstantinteractingprocess.Thustheimageofagiven

realitymayvarysignificantlybetweendifferentobservers.(6)

Thus,Lynchidentifiesthepotentialbiasesthatmightoccurinthereferentialprocess

betweenaforcefieldanditsobserver.Inarchitecture,likeinmanyotherthings,this

tensionbetweenacriticandhisobjectofcriticismequalstheabilitytoaffectandtobe

affected.SaraAhmeddescribesthisprocessasfollows:

Tobeaffectedbysomethingistoevaluatethatthing.Evaluationsareexpressedin

howbodiesturntowardthings.Togivevaluetothingsistoshapewhatisnearus.[…]

Thosethingswedonotlikewemoveawayfrom.Awaynessmighthelpestablishthe

edges of our horizon; in rejecting the proximity of certain objects, we define the

28

placesthatweknowwedonotwishtogo,thethingswedonotwishtohave,touch,

taste,hear,feel,see,thosethingswedonotwanttokeepwithinreach.(2010,31-32)

ParalleltotheprocessasdescribedbyAhmed,Banhamopenshisessaywithwhatcould

beidentifiedasthestartingpointforanyaffectivestate:‘Introduceanobserverinto

any field of forces, influences or communications and that field becomesdistorted’

(1955,355).Throughouthiswork,Banham’sthoughtsonmodernarchitecture,andin

particularthoseontheemergenceofTheNewBrutalism,gatheraroundsimilarissues

of themutual influencebetween thatparticulararchitectureand its critics, inother

words,theinterrelationbetweenobserversandtheforcefieldthatisbeingobserved.

Butinsteadofacknowledgingthevastrangeofnewdynamicsthatmightarisefromthis

interrelation,Banhamnarrowsdowntheoutcomeofcriticalinterferencetoonlytwo

options. According to Banham, the architectural movement develops either into a

‘label’ora‘banner’;intheformerhistoriansorcriticstendtodescribeanarchitecture

onthebasisofcertainconsistentprinciples,whereasinthelatterthearchitectureand

its overarching artistic style are explained within a wide range of phenomena

surroundingthemovementbytheartiststhemselves.

WhatBanhaminhisessaydescribesasthedichotomybetweenalabelandabanner

would return even more radically in the rationale of his later work. In The New

Brutalism:EthicorAesthetic?(1966),Banhamclearlydistinguishesbetweenastylistic

label,oran‘aesthetic’,andan‘ethic’,whichhelooselydescribesas‘aprogrammeor

anattitude to architecture’ (10).According toBanham,Brutalism’sprogrammewas

primarily based on the social ethics of Alison and Peter Smithson, ‘to which they

attachedquiteasmuchimportanceastoformalarchitecturalaesthetics’(47).Parallel

to thisprocess inwhich the socialethicswere furtherdeveloped,people started to

identify The New Brutalism with Jean Dubuffet’s Art Brut as well as other artistic

expressionsof that time.Asa result,Banhamsawhimself compelled to classify the

assetsthathademergedfromthearchitecturalmovementintothenarrownessofthe

previouslymentionedcategories inordertocontextualise,andevenlegitimise,their

culturalcontent.

InwhatseemstobethepolemicofBrutalism,Banham’suseoftheword‘or’implies

an either/or opposition, whereas in fact the terms ‘ethic’ and ‘aesthetic’ are not

mutuallyexclusive. Thisbecomesparticularlyevident in the closingargumentofhis

29

work,whichis,inhisownwords,largelybasedontherhetoricofthemovementitself

and in which Banham bluntly expresses his disillusionment: ‘But the process of

watchingamovementingestationandgrowthwasalsoadisappointmentintheend.

Forallitsbravetalkof“anethic,notanaesthetic”,Brutalismneverquitebrokeoutof

theaesthetic frameof reference’ (134). In theenvoi,Banhamevenrefuteshis1955

essay, aswell asanearliermanifestoof theSmithsons, for the same reasons. In so

doing,Banhamnotonlyputstheterm‘aesthetic’inabadlightbuthealsopressesa

markonallsubsequentmanifestationsofthemovement.

asfound

It is remarkable that, throughout his work, Banham uses the terms ‘beauty’ and

‘aesthetic’ inconsistentlyandinterchangeablywhenappliedtoBrutalistimages(and,

implicated,toitsarchitecture).Theauthorrecognisesanumberofsignificantand,for

thattime,lesscommondesignapplications,whereasacomprehensiblevisualaesthetic

isabsent—astudybyBanhamidentifiedasan‘explorationintotheanti-architectural’

(43).Andalthoughgesturesliketheseweregreatlyappreciatedbytheyoungfollowers

ofthisnewmovement,muchof itsarchitecturewasdefined inthesenseof ‘“anti”-

buildings’(43).BanhamdescribestheimagesproducedwithinBrutalismasa‘particular

aesthetic’(61),sometimesevenas‘bizarreoranti-aestheticimages’(61)and,thereby,

holds the architecturalmovement responsible for the subversive innovation of ‘the

exploitation of these visual qualities to enhance the impact of subject matter that

floutedhumanisticconventionsofbeauty’(61-62).

Inspiteoftheabove,Banhamdoesindeedrecognisetheimportanceofimagesinthat

‘[a]greatmanythingshavebeencalled“animage”.[…]“Image”seemstobeaword

thatdescribesanythingornothing.Ultimately,however,itmeanssomethingwhichis

visually valuable, butnotnecessarily by the standardsof classical aesthetics’ (1955,

358).Banhamidentifiestheimageinthiscontextas‘oneofthemostintractableand

themostuseful terms incontemporaryaesthetics’ (358).Therefore,and,moreover,

since the image is one of the main characteristics to identify Brutalism by, a

reconsiderationofthedifferenttermsmightbeinplace.

IncomplementingThomasAquinas’thoughtsonbeauty—thefrequentlycited‘quod

visumplacet(thatwhichseen,pleases)’(358,emphasisinoriginal)—withhisownidea

30

oftheimageassomethingthat,then,‘maybedefinedasquodvisumperturbat,that

whichseen,affectstheemotions’(358,emphasisinoriginal),Banhamseemstotouch

uponaffect again.However, according to theauthor, hisown interest in the image

opposesthatofTheNewBrutalistsintheirconsiderationofimagesas‘anti-art,orat

anyrateanti-beautyintheclassicalaestheticsenseoftheword’(358).Andalthough

VandenHeuvelagreeswithBanhamregardinghisideasofBrutalistartistswho,inVan

denHeuvel’swords, ‘werenot interested inabsolutebeauty’ (2002,54),he refutes

Banham’s interpretationof themeaningof the image inBrutalism.VandenHeuvel

observesthat

[i]nhisdefinitionofNewBrutalism,Banhamseesthe‘asfound’aestheticnotasthe

outcome of a process but as a ‘concept of Image’ [sic], which takes leave of the

abstractideaofbeautyasanobjectiveworthyofpursuitineitherarchitectureorfine

art.ThisNewBrutalist‘conceptofImage’is‘anti-art’and‘anti-beauty’.InBanham’s

words,‘WhatmovesaNewBrutalististhethingitself,initstotality,andwithallits

overtonesofhumanassociation.’[…]TheaspectoftheprocessthattheSmithsons

accentuate in their description of the ‘as found’ concept is completely ignored,

whereasthisaspectisofoverridingimportanceregardingtherealisationofthe1953

exhibition. Alison and Peter’s words—‘the picking up, turning over and putting

with’—applyasdonoothers to theway they, togetherwithNigelHendersonand

EduardoPaolozzi,selectedimagesfortheexhibition.Forthatmatter,thismethodof

‘picking up, turning over and putting with’ is not unrelated to the fact that the

exhibitionistheresultofcollaborativework,afactthatshouldbekeptinmindatall

timeswhendiscussingtheworkoftheSmithsons.(60)

TheBrutalistapproachtoaesthetics,or,moreprecisely,totheanti-aestheticishighly

affective. Affect, as I wrote in the introduction to this part, always comes first. It

‘happens’intheencounterbetweenasubjectandan(affective)object—theencounter

becomesaffective,becomesaffect.

‘Aesthetics’,writesBenHighmore,‘initsinitialimpetus,isprimarilyconcernedwith

materialexperiences,withthewaythesensualworldgreetsthesensatebody,andwith

theaffectiveforcesthataregeneratedinsuchmeetings’(2010,121).Thephenomenon

springsfromaffect;Highmore’sconsiderationaloneshowsthataestheticsliesatthe

31

heartofmaterialexperiences.Hecontinues,‘Aestheticscoverstheterrainofboth“the

vehementpassions”[…]andtheminorandmajoraffectsandemotions[…].Itisattuned

toformsofperception,sensation,andattention[…];totheworldofthesenses[…];

andtothebody[…]’(121).

AnalmostseamlessparallelexistsbetweenHighmore’s ideasandthoseofVirginia

Postrelstating,‘Aestheticsisthewaywecommunicatethroughthesenses.Itistheart

ofcreatingreactionswithoutwords,throughthelookandfeelofpeople,places,and

things’ (Thrift 2010, 291). Furthermore, Postrel offers insight into the difference

between aesthetics andwhat JonathanMeades identified as prettiness, in Postrel’s

words,entertainment:

Hence, aesthetics differs from entertainment that requires cognitive engagement

withnarrative,wordplay,orcomplex,intellectualallusion.Whilethesoundofpoetry

isarguablyaesthetic,themeaningisnot.[…]Aestheticsmaycomplementstorytelling,

but is not itself narrative. Aesthetics shows rather than tells, delights rather than

instructs.Theeffectsareimmediate,perceptual,andemotional.(291)

And although the concept of aesthetics apparently caused confusion among the

admass,theliteratureonthesubjectismostlybasedonthekindofaestheticpleasure

thatisgeneratedby,inNigelThrift’swords,‘thatsideofsensationthatissheerformless

enjoyment’(292).Hecontinues,‘Aestheticsisboundupwiththediscoveryofnewand

alluringimaginativeterritoriesthatreflectuponthemselves.Thoughtheseterritories

areusuallyvicarioustheyarenolessrealforthat’(292).Withinthisrelativelyunknown

field of self-reference, Thrift explains aesthetics as ‘anaffective force that is active,

intelligible,andhasgenuineefficacy:itisbothmovedandmoving’(292,emphasisin

original), thus referring to theSpinozandistinctionbetween ‘affectus’and ‘affectio’.

Affectishereinidentifiedasboth‘theforceofanaffectingbodyandtheimpactitleaves

ontheoneaffected’(Watkins2010,269),inotherwords,theabilitytoaffectandtobe

affected. InheraccountoftheSpinozandistinction,MeganWatkinsemphasisesthe

lasting impression or residue which remains after affect itself, affectio, has

disappeared.Andalthoughsherecognisesbothqualitiesofaffect,‘itsabilitytofunction

asforceandcapacity’(270,emphasisinoriginal),Watkinsexplainsaffectaboveallas

therelationalphenomenoninwhich‘affectioisverymuchaproductofaffectus,and

32

soaffectasforceortheprocessualaspectofaffectisinfactembeddedinadiscussion

ofaffectivecapacity’(270,emphasisinoriginal).Ultimately,thetrichotomythatarises

inThrift’sexplanationofaffectasa forcemaybridgethegapbetweentheopposed

theoriesoftheimageanditssignificanceforBrutalism.Thriftstates:‘Itisaforcethat

generates sensory and emotional gratification. It is a force that produces shared

capacityandcommonality.Itisaforcethat,thoughcross-cutbyallkindsofimpulses,

hasitsownintrinsicvalue’(2010,292,emphasisinoriginal).

ReturningtotheantagonismexistingbetweenBanham’sideasoftheimageandthose

of The New Brutalists, it can be concluded that ethic and aesthetic, like force and

capacity,cancoexistinthesameforcefield.Moreover,theBrutalist‘asfound’aspect

suggestsapractice thathas replaced theattempts tocognitivelyunderstandcritical

processeswiththecorporealexperiencesof‘thepickingup,turningoverandputting

with’—a reintroduction of affect in the anti-aesthetic experience of Brutalism and,

therefore, the revival of its phenomenology. The demerits of speech that have

undeniably emanated from this revitalisation are an important indication of the

essence of a visual culture which is dominated by, in the philosophy of Hugues

Boekraad,acertain‘ferocity’(n.d.,mytranslation)oftheimagethatcannot(and,orso

it seems, does not want to) be tamed by speech or any other form of cognitive

categorisation. However, even with his affective question about ‘the influence of

contemporary architectural historians on the history of contemporary architecture’

(1955,355),Banhamstillclingstotheurgencyofunderstandingwhichunderliesthe

needforcognitivecategorisation.Whatcanbeconsideredtherationaleofhisessay

returnsasthecriticalintentionofhislaterwork.Intheprefacetothiswork,Banham

observes that ‘large and important aspects of Brutalism were already in need of

historical explanation’ (1966,5).Andalthough thedemand for somecontextof the

movementappearsintherightplaceattherighttime,thereislittlediscussionofthe

sensibility,orethics,ofthemovementinbothhisessayandhisbook.Moreover,the

either/oroppositionbetweenethicandaestheticre-enters,thistimealreadyonthe

bookjacket.Andwiththecontemplation,‘WastheNewBrutalismamoralcrusadefor

thereformofarchitecture[…],orwasitsimplyanotherpost-Warstyle,orevenseveral

styles?’ (inside cover), Banham seems to have broken with Brutalism’s sensibility

forever.

33

humanhabitat

The influenceof theSecondWorldWarontheemergenceof theBrutalist stylecan

hardlybeoverestimated;itisperhapseventhemostimportantreasonunderlyingthe

aestheticchoicesthathavebeenmadeduringitsearlyyears.Inashorttime,largeparts

ofdevastatedcitieshadtoberebuiltwithaminimumofresources.Thesearchfora

workable approach for these large-scale urban projects resulted in the rise of new

construction methods and materials and was reflected in the strong and modern

identity of Brutalism. Consequently, traditional architectural styles were massively

abandoned by a generation of young architects who were actively involved in the

reconstructionoftheseurbanregions.

AlisonandPeterSmithson’sideaspreludedthis‘completelynewattitudeandanon-

classical aesthetic’ (66) that followed upon human associations and their renewed

relationshipswiththecommunityandthebuiltenvironmentthatbothcharacterised

thepost-waryears.Thearchitectsexplain,

Intheimmediatepost-warperioditseemedimportanttoshowthatarchitecturewas

stillpossible,andwedeterminedtosetagainstlooseplanningandform-abdication,

a compact, disciplined architecture. Simple objectives once achieved change the

situation, and the techniques used to achieve them become useless. So new

objectivesmustbeestablished.(66)

TheSmithsonshadbeenfamiliarwiththedissatisfactionexperiencedamongeachnew

generationofarchitects;itistheongoingprocessleadingtonewideasoforderwhich

they simply identified as architecture. ‘Theword “city” still stood for something of

positivehumanvalueexpressedasanemotiveartefact—asan“image”’(71),concluded

thearchitectsoftheurbanimagethatwasnolonger,inthewordsofVandenHeuvel,

‘an intricatewebofPicturesqueaccidentandvariationwithaspecial role forurban

decoration such as iron fences, neo-Victorian advertisements and shop windows’

(2008,28).Onthecontrary,intheirdiscoursesonarchitectureandurbanism,andborn

from their relationshipwith theeveryday,Brutalist artistsdeveloped the ideaofan

‘“expendable”aesthetic’thatrepresented‘theircuriosityaboutwhatwouldconstitute

ordinariness inthefuture’ (Heuvel2002,58).AndalthoughBanhamalready in1955

identified The New Brutalism by the term ‘une architecture autre’, implying an

34

architecture that abandoned, or even violently broke out of, the more traditional

conceptsofexpression,compositionandmaterialitythathadbeengenerallyaccepted

untilthen,heindeedrecognisedthefactthatwiththisnewformofsubversivebuilding

Brutalist architects tried to ‘drag a rough poetry out of the confused and powerful

forceswhichareatwork’(1966,66).Actually,itwasjustanothermanifestationofthe

‘asfound’and,thereby,‘Brutalism’sattempttobeobjectiveabout“reality”’(66).

AlisonandPeterSmithsonexplainthe‘asfound’conceptwithinthethenarchitectural

contextasfollows:

Settingourselvesthetaskofrethinkingarchitectureintheearly1950swemeantby

the ‘as found’ not only adjacent buildings but all those marks that constitute

remembrancersinaplaceandthataretobereadthroughfindingouthowtheexisting

built fabricoftheplacehadcometobeas itwas…Thusthe ‘as found’wasanew

seeingoftheordinary,anopennessastohowprosaic‘things’couldre-energiseour

inventiveactivity.(Heuvel2002,60)

It was their way of responding to society’s desire for an environment for human

activities,ontheonehand,andsymbolsofitsculturalobjectives,ontheother,both

needsthatuntilthenhadbeenmetbytheclassicalsynthesisofstructureandform.By

comparison, the affective, collage-likemethod of ‘the picking up, turning over and

puttingwith’,orthe‘asfound’,thatwasusedinordertodefinethesenewurbanforms

wasadifferentvisuallanguageindeed,andthetendencywaswidelyacknowledged.

AlreadyatthestartofBrutalism’srevival,Lynch,too,recognisedthedevelopmentin

whichthecontrolledandlimitedsequencesofearlyformsofurbandesignhadbeen

‘reversed, interrupted, abandoned, cut across’ (1960, 1),making the art of shaping

cities‘acontinuoussuccessionofphases’(2).Thus,thecitynolongerrepresentedwhat

was thought of as a totalitarian utopia—quite the opposite. The utopian promise

implicitintherisingofnewcitiesinapost-warcontext,ontheotherhand,wasindeed

recognisedbyColinRoweandFredKoetterinCollageCity(1978).Theauthorspropose

modernurbanplanningasthecollagedesignofcities,intheirownwords,‘acollision

ofphysicalconstructs’(119).RoweandKoetterevenidentifytheseso-called‘collisive

intentions’(119)asthenewconceptwithinurbandesign,allowingfortheexperience

of fragmented utopias; they accommodate the development of a collection of

35

miniatureutopias.Herein,theauthorsadvocatetheaffectiveroleofthearchitectasa

‘bricoleur’(102)andsomeonewhose

universeof instruments isclosedandtherulesofhisgamearealwaystomakedo

with ‘whatever isathand’, that istosaywithasetoftoolsandmaterialswhich is

alwaysfiniteandisalsoheterogeneousbecausewhatitcontainsbearsnorelationto

thecurrentproject,orindeedtoanyparticularproject,butisthecontingentresultof

alltheoccasionstherehavebeentoreneworenrichthestockortomaintainitwith

theremainsofthepreviousconstructionsordestructions.(102-103)

RoweandKoetteradheretothethoughtthat thearchitect,at that time,neededto

show the ethical content of society by means of urban design—a function Lynch

attributed to thedevelopmentof thecityasawhole.Hisvision runsparallel to the

Brutalistconceptofurbanismconcerning‘theidentityandstructureofsingleelements,

andtheirpatterninginsmallcomplexes’(1960,118).Ultimately,thesesmallcomplexes

needtobeunderstoodwithinthecoherenceoftheenvironmentalimage.Theartof

urbandesign,concludesLynch,thusaimsat‘afuturesynthesisofcityformconsidered

asawholepattern’(118).

Eventually,theperpetualquestofBrutalistartistsfortheidealhabitatwasreflected

intheirdesirefortoday’spictorialtruth,inBanham’swords,‘unearchitectureautre’,

andfortheexpendableaestheticoftomorrow,or‘versunearchitecture’(1966,69).

Theirprocess involvedcollectingrepresentationsoftheseminiatureutopias,suchas

advertisement images from Americanmagazines, which the artists regarded as the

‘socialsymbology’(62)underlyingthenewwayoflife.Thereby,theyfoundthemselves

onthevergeofchange;therepresentationsofthenewwayoflifecontainedtheneeds

ofasociety,whiletheimageswerealsousedasareflectionoftheartists’commenton

the imminent emptiness of such a life. Their statement resembled what Juhani

Pallasmaa would describe as human commodification: ‘Images are converted into

endless commodities manufactured to postpone boredom; humans in turn are

commodified,consumingthemselvesnonchalantlywithouthavingthecourageoreven

thepossibilityofconfrontingtheirveryexistentialreality’(2007,34).Brutalistartists

found themselves in the middle of these events and were eagerly looking for

opportunitiestotakeastandagainstthem.WhiletheirannualexhibitioninLondon,

36

The IdealHome,combinedbothdesignphilosophyandstyledaesthetic, ithadbeen

these avant-garde activities of the Brutalist artists that resulted in yet another

exhibition,whichwastheapogeeoftheIndependentGroup.Asavisualrepresentation

offuturedomesticity,ThisisTomorrowultimatelyallowedforimageandstyle,orethic

andaesthetic,tofacethefuturetogether.

refrain

TheconfusioncreatedbyBanham’simproperuseoftheterms‘beauty’,‘aesthetic’and

‘aesthetics’livedoninthebuildingofhisargument.Overtheyears,andincreasingly

biased, Banham’s work turned into a self-righteous controversy, which not only

precludeddrawinganyconclusionsbutalsodistortedthemeaningoftheterms,and

for what purpose? Affectus and affectio—ethic and aesthetic—can indeed coexist,

regardlessofacritic’sstance.

37

PeterChamberlin,GeoffryPowellandChristofBon,BarbicanEstate(detail).

London,UnitedKingdom,1960-70.

38

urbanpoetry

JoeGilbert’sshortdocumentaryBARBICAN|UrbanPoetry(2015),whichwaspartoftheofficialselectionateightdifferentfilmfestivalsaroundtheworld,hadbeenawardedBestShortFilmatScreenStockport2015andBestDocumentaryatThurrockFilmFestival2015.Asthetitlealreadysuggests,itwasintendedasaneloquentregistrationofthe1970’sBarbicanEstateinLondon.Inlessthansixminutestheviewergetsanimpressionofhowthingscouldhavebeen.Inthecontextofthisthesis,IexploretheculturalimportanceofGilbert’sprojecttoBrutalistarchitecturethroughanin-depthanalysisofthedirector’sconceptualchoicesaswellasthecreativeelementsandthepost-productionofthedocumentary.

Alreadyatthebeginningofthefilmtheviewerisputonthewrongtrackbyaquoteof

creative director Tom Dixon: ‘For most, brutalism is a miserable danger zone of

concrete…ButtheBarbicanremindsusofhowdifferentitcouldhavebeen’(BARBICAN

|UrbanPoetry2015).Dowegettoseearepresentationofwhatmighthavebeen,or

willweseetheBarbicanasitwas?Andwhatexactlyisthat?Fromthebeginningofthe

filmweseekauthenticity,(a)truth.

The term ‘barbican’ refers to theLatinbarbecana,whichwasused to indicate the

outerfortificationordefenceofacity.TheBarbicanEstatewasbuiltontheremainsof

theoldCityofLondon,beingquiteliterallyrootedinitshistory.Inthelayersrighton

topofacity’spast,tuckeddeeplybeneaththeestate,aseriesoftestsamplesshows

possiblefinishesoftheconcretethatwasusedasthemainbuildingmaterialforthe

Barbican.InherresearchonthelocaluseofconcreteinglobalBrutalistarchitecture,

SarahBriggsRamseydescribesherdescentintothemarrowoftheBarbicanasfollows:

Stretchingnearly20feet,thevastrangeofthemyriadconcretefinishingtechniques

demonstratestheambitionChamberlin,PowellandBonheldfortheirconcrete.Not

simplyselectedforitsinexpensivecost,thiswasamaterialthatofferedmalleability

ofappearanceandallowedforspecificityof intent.Theirbespokebush-hammered

solution would surely be impossible today by both safety and cost standards:

pneumaticdrillswereused to chip away the finish surfacebyhand (withworkers

39

suspended asmuch as 30 stories in the air), exposing the dark granite aggregate

beneathtocreatethesignatureroughanddarkmottledfinish.(2015)

ApalpablelushnessmighthaveservedasthebasisforGilbert’sUrbanPoetry.Instead,

agreyishblack-and-whitefilm,asthoughthecolourshadbeenremovedduringpost-

production,showsno images inparticular. Inwhatseemstobea randomchoiceof

footage, 45 almost photographic images—the average slideshow after a family

holiday—presentonlytheslightestmovement(birds,clouds,thewindinthetreesand,

for some reason, a military helicopter taking off), although the camera holds still.

Exceptforafewpassers-bywedonotgettoseeanypeople.It’sjustbuildings.Nozoom

isused;neitherare thereanyeffects.Buildingsaredistortedby theuseofawrong

wide-anglelens.Theatmosphereisdense—thickandtedious.

WelistentothevoicesofthreeofBarbican’sresidents,twomenandawoman,who

remainanonymous throughout the film. It feelsabit like listening toaneyewitness

account—nofaces,nonames.Hesitatingly,apologeticallyalmost,theyspeakwithout

conviction,pausingmid-sentence.Littleintonation,nonarrative.There’snoplacelike

thisplace.Apossibleutopia.Muffledcitysoundsswell.

katewood

KateWoodlovescats.Atleast,that’swhatalittleresearchontheBarbicanResidents

website(barbicanresidents.co.uk)shows.ApictureonthewebsitedisplaysKatewitha

catsweaterandcatearringssurroundedbycats—photos,artworks,smallstatues.A

friendlyoldladyinherowntiny(cat)world,orsoitseems.Actually,wedon’tknowher

at all, not even her name. Throughout the film KateWood remains anonymous, a

severebutbrokenvoice,pondering.

[image1]I’velivedintheBarbicannowfor39years.[image2]Intheearly1970’s,my

late partner and I met, so we wanted somewhere central, somewhere we could

[image3]moveeasily,somewherethatwasn’ttooexpensive.Theestateatthattime

[image 4] was only for rent and the idea was to make it available to young(ish)

professionals [image 5] working within the city or the immediate environments.

Whenwecamehere,mostpeople[image6]only livedhereduringtheweek,soit

40

was,itwasverymuchatransitpopulation.Nowtherearealotofelderly[image7]

peoplehere,becausepeoplewhobought thena lotof stayed. [image8]Tosome

extent,itwasutopian,Isuppose.Becausedon’tforgetthatthiswasjustafterthewar,

theveryideathatsomethingcouldbe[image9]startedafreshwasterriblyimportant

to[image10]olderpeopleandcertainlytoyoungpeople,Imean,Iwasyoungatthe

time,theideayoucoulddosomething[image11]differently,itdidn’tallhavetobe

asithadbeen[image12]before.Soitstuckoutlikeasorethumb.Peoplethoughtit

lookedverystrange,[image13]allthedomesonthetop,whyhaven’tit,[image14]

whyhasn’titgotproperroofsorwhyisn’titflat?[image15]Somepeoplefoundit

veryfrightening,actually,andstilldo,orwhatonearthit’slikelivingthere,[image

16]orisn’tthatrathergrim,howdoyoueverfindyourway‘roundtheplace?[image

17]Eitheryoureallygetthebugandyouwanttobehereoryouthinkwhythehell

didIevercometolivehere,tolivehereinthefirstplaceandyou’dgetout.[image

18]Idon’twanttomovehere,soIdon’tgoandlookatsomewhereelseI’dliketo

movetothere.(BARBICAN|UrbanPoetry2015)

Paradoxically,poetry(asweknowit)inBARBICANisfaroff.Theresidents’monotonous

voicesseemtoomechanicaltorevealtheirtruestoriesabouttheestate.Yetallwehave

istheirvoicesandwords.Isthereperhapsatruthhiddenbeneaththesurfaceofthese

stories?

‘Inspeakingweformulatewords inordertorefertosituationsandevents’,writes

Alphonso Lingis (2011). ‘In listening to language’, he continues, ‘we attend to the

streamofsoundbreakingintoword-units,theconventionallycodedsoundsthatrelay

ustothemeaning,themessage,andtothethingsoreventsbeingreferredto’(2011).

Beforeslowlyuncoveringwhatweunconsciouslyassociatewiththetruemeaningof

communication, Lingis first describes its formal operations. Mostly, we’re only

marginally aware of what happens beyond words and meaning. Yet Urban Poetry

indicatesatleastsomethingauthenticinthestatementsofKateWood,PeterArchbold

and JonathanPosner. Each in their ownway, their somewhatmelancholic accounts

speakofwhathasbeen,orwhatmighthavebeen,althoughnotbymeansofwords.

41

affectivevoices

Avoiceisauthentic.Lingisdescribesitasa‘climaxofauthenticity,inHeidegger’ssense:

Eigentlichkeit,beingonone’sown,existingallone’sbeing.Beingallthereandbeing

oneself,andgivingoneself’(2011,emphasisinoriginal).Itistheunboundedawareness

that manifests itself right through our conscious intentions; it is the pure and

unintended self anticipating themanifestations of the ego. ‘It takes everything we

have’,recognisesalsoKathleenStewartofthislife‘livedonthelevelofsurgingaffects’

(2007,9).AndthereisonesuchmomentinthestoryofKateWood.Inherrecollection

of ‘thevery ideathatsomethingcouldbestartedafresh’ (BARBICAN|UrbanPoetry

2015,emphasisadded),thissinglewordembodiesitall;‘herposition,herstance,her

implantation in the stable or quaking world are there in her tone of voice. Her

confusion, her anxiety are in the pitch, accent, syncopation of her voice. Her

vulnerability,herexposednessareinthetimbre,resonance,overtonesofhervoice.Her

vitality,hernervousness,fatigue,painareinthelilt,volubility,intonations,pacingof

hervoice.Hersingularinnerlife,herwellspringofenergiesanddrivesandaspirations

areinthetoneofhervoice.Herlifemakescontactwithus,penetratesus,animatesour

voice.Her life quickensour own’ (Lingis 2011).Despite, or perhapsbecauseof, the

monotonyofwhatispresentedtous,synchronicityisembeddedinoneword,inKate;

it’stheplacewherewecometogether.DoIknowherwellenoughtoletherin,Iask

myself? But her speaking already corresponds with my hearing, captivates me,

reverberates in me. Our feelings touch, coincide. She is the incarnation of the

architecturalexperiencewhich,inthewordsofJuhaniPallasmaa,‘bringstheworldinto

amostintimatecontactwiththebody’(2007,60).

Theinterrelationbetweensomethingshared,narrativesthatarisefromstoriesabout

ourselvesandothers,anda latentvulnerabilityalsobecomesapparent fromLauren

Berlant’s editorial to the special issueofCritical Inquiry on intimacy. In imitationof

Berlant,intimacyisthekindofcommunicationwith‘thesparestofsignsandgestures’

having its roots in ‘eloquence and brevity’ (1998, 281). Intimacy is (about) the

relationship between entities in a world in which it is no longer possible not to

communicate:‘intimacybuildsworlds;itcreatesspacesandusurpsplacesmeantfor

other kinds of relation. Its potential failure to stabilize closeness always haunts its

persistentactivity,makingtheveryattachmentsdeemedtobuttress“alife”seemina

stateofconstantiflatentvulnerability’(282).Beforesuddenlyopeninguptous,which

42

happensonlyonce,inaword,Kateisinthisstateoflatentvulnerability.Then,inthe

awarenessofherfrailty,shequicklyturnsaway,hervoiceextinguished.Theintimacy

ofdailylife,writesBerlant,ismarkedbythesecontradictorydesires:‘peoplewantto

bebothoverwhelmedandomnipotent,caringandaggressive,knownand incognito’

(285).

InUrbanPoetry,theseambiguitiesareaccentuatedbythejuxtapositionofwordsand

images.Theuseofacertainartlessnessdenouncesthedialecticsofselfandother,of

(collective)memoryandreality,andofpermanenceandchange.Architectureenables

ustoperceiveandunderstandthesedialectics,explainsPallasmaa,anditisbymeans

ofthearchitecturalexperiencethatweareable‘tosettleourselvesintheworld,and

toplaceourselvesinthecontinuumofcultureandtime’(2007,71).Intheiressayon

thehistoricalawarenessevokedbyphotographicimages,TimDantandGraemeGilloch

arguesomethingsimilar.Theystate,

Themostobviouswayoftreatingthephotographisasadocumentofreality,onethat

accuratelycapturesthephysicalpresenceofpeople,buildings,objectsandnature.

Thesceneweglimpsewithoureyesfadesinmemory,someaspectsofitremaining

longerthanothers,buttheviewcaughtinthephotographicimageiscompleteand

enduring. This is the powerful distanciation in time that the photograph affords.

(2002,7)

ThecorrespondencewiththealmostphotographicimagesofUrbanPoetryisstriking.

Gilbert’s documentary directly evokes a corporeal response which is, according to

Pallasmaa, an inseparable aspect of our encounter with architecture. He claims: ‘A

meaningful architectural experience is not simply a series of retinal images. The

“elements” of architecture are not visual units or gestalt; they are encounters,

confrontationsthatinteractwithmemory’(2007,63).

Whatliesbeneathwillsurfaceeventually.

nostalgicremembrance

‘Everyoneexperiencesthatoccasionaldesiretolookbackatabygoneage,andtocatch

aglimpseofsomethingthattouchestheirheartandmovestheirsoul,orthrowsfresh

43

lightonthechangesaroundus’,writesZoltánKerényionthewebsiteofhisongoing

projectAblakamúltra/WindowtothePast(2011),thusarticulatingafeelingweall

share.Kerényi’sworkconsistsofrecreatingstoriesbysuperimposingphotographsofa

bygone era on present-day pictures of the same place, an art also known as

rephotography.BycarefullygettingthegivenangleandvantagepointKerényimanages

to seamlessly blend today’s events with those of the past—an interrelation that is

painfully,andprobablyalsowilfully,absentinGilbert’sdocumentary.Bothinwordand

imageGilbert’s documentary is a (re)turn to ‘the impoverishment of language—the

language of repetitions, monosyllables, and stuttering, of words in the process of

disintegration’ (Stoner2012,77). JillStonerclarifies, ‘Inarchitectureas in literature,

thisislanguagepurifiedofstyle,languagestrippedbare’(77).InUrbanPoetry,present-

day scenes, imagesof the city, indeedmergewith thoseof thepast, the residents’

voicesandtheirstories,althoughnotintheclassicalsenseofpoeticproficiency.Onthe

contrary,analmoststill lifeofobjectsthat‘standastracesofapaststillresonantin

things’ (Stewart 2007, 56) is created by illogical patterns of word and image, their

apparent randomness and the residents’ linguistic flaws. Altogether, this ostensible

indifference,onlyrarelyinterruptedbyanaffectiveanachronism,resultsintheabsence

ofan interplayofpastandpresentonasemiotic level, leavingthedivisionbetween

twomomentsintimeabsolute.

Yetwhatmovesus isexactlytheoccurrenceofthese, inWalterBenjamin’swords,

sparksofcontingencywhichhe,in‘ASmallHistoryofPhotography’(1985),explainsas

tinytraces‘oftheHereandNow,withwhichrealityhassotospeaksearedthesubject,

tofindtheinconspicuousspotwhereintheimmediacyofthatlong-forgottenmoment

the future subsists so eloquently that we looking back may rediscover it’ (243).

Benjamin identifies these traces as the distinguishing feature of the photograph in

which‘aspaceinformedbyhumanconsciousnessgiveswaytoaspaceinformedbythe

unconsciousness’, the so-called ‘optical unconscious’ (243). It is themost authentic

fragmentofanimage,somethingofwhichweunconsciouslyfeelithasthequalityof

uniqueness that cannot be perceived by the conscious eye; Dant and Gilloch even

consider itthebasisfortheinterrelationbetweenanimageanditsreader. ‘Indeed’,

theysay,‘thereaderofthephotographisattractedtopreciselythosefragmentaryand

contingentirruptionswhichescapeandconfoundthephotographer’spurpose’(2002,

11).

44

Writingabout thepoeticsofphotoalbums, theYugoslavauthorDubravkaUgrešić

alsodesignatestheimperfectionsinavisualnarrativeasthemainreasonforthefact

thataviewerismoved,inthecaseofhermother’salbums‘especiallyinplaceswhere

somethingwasmissingorwhereamistakehadbeenmade’(2000,294,mytranslation).

She calls to mind the act of arranging pictures in a photo album, ‘a procedure of

beautifyingyoureverydaylifeandtheconstructionofyourownpersonalhistory’,and

explains,‘That’swhyit’ssomoving.Andthat’swhyitissopainful.Basically,it’sadeath

mask’(‘Vandeschoonheidendetroost:Depoëticavanhetalbum’2000).Throughout

theyears,Ugrešićhasfoundonlylittleconsolationinthisactofcherishinglifeasthe

magicalversionofwhatcould,orshould,havebeen.Sheconsidersphotographsthe

onlyvaluableevidenceofhavingbeenthere,proofofthefact‘thatsomeonewasalive

ataparticulartimeandplaceinhistory’(SturkenandCartwright2009,17),yetatthe

same time the most fragile sign of one’s existence—memories that can easily be

forgottenordestroyed.

UgrešićwasoneoftheguestsinWimKayzer’sTVprogramme‘Vandeschoonheiden

detroost’(2000)inwhichKayzerwouldinterviewpeoplefromdifferentbackgrounds

(music,art,science,literature)andaskthemthesamequestion:‘Tellmewhatmakes

thislifeworthwhile’.KayzerandUgrešićspokeaboutthephotoalbumsofhermother.

Mother’salbums,thewayshesetoutthefactsofherlife,revivedbeforemyeyesan

everydaylifeIhadforgotten.Thiseverydaylifewasarrangedbythemerefactofbeing

posed.Then, itwas resorted throughdeselectionofphotographsbutperhaps just

becauseofanamateur-artisticimpulsethatthefactsoflifeshouldbenicelyarranged,

itsprangoutinthegaps,inthemistakes,inthemethoditself,touchinglyauthentic

andalive.(‘Vandeschoonheidendetroost:Depoëticavanhetalbum’2000)

ToUgrešić,thememoryprevails.‘Thealbumstellthestoryoflifeasitwassupposedto

be’,sheemphasises.‘Itwasn’tevenclose’(‘Vandeschoonheidendetroost:Depoëtica

vanhetalbum’2000).

Likenoother,ElizabethLoftus,psychologist,memoryexpertandalsooneofKayzer’s

guests,hasshowntheextenttowhichmemorycanbeinfluenced.Herstorymaybe

living proof of the narrative dimension that Paul Eakin explores in Living

Autobiographically:HowWeCanCreateIdentityinNarrative(2008)preciselybecause

45

ofitsabsence.‘Memoryisveryconstructive’,explainsLoftus.‘Wetakebitsandpieces

of information from other places, other times, and amalgamate them with other

memories and construct something new’ (‘Van de schoonheid en de troost: Lieve

moeder’2000).Loftusfindssolaceintheabilityoftreatingherpatientsbythepower

ofsuggestioninordertopositivelyaltertheirautobiographybutisherselfunableto

handlethetraumarelatingtohermother’smysteriousdeath.Theaffectiveanomalies

inKateWood’snarrativeresoundinLoftus’memories.ForLoftus,too,isholdingonto

thefewbitsandpiecesthatconstitutethesememorieswithout‘theabilitytoconstruct

anarrativelycoherentlifestory’(Eakin2008,30),leavingtheviewerstranded.

Eakin introduces theconceptofanarrative identityas ‘the idea thatwhatweare

couldbesaid tobeastoryof somekind’ (ix).Theconventionsaroundourpersonal

storieshavebecomepartandparcelofthefabricofsociety;theyarenormalisedina

waythattheyconstitutethenarrativeidentitysystemtowhichwebelong.Withinthis

system,thesenarrativesareavailableatanytime,claimsEakin,notonlydemonstrating

ouridentitybutalsounderlyingit.Heexplains:‘narrativeisnotmerelyaboutself,but

is rather in some profound way a constituent part of self. […] There is a mutually

enhancing interplay betweenwhatwe are andwhatwe saywe are’ (2). Thus, the

‘impaired self-narration’ (47) in the life stories of Elizabeth and Kate can be held

responsible for what Oliver Sacks, in this regard quoted by both Eakin and Kayzer,

identifiesas‘alossofaffect’(46).InTheManWhoMistookHisWifeforaHatandOther

ClinicalTales(1985),Sacksdescribesthecommonhumanconditionofhispatientsfrom

hisexperienceintheeverydaypracticeofneurology.‘Foritisnotmemorywhichisthe

final,“existential”casualtyhere’,heexplains,‘itisnotmemoryonlywhichhasbeenso

altered inhim,but someultimatecapacity for feelingwhich isgone;and this is the

sense inwhich he is “de-souled”’ (1985, 59). The resemblance is striking.Whereas

Wood’s storyclearly is, Loftus’memory isno longerpresent ‘in thepast, inamind’

(Eakin2008,62);theaccountabilityofhavingherownnarrativequietlyrecedes into

oblivion—anirreversibleprocessElizabethisfightinginordertokeepherbiographical

self, however fragile, intact. ‘We don’t, though, tend to givemuch thought to this

processofself-narrationpreciselybecause,afteryearsofpractise,wedoitsowell’(4),

explains Eakin the often unconscious means of maintaining our narrative identity.

Sacks, on the other hand, emphasises the importance of reappropriation: ‘To be

ourselveswemusthaveourselves—possess,ifneedbere-possess,ourlife-stories.We

46

must“recollect”ourselves,recollecttheinnerdrama,thenarrative,ofourselves.Aman

needssuchanarrative,acontinuousinnernarrative,tomaintainhisidentity,hisself’

(1985,57,emphasis inoriginal). It’s theaffective turningpoint inboth stories:Kate

harksbacktoherflattone;Elizabethutterswithsobs.Astheoriginofselfismirrored

inthebeginningofthesestories,theabandonmentofselfiscloselylinkedwiththeloss

oftheirnarratives.‘Theverdictofthoseforwhomweperformisvirtuallyaxiomatic’,

findsEakin,‘nosatisfactorynarrative(ornonarrativeatall),noself’(2008,44).

Thethreads interweavingthenostalgicmemoriesofKateWood,DubravkaUgrešić

andElizabethLoftus,inStewart’swords,‘thingslikenarrativeandidentity’(2007,5-6),

canbeconsideredinthelightofordinaryaffects.Theythenbecome

tentative though forceful compositions of disparate and moving elements: the

watching andwaiting for anevent tounfold, thedetails of scenes, the strangeor

predictableprogressioninwhichonethingleadstoanother,thestill lifethatgives

pause,theresonancethatlingers,thelinesalongwhichsignsrushandformrelays,

thelayeringofimmanentexperience,thedreamsofrestorredemptionorrevenge.

(5-6)

Byextension,Gilbert’sconceptualchoiceofthenon-definitionofpeopleandplacesin

UrbanPoetryreinforcesthealienationeffect,orVerfremdungseffekt,whichistypical

ofModernism.InhisessayaboutthesensitivitiesofBrutalism,inparticularitsnecessity

of context, Dirk van den Heuvel identifies this ‘threat of modernisation’ as ‘the

perceivedlossofidentityandsenseofplace’(2008,23),anestrangementcausedby

theabsenceofacertainhistoricalsetting.ThispainfullacunainUrbanPoetrycanbe

explained on the basis of Marc Augé’s concept of non-places. A non-place, Augé

explains,is‘aspacewhichcannotbedefinedasrelational,orhistorical,orconcerned

with identity’ (1995, 77-78). Stripped bare of almost all forms of remembrance,

Gilbert’sBARBICANdemonstratespreciselysucha(non-)place.Andformost,anysuch

depravity isunbearable;culturalartefacts thus inducedwithnostalgiaareno longer

abletosoothe,astheirreferentsarevoid.

InimitationofRolandBarthes,DantandGillocharguethat‘[i]t isonlythroughthe

useofjudgement,ofsomeidentificationwiththepastintheimage,thatittrulyspeaks

tous’ (2002,9,emphasis inoriginal).Couldwe, in thecaseofUrbanPoetry, stillbe

47

lookingataconcatenationofscenesfromapastreality,imagesasindicativeevidence

ofhavingbeenthere,orareweconfrontedwiththeillustrativemetaphorofananterior

future,thephenomenonasidentifiedbyRolandBarthesandofwhichhenoted,‘Iread

atthesametime:Thiswillbeandthishasbeen’(1993,96,emphasisinoriginal)?Itmust

be the latter, following Dant and Gilloch when they state, ‘There is something

profoundly sad about the “that-has-been” […] as the newly found form of the

punctum—no longer adetail butnow that intensityof the imagewhich locates the

referentofthespectrumasalwaysalive,realyet inthepast’(2002,13,emphasis in

original).UrbanPoetryoffersatrueandaffectivelookintothepastthatcomestousin

thepresentbutistherewithirretrievablylost.

refrain

An awkward beauty—one that’s cruel and harsh—lies in this real yet in the past.

Gilbert’sBARBICANreferstosomeplacereal,itscoordinatesindicatinganestatewhich

canbeexactlylocatedonamap,althoughwithoutalivelyconnectiontothepresent.

Inasingleactofthedirector,Brutalismisnotonlydeprivedofitspossiblepoetrybut

alsoburdenedwithaninarticulatetruth.Anditisonlyinretrospectthatweunderstand

itcouldn’thavebeenotherwise.

48

LeCorbusier,Unitéd’Habitation(photomontageofcut-awaymodel).

Marseilles,France,1947-52.

49

radiantcity

TheiconicUnitéd’HabitationinMarseilles,familiarlyknownasLaCitéRadieuse,isoneofLeCorbusier’sfiveresidentialhousingprojectsthroughoutEuropeandwasinauguratedin1952.Designedasa‘citywithinacity’,itwasintendedtofulfiltheneedsofthemany.AplethoraofpossibilitiessproutedfromLeCorbusier’sModulor;hiswell-knownanthropometricscaleofproportionshadbeenarchetypalinthebuildingprocess.ButdidtheUnitéultimatelyliveuptopeople’sexpectations?Inthecontextofthisthesis,Ifocusonthedifferenceinoutcomebetweenthearchitect’sambitionsandthereceptionoftheprojectbymeansofavisualanalysisof(representationsof)thebuildingandthearchitect’sconceptsprecedingtheconstructionoftheUnité.

‘Themomentwasrightforanewarchetype,foranewmodel,forthedevoted,flocked

copy’,statesJonathanMeadesofthere-emergenceofLeCorbusier’sarchitecturein

theearly1950s(‘Bunkers,BrutalismandBloodymindedness:ConcretePoetry’2014).

Anditisquitepossiblethatanysuchutopianconsciousnesshasformedthebasisofthe

architect’sconceptsfortheUnité.‘LeCorbusier(1887-1965)bequeathedtotheworld

a structurally rigorous but spatially flexible method that no other pioneer of the

modern movement would equal’ (2002, 6), explains Kenneth Frampton in the

introductiontohismonographontheprojectsofthearchitect.Designingacomplex

equippedwithallpossiblefacilitiesforalargeanddiverseaudienceneedssuchagrand

idea.LeCorbusier’sideas,however,weregenerallynotwellreceived.

One of the major causes of failure has been described by Bryan Lawson in The

LanguageofSpace(2001)asthefactthat‘manypeoplehavenotfollowedarchitectsin

the journeys they have made over the last century into the development of

architecturalform’(97).Lawsoncontinues,‘allformsofartbytheirverynaturemove

forward,andthustheircontemporarymanifestationsmayseemstrangetothoseless

involvedinthemovement’(97),whichcanberegardedashisexplanationfor‘theinitial

hostility’(97)aswellas‘strongfeelingsofalienation’(98)intheoverallreceptionof

modern architecture. In addition, Lawson identifies some specific context-sensitive

aspectsofthearchitecturaldesignforlarge-scalesocialhousingprojectsthathaveto

betakenintoaccountaswell:‘Theresidentsofsuchdwellingswillinevitablyshowhuge

variationsinlifestylesandtastes,andwillbepressedfairlyclosetogetherandneedto

50

expresstheiridentityatleastpartlythroughthehouse’(210)—alack,inthecaseofLe

Corbusier’sUnité,of‘socialsensitivity’(54).

Human response to the built environment can be inferred from behaviour. The

awarenessofoursensoryperceptioncanbevaluableingainingadeeperunderstanding

ofourrelationshipwithspace.Andinordertocomprehendthis‘language’ofspace,

Lawsonfirstexplainshowweexperienceit:

Primarilyofcourseweseeit,sinceitislargelyevidenttousvisually.Theprocessing

of visual sensations into perceptions of the world around us involves a complex

interaction of the eye and brain.Our own characteristics are such that our visual

sensationslargelydominateourperceptions,sinceovertwo-thirdsofthenervefibres

thatenterourcentralnervoussystemare fromtheeyes!Becauseof thiswehave

cometoliveinaveryvisuallydominatedculture,anditiseasytoforgetthatspaceis

alsoperceivedthroughthesensationsofsound,smellandeventouch.Perceptionis

actuallymorethanjustsensation.Perceptionisanactiveprocessthroughwhichwe

makesenseoftheworldaroundus.Todothisofcoursewerelyuponsensation,but

wenormally integrate theexperienceofalloursenseswithoutconsciousanalysis.

(42)

soliddarkness

AsthebasisforourrelationshipwitharchitectureLawsonstatesthat‘wehaveourown

waysofsensingspaceandofmovingthroughspace’(14).Hecontinues,‘Atthemore

sophisticatedlevel,wehaveourownwaysofmakingmeaningofspace’(14)andwhen

the author speaks of ‘architecture as a system of signs and symbols’ (3) he refers

primarilytoourabilitytocomprehend:‘buildingscanbereadastexts’(4).Butshould

they?AsIwillargue,theUnitéd’Habitationislivingproofthatthingshavegonewrong

inthereferentialprocess.

According to Lawson, buildings are able to denote, exemplify, express and refer,

either literallyormetaphorically. Theyare connotedanddenotedbya largepublic,

whichmeans that they get imbuedwith newmeanings, our meaning, and then all

differentmeanings,thequalitiesthathavebeenascribedtothembefore,arediscarded

again.Eitherway,abuildingistaintedwithmeaningsthatdonotreallymatterbutcan,

51

and mostly do, have far-reaching consequences. Our habits of phrasing and

categorisingaretantalisingandsenseless;theharderwetryandgraspthingsbymeans

ofwords,themoretheyevadeus.Inourstrugglewithsemioticsitisfairtoconclude

thatgivingmeaningultimatelybecomesmeaningless.Afterall,whoisgivingwhatto

whom,andwhy?

Inhisnotesonsemioticsandvisualrhetoric,HuguesBoekraaddiscussestheroleofa

designerastheproducerofanimage,pretendingtobeabletodirectaviewer’seyeby

exploitingthetensionbetweensymbolsandtheimaginary.Inordertoachievethis,the

designer’sgazefirstneedstobe‘undirected’(n.d.,mytranslation),detachedfromthe

trappingsinwhichvisualmediahavestrainedit.Boekraadseemstobetouchingupon

theessenceofavisualculture,bothchallengeandpitfall,asitcanbeseenbutitcannot

besaid,or,asRolandBarthes identifies, ‘Igrasp it throughmyeyes’ (1972,117). In

‘Myth Today’ (1972), his essay about a supposed signifying consciousness, Barthes

admits,‘inlanguage,thesignifierremainsmental’(122).Lawsonexplainsthisprocess

asfollows:‘Ourperceptionisintegrativeofsensorymodalityinawaythatallowsboth

patternandstructureandexternalmeaningtobeappreciated.Westruggletoexplain

thistoourselves,oftenbyusingcross-sensorymodalwordstodescribeourexperience’

(2001, 81-83). Ultimately, Lawrence Grossberg’s essay forms the link between

semiotics and Michel Foucault’s valuable ideas on the relationship between the

‘sayable’andthe‘seeable’.Grossbergstates:‘Thestructureoffeelingisaboutthelimits

of signification, of representation, and […] the kind of “excess” or “surplus” that is

always there through discursive production that is not captured by notions of

significationor representation’ (2010,318). It is Foucault’s approach thatmayoffer

comfort,thoughlittle,inapossiblereturntoacorporealexperienceoftheUnité.

It ismystère, ‘the ineffable aliennessbeneath the surface familiarityof theworld’

(Foucault1983,insidecover),thatnotonlyunderpinstheentireoeuvreofthesurrealist

painter RenéMagritte but also resembles how certain cultural artefacts constantly

seem to escape our frantic attempts to capture theirmeaning.What underlies this

rhetorical urge towards referencemay best be understood bymeans of Foucault’s

notionsofresemblanceandsimilitude.Foucault’sThisIsNotaPipe(1983),fromwhich

thistheorysprings,canberegardedashisattempttounravel(partof)themysteryof

theworkofMagritte,amongothers,includinghisfamouspaintingofapipe,whichis

part of a series of paintings entitled La Trahison des Images. Based on Magritte’s

52

surrealistic work, Foucault distinguishes between resemblance and similitude.

Resemblance,ontheonehand,

presupposesaprimaryreferencethatprescribesandclasses.Thesimilardevelopsin

seriesthathaveneitherbeginningnorend,thatcanbefollowedinonedirectionas

easily as in another, thatobeynohierarchybutpropagate themselves from small

differencesamongsmalldifferences.Resemblanceservesrepresentation,whichrules

overit;similitudeservesrepetition,whichrangesacrossit.Resemblancepredicates

itselfuponamodelitmustreturntoandreveal;similitudecirculatesthesimulacrum

asanindefiniteandreversiblerelationofthesimilartothesimilar.(1983,44)

Situationsinwhichresemblanceoccurscanthusbeconsideredconditionsofreference

that appear from the relationshipbetweenanobject and a referent, in the caseof

architectureoftenabuildingandallthathasprecededit,suchastheconceptsonwhich

itsdesignwasbased.Similitude,on theotherhand, ‘is restored to itself—unfolding

fromitselfandfoldingbackuponitself.[…]Itinauguratesaplayoftransferencesthat

run,proliferate,propagate,andcorrespondwithinthelayoutofthepainting,affirming

andrepresentingnothing’(49).Thus,similitude,havingneitheranexternalreferentnor

thedisturbingfactorof(our)criticalintervention,drawsfromitselfandkeepsreferring

backtoitselfinaninfinitecircularreference.Itrestrainsustointervene,asinfactdoes

Brutalist architecture. With similitude, things remain highly changeable and

ambiguous;theyhaveescapedthestableformsthathavebeenestablishedbysome

authority,leadingusstraightintotheunknown—nosystem,nowell-knownformsto

relyon.‘Thingsarecastadrift’,asbeautifullyputbyJamesHarknessintheintroduction

toFoucault’swork,‘moreorlesslikeoneanotherwithoutanyofthembeingableto

claimtheprivilegedstatusof“model”fortherest’(10),whichisexactlywhatmakes

Brutalistarchitectureinfactsodelicate:beingitsownmodel,ithasnothingtoreferto

ortodrawfrombutitself.And,intheend,thatisallthereisforustoholdonto.

StartingfromLawson’siconicandsymbolicrepresentationsofbuildings,Iamindeed

tryingtofollowadifferentpath.Iwouldliketorevisitthebuildingasthebuilding,as

theretinalandtactileexperienceofthebuilding,inotherwords,thesensory.Meades

rightlyobservesthatBrutalism‘wasasignifierinsearchofanobject,an-ismthatlacked

amovementorschoolortendencyortrendtogowithit.Thiswastaxonomybackto

53

front’(‘Bunkers,BrutalismandBloodymindedness:ConcretePoetry’2014).Itwouldbe

fair to clear its architecture from any former associations and instead return to its

internalreference,itsFoucauldiansimilitude.KathleenStewartexplainsitratherclearly

bysayingthat

[t]heirsignificanceliesintheintensitiestheybuildandinwhatthoughtsandfeelings

theymakepossible.Thequestiontheybegisnotwhattheymightmeaninanorder

of representations,orwhether theyaregoodorbad inanoverarching schemeof

things,butwheretheymightgoandwhatpotentialmodesofknowing,relating,and

attendingtothingsarealreadysomehowpresent intheminastateofpotentiality

andresonance.(2007,3)

Releasingtheneedforacertainframeofreferencepavesthewaytowardsadifferent

understanding of the built environment. Every architectural encounter will then

becomeanexperienceinwhichwecanrelyonoursensesand,moreover,asensation

ofsublimitythatisprecludedbyanyformofrepresentation(‘Bunkers,Brutalismand

Bloodymindedness:ConcretePoetry’2014).

thealchemist

‘His sculpture became architecture. His architecture became sculpture, functional

sculpture,sculpturewithasocialpurpose.Itwasanextraordinarymutation’(‘Bunkers,

BrutalismandBloodymindedness:ConcretePoetry’2014).Meades’programmeissplit

intotwopartsrightinthemiddleofhisdiscussionofthesublime,afruitlessattemptat

thedivisionofsublimity.LeCorbusierwasonthethresholdbetweenbothepisodes:

‘Hehad,sotospeak,abandonedtheproseofatechnicalmanualinfavourofthepoetry

ofthesublime’(‘Bunkers,BrutalismandBloodymindedness:ConcretePoetry’2014).

TheFoucauldian conceptof similitudeand, correspondingly,Meades’definitionof

thesublimecametogetherquiteliterallyinthepersonofLeCorbusier.Drawingonly

fromhisownworkandadnauseamreferringtoit,thepolymathdescribedthepurpose

of construction as ‘TO MAKE THINGS HOLD TOGETHER’, whereas the goal of (his)

architecture was ‘TO MOVE US’ (1986, 19, emphasis in original). He explains,

‘Architecturalemotionexistswhen thework ringswithinus in tunewithauniverse

54

whose laws we obey, recognize and respect. When certain harmonies have been

attained,theworkcapturesus.Architectureisamatterof“harmonies,”it is“apure

creationofthespirit”’(19).Architecture,byLeCorbusierconsequentlycapitalised,was

meant‘toestablishemotionalrelationshipsbymeansofrawmaterials’andisregarded

ashighlycorporealinthefactthatitremains‘aplasticthing.Thespiritoforder,aunity

ofintention.Thesenseofrelationships;architecturedealswithquantities.Passioncan

createdramaoutofinertstone’(151).Throughouthiswork,thedifferentiationmade

byLeCorbusierbetweenconstructionandarchitecturewouldfurthercrystallise,not

simplyasaclassificationbutasan ideologicalpremise(Frampton1985). In linewith

this,LeCorbusierdefinedthearchitect,himself,asfollows:

TheArchitect,byhisarrangementofforms,realizesanorderwhichisapurecreation

of his spirit; by forms and shapes he affects our senses to an acute degree, and

provokes plastic emotions; by the relationships which he creates he wakes in us

profound echoes, he gives us the measure or an order which we feel to be in

accordancewiththatofourworld,hedeterminesthevariousmovementsofourheart

andofourunderstanding;itisthenthatweexperiencethesenseofbeauty.(1986,1)

Thereby,LeCorbusierembodiedthetensionbetweentheartisticconcept,ontheone

hand,andtheprocessofcreativedestructiontypicalofmodernarchitecture,onthe

other.Thearchitectforesawthattheabilitytoletgoofanyframeofreferencewould

ultimatelyenableanarchitectureinwhichformwouldnolongerbedeterminative,an

architecture inwhich formwouldbeeverythingandnothingat the same time.And

although the time was ripe for such a new paradigm, the people’s needs did not

concernarchitectureatall.Instead,whatpeoplepursuedwasthepromiseofcertainty

utteredbythesolidstructuresofsocialhousing—preciselythepurposeofconstruction,

accordingtoLeCorbusier.

Although never fully realised, Le Corbusier’s Cité Radieuse of which his ‘most

significant contribution to social housing typology’ (Jenkins 1993, n.p.), the Unité

d’Habitation, is an offspring, held the promise of a utopian city; it would not only

provide residents with a hopeful outlook but it would also contribute to a better

society. In accordance with Modernist ideals of progress and the annihilation of

tradition,itwouldemergefromatabularasa;LaCitéRadieusewasplannedtobebuilt

55

onthegroundsofextinguishedEuropeancities.Asananswertothefadingconceptof

theclassiccity,LeCorbusier’s ‘cityofthefuture’wascharacterisedbyprefabricated

andidenticalskyscrapers,arrangedinaCartesiangridandsurroundedbyparks.With

an almost totalitarian sense of symmetry which reflected his ‘commitment to

discovering an underlying order in architecture equivalent to that found in nature’

(Jenkins 1993, n.p.), the architect arrived at a true geometrical lay-out. Based on

repetitionandresultingin‘constructionalsystemization’(Jenkins1993,n.p.)itwasthe

manifestationofperfectionismtoLeCorbusier.Thenotionofzoning,whichwasatthe

core of the plan, allowedhim to divide the city into segregated areas for business,

entertainment and residential purposes. An underground transport system would

enablecitizens tocommutebetweenthebusinessdistrict in thecitycentreandthe

surrounding housing districts. These housing districts contained prefabricated

apartmentbuildings, knownas ‘Unités’. EachUnité couldaccommodateasmanyas

2,700 inhabitants and would function as a so-called ‘vertical city’, with shops and

laundryfacilitieslocatedonthegroundfloorandsportsfacilitiesandakindergartenon

the roof. Parks surrounding the buildings would provide their residents with both

recreationalfacilitiesandanaturalhabitat.Initially,LeCorbusier’sproposedprinciples

provided an answer to the post-war housing shortage, which appeared from his

pragmatismashe‘seizedtherealityofconcreteandbyanalmostalchemicalprocess

of transformation, reinvented it asa roughand tectonicallyneutralplasticmaterial’

(Jenkins1993,n.p.).Thus,thearchitect’sideologiesexertedconsiderableinfluenceon

modernurbanplanningandthedevelopmentofhigh-densityhousingtypologies.

‘Astheman,sothedrama,sothearchitecture.Wemustnotassertwithtoomuch

convictionthatthemassesgiverisetotheirman.Amanisanexceptionalphenomenon

occurring at long intervals, perhaps by chance, perhaps in accordance with the

pulsationofacosmographynotyetunderstood’(LeCorbusier1986,165,emphasisin

original).LeCorbusier’simageofmanwasvisionary.Yetincomprehensionbefellhim,

which took place in accordance with one of Lawson’s later observations: ‘In the

twentieth century architecture adopted a number of characteristics which, when

combined together, seemed to lose touch with people’ (2001, 97). Modern

architecture,andinparticularBrutalism,facedthedangerofnolongerbeingintouch,

resulting in an insurmountable distance between architecture andman.Within the

architectural theory concerning the corporeality of the built environment, Juhani

56

Pallasmaa, too, considers architecture ‘an extension of nature into the man-made

realm, providing the ground for perception and the horizon of experiencing and

understandingtheworld’(2007,41).‘It isnotanisolatedandself-sufficientartifact’,

explains Pallasmaa, ‘it directs our attention and existential experience to wider

horizons’(41).However,astheydonotcapturetheZeitgeistofmodernarchitecture,

these reflections seem only meaningful in retrospect. When Pallasmaa states that

architecture, in general, ‘gives a conceptual and material structure to societal

institutions, aswell as to the conditions of daily life’ (41), he speaksmostly of the

architect’s intentions and not so much of the existing discrepancy between these

intentions,ontheonehand,andthereceptionandunderstandingofhisprojects,on

theother.Again,Meadesputsthefingeronthesorespot,asking,‘Whyshouldbuildings

befriendly?Whyshouldlandscapes?Dowereallywanttobechumswithgeological

formations? Do we crave matey waterfalls?’ (‘Bunkers, Brutalism and

Bloodymindedness:ConcretePoetry’2014)—questions that remainunanswered.He

continueshis contemplation, ‘Theproposition that buildings shouldbeon a human

scale,thatis,slightandnottooalarming,isridiculous.TheMonumentalmustcontain

somethingunapproachablethatpromotesbothwonderandawe’(‘Bunkers,Brutalism

and Bloodymindedness: Concrete Poetry’ 2014). Meades’ thoughts show obvious

similaritieswithPallasmaa’sconsiderationsofthetactileexperiencesofarchitecture.

Theauthorclaimsthata‘distinctsenseofdistance,resistanceandtensionhastobe

maintainedinrelationtoprogramme,functionandcomfort’(2007,62).Inhisview,the

underlying intentions of a piece of architecture should never become totally

transparent, for it is exactly this ‘impenetrable secret andmystery’ that ignites our

imaginationandemotions(62).

The pressing question from anxious people in search of consolation remained

unanswered;nolastingbondcouldbeestablishedbetweenthearchitectandthosehe

wassupposedtoserve.Moreover,LeCorbusierwasdespisedbythepeoplewhohad

placed high hopes on the magnificent forms that would rescue them from their

miserable existence, simply because itwas not the rightmagnificence the architect

providedthemwith.

57

déjàvu

It’sthere.It’sthereanditawaitsme,watchingmewithitsmanybrightlycolouredeyes.

The eye-like sun screening is in fact one of the new elements, next to the mass-

produced apartments and the independent supporting skeleton, added by the

architect.InhismonographonLeCorbusier’sUnitéd’Habitation,DavidJenkinsexplains

that‘[t]hebrises-soleilalsobringwiththemanewmuscularitywhichcharacterizesLe

Corbusier’s post-war work. They are the heavy, passive and low-technology

counterpartofthemechanicalenvironmentalcontrolsystemsimplicitinthenotionof

themachineàhabiter’(1993,n.p.).Frampton,ontheotherhand,observesthat‘the

Unité revealed its cellular structure through the use of sun-baffle balconies and

canopiesprojectingfromthemainbodyofthebuilding’ (1985,226).Tome,coming

fromtheBoulevardLeCorbusieralongsideitsbackentrance,itkeepshidingbehindthe

vegetation.Despiteitssize,itdoesn’tstandoutfromthelow-risebuildingsofthispart

ofMarseilles—oversizedyetnimbleandalert.Itisonlypasttheroundaboutandviathe

RueThéodoreBrosseaudwhenIlearnthatit’squiteimpressivereally,itsconcretemass

fillingupthespacebetweenthetreesinthesamecolourastheirtrunks.This‘patinaof

wear’(Pallasmaa2007,31)bearssilentwitnesstothepassingoftimeconveyedbythe

constructionmaterial.Thedrearydayonlyaddstothemassiveness—asaggingspine

onmanyheavylegs.

The resemblance to something somewhat human is not purely coincidental; the

ModulorofLeCorbusier,thetwentieth-centuryinheritorofDaVinci’sVitruvianman,

ispresent in almostall his laterbuildings.Asa constant reminderof thearchitect’s

interpretationofthegoldensectiontheModulorisrepeatedlyandindeliblyimpressed

in the concrete wall of the entrance hall, directing attention to the naturally

harmoniousrelationshipbetweenbodyandbuilding.VincentScullytouchinglydepicts

thisrelationship:

Althoughtheindividualapartmentunitsareexpressed,[…]alluserscaleelements,

suchasdoorsandwindows,whichnormallymakeusreadbuildingsnotassculptural

creatures but as hollow containers of human activity, are suppressed, so that the

building,likeaGreektemplewithitsperipheralcolonnadehasonlysculpturalscale.

Itthusstandsuponitsmuscularlegsasanimageofhumanuprightnessanddignifies

allitsindividualunitswithinasingleembodimentofthemonumentalhumanforce

58

whichmakesthempossible.Thehighspaceofeachapartmentlooksouttowardsthe

mountains or the sea, and it is in relation to themountains and the sea that the

buildingasawholeshouldbeseen.ThisisthelargerHellenicenvironmentitcreates.

SoperceiveditisaHumanistbuilding,asweemphaticallyassociateourselveswithit,

inthecontrastinglandscapeasastandingbodyanalogoustoourown.(Jenkins1993,

n.p.)

As Scully associates the human body with the building, Jenkins does exactly the

opposite,ascribingbody-likequalitiestothebuilding,identifyingitas‘asensuousbone-

like cross section hinting at an anthropomorphism’ (1993, n.p.). Frampton, too,

acknowledgestheexistenceoftherelationshipbetweenbodyandbuildingas itwas

expressed‘atgroundlevelinthecarefullyprofiledcolumnssupportingtheunderbelly

ofthebuilding.Thesepilotis,preciselyproportionedinaccordancewithLeCorbusier’s

Modulorsuggestedtheinventionofanew“Classical”order’(1985,226-227,emphasis

inoriginal).Butwhatimpressiondoestheactualbuildingmake,howdoesitimpress

me,righthere,rightnow?Whatatmospheredoesitexude?Doesitbreathe?

‘Ingreatarchitecturalspaces,thereisaconstant,deepbreathingofshadowandlight;

shadowinhalesandilluminationexhaleslight’,explainsPallasmaa(2007,47).Following

thisbreathing,Iindeedseeaplayoflightandshadow.Shadowandlight,inturn,follow

thebuilding’sbreaths,audible,tangible,resultinginabreathingthatcanbeseen.The

buildingexudesserenity,uttersilence.

‘The most essential auditory experience created by architecture is tranquillity.

Architecturepresentsthedramaofconstructionsilencedintomatter,spaceandlight.

Ultimately,architectureistheartofpetrifiedsilence’,findsPallasmaa(51).Touching

itsconcreteskinrelatespast,presentandfuture;theycometogetherinthesilentself.

It isarespectful,or, inthewordsofPallasmaa,‘remembering’silence(52),asilence

that allows you to become aware of yourself, of history, of eternity; it is ultimate

silence.Inlinewiththis,Pallasmaaassertsthat‘[a]powerfularchitecturalexperience

silencesallexternalnoise;itfocusesourattentiononourveryexistence,andaswith

allart,itmakesusawareofourfundamentalsolitude’(52).Itrepresentsaseekingself,

aselfthathasnotyetfound,aselfstillmeaninglessandunbounded.

Acertainunderstandingoftheconceptsofplaceandspaceisessentialintheprocess

ofselfdefinitionthroughanencounterwiththebuiltenvironment.Theirarchitectural

59

relevance, as well as their interrelation, is etymologically examined by Martin

HeideggerandcontemplatedbyFrampton.

Inhisessayof1954,‘Building,Dwelling,Thinking,’MartinHeideggerprovidesuswith

a critical vantage point from which to behold this phenomenon of universal

placelessness.AgainsttheLatinor,rather,theantiqueabstractconceptofspaceasa

more or less endless continuum of evenly subdivided spatial components or

integers—what he terms spatium and extensio—Heidegger opposes the German

wordforspace(or,rather,place),whichisthetermRaum.Heideggerarguesthatthe

phenomenologicalessenceofsuchaspace/placedependsupontheconcrete,clearly

definednatureof itsboundary, for,asheputs it, ‘Aboundary isnotthatatwhich

something stops, but, as theGreeks recognized, the boundary is that fromwhich

something begins its presencing.’ Apart from confirming that Western abstract

reasonhasitsoriginsintheantiquecultureoftheMediterranean,Heideggershows

that etymologically the German gerund building is closely linkedwith the archaic

formsofbeing,cultivatinganddwelling,andgoesontostatethattheconditionof

‘dwelling’ and hence ultimately of ‘being’ can only take place in a domain that is

clearlybounded.(1983b,24,emphasisinoriginal)

TheexistentialrelevanceoftheUnitéappearsfromthewayitwasbuilt.Roughtimber

formworkwasusedforthecastingofthebasicconcretesuperstructureofthebuilding,

‘adeliberaterevelationofbuiltprocesswhichLeCorbusierwastojustifyongrounds

whichwerealmostexistential’(Frampton1985,226).Thisexistentialityisembeddedin

theauthenticityofanyarchitecturalexperience‘groundedinthetectoniclanguageof

buildingandthecomprehensibilityoftheactofconstructiontothesenses’(Pallasmaa

2007, 64). The redeeming experience stemming from the interaction with an

architecturalformisalsorecognisedbyFramptonstating,‘itisclearthattheliberative

importanceof the tactile resides in the fact that it canonlybedecoded in termsof

experienceitself:itcannotbereducedtomereinformation,torepresentationortothe

simple evocation of a simulacrum substituting for absent presences’ (1983b, 28,

emphasisinoriginal).Theultimateparadoxseemstobeanarchitecturalkoan:weneed

anarchitecturalformtofindourselvesbutbecomingourselvesliesintranscendingthis

form.

60

Asananswertotheexistingbinaryoppositionbetweeninteriorandexterior,orthe

definition of what architecture is and what it no longer is, Jill Stoner proposes an

architecture in a minor mode that ‘will necessarily render its interiors contingent,

diminished,andfragile. Inthisstate, interiorspacecannolongeropposeexterior; it

emerges onto the threshold of becoming exterior. Thus exteriority is a state that

remains elusive, that can never be fully realized’ (2012, 43, emphasis in original).

Contrarytobuildingsdefinedbytheirappearance,thisminorarchitecture‘mustfirst

becomenotvisible’(62).Stonerexplainsthattheobjecttherefore‘mustbewithdrawn

fromitsvisibility’(63)which‘mayhappenthroughtheagencyofimagination,which,

ironically,hasnoneedoftheimage.Theimaginationsetstheimagefree;tolookwith

imaginationistoforgetanobjectanditsmeaning,toforgetitscommodityfunction,

andtobecomelost inasightlessspacewhereinvention,propelledby linesofforce,

becomespossible’(62).Breakingoutofanypossibleframeofreference,‘undirecting’

thegazeand,eventually,lettinggoofformopensupafieldofpossibilities—a‘pass[ing]

throughwithoutgoingto’(68,emphasisinoriginal).Stonercallsthisatransitoryplace;

itisthetransformation‘fromaspacethatalreadyis[…]tooneinastateofbecoming’

(29,emphasisinoriginal).Becoming,ortransition,isessentiallyaffective.Beyondthe

normative,thein-orexcluding,itisthemostsensitivestateofnon-being:betweenthe

nolongerandthenotyet—avulnerability. It isa ‘becomingspaceratherthanbeing

form’ (68,emphasis inoriginal),whichtakesplacebeyondthe limitsofarchitecture,

beyondwhatitisandwhatitisnolonger.Itisacontextualliberation,anarchetypal

becominglost.Sheexpressesitasfollows:

Asothersensestakeover,theyblurintooneanother;theyvibratewithintensities

andintersectwithoutdesign,withoutawareness.Thisstutteringandmeanderingof

thesensesispreciselytheconditionthatrevealshumanrelations.Forourpurposes,

itdestroysnotonlyanobject’simagebutalsoitsmateriallimits,itspastassociations,

anditspresentcontext—itsfrozenmeaning.(62)

refrain

Materialitydoesn’tlie;itholdsthepromiseofaffect.Yetatthesametimeaffectonly

exists in the experience, right here, right now. The circular movement around Le

61

Corbusier’sUnitéd’Habitation,withitsconceptualphaseasastartingpoint,becomes

smaller,moreintense.Itmovestowardsitsmateriality,becomesanewstartingpoint.

Another circular movement, yet another starting point. Transition, the loss of self.

Ultimately,thepointbeyondwhicharchitectureisnolonger.

62

CONCLUSION‘Anditwassoontheobjectofbien-pensantloathing’,continuesJonathanMeadeshiscontemplationin‘Bunkers,BrutalismandBloodymindedness:ConcretePoetry’(2014).ItresemblestheunsettlingstartingpointforboththeliteraturereviewandtheapplicationoftheoriesofaffecttothreedifferentmanifestationsofBrutalistarchitecture,insearchofanunderstandingofthisarchitecturefromwithin.

Meades’ meditation is an abridged version of the overarching tendency that has

appearedinmyresearch,anoppositionbyBryanLawsondescribedas

thetensionthatseemstoexistbetweentheapproachtocontemporaryarchitectural

design and the needs of society. The modern view of architects is often very

iconoclastic—thatistosay,theunconventionalinterpretationofbuildingtypologyis

encouraged and valued. However, this can lead to the dismissal of modern

architecturebyapublicwho resenthaving the legibilityof settings removed from

them.(2001,28)

Buthowcanthisbereconciledwith,forexample,myownexperience?ForInotonly

believeinconcrete’sabilitytocomfortbutIalsophysicallyexperiencetheconsolation

of its overwhelming structures. Technically, of course, there is nothing to be found

apartfromwhatthisconcretearchitecturegenuinelyis.Thereisnoimposedoradded

beauty,consolationorwhateveritiswearelookingfortoascribetoitsstructures;it

simplycannotbefoundontheoutside.Itmightnotevenbefoundontheinside.And

that’spreciselyhowitaffectsus.Itisaffectatitsdeepest.Theparadoxicalanswerto

thequestforanunderstandingofthisparticulararchitecturefromwithin lieswithin

thearchitecture;theabilitytoaffectisalreadyembeddedinitsstructure.It is,soto

speak,pouredinconcrete’sDNA.

Thepurposeofthisthesiswasnotsomuchtoarguehoworwhyconcretehasbeen

misunderstoodasitwastoconsiderthesemisinterpretationsastartingpointforthe

discussion of the visceral forces beneath. My research question revolved around

everydayexperienceswithconcrete;I investigatedhowthedisquietudeofBrutalism

turned these experiences into affective architectural encounters. The architecture’s

63

abilitytoaffectwasthemainfocusofmydiscussionofthecasestudies,andforthis

purposeIindicatedthecompositionoftheiraffectivequalities.Inmyanalysesofthe

essay,thedocumentaryandthebuildingdifferentmanifestationsofaffecthavebeen

discussed,notwithstandingtheexistenceofthenotionsofbeauty,languageandform.

Acriticalconsiderationoftheseconceptsnotonlyleadstoadeeperunderstandingof

thephenomenonbutalsotothedemonstrationofaffectinthesethreemanifestations

ofBrutalistarchitecture.

At first glance, oneman’s critiquedoes not seem to affect an entire architectural

discourse.YettheworkofReynerBanhamisamongthemostimportantsourcesofand

ofgreatinfluenceonthehistoryofBrutalismforhisdiscussionofbothitsarchitecture

and the artmovement inwhich it is rooted. The cultural implications of Banham’s

classificationofBrutalismintoeitherthestylisticlabelortheratherrestrictivebanner

shouldthereforenotbeunderestimated;ithascontributedsignificantlytothegeneral

misunderstanding of the movement. My close reading of Banham’s ‘The New

Brutalism’ and, indirectly, The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic? shows the

movement’s ultimate resistance to the classification into one of the previously

mentioned categories. In Brutalism, this resistance is not only causedby concrete’s

material slipperiness but also by the affective practice that characterises the

movement. The Brutalist ‘as found’ aspect, lying at the heart of its activities and

explaining its sensibility, legitimises the simultaneous occurrence of ethic and

aesthetic. And because they both appear within the Brutalist context, their re-

evaluation contributed to the determination of their value for that same context.

Ultimately, the effects of a reconsideration of the terms ‘ethic’ and ‘aesthetic’ are

demonstratedintheiraffectivesignificanceand,moreover,intheopportunitiesforthe

movementtotranscendanysuchclassification.

An awkward beauty hides in the affective encounterwith the Barbican. Emerging

fromineloquenceandescapingintoanonymity,wefindourselvesconfrontedwithone

of themost honestmanifestations of themovement. Frommy film analysis of Joe

Gilbert’sBARBICAN|UrbanPoetryappearsthatanarchitecturalexperience,although

fleetingandseeminglyinsignificant,canbeliterallyaffective.Affectarisesinasingle

word,resonatingintheunspokenhope,avoice,someone.WheresheandIcoincide,

affecttouchesmedeeply.Thehonestyofthismanifestationisexpressedinacertain

ineloquenceinbothwordandimage,preciselywherethetwodonottouch:inbetween

64

Eigentlichkeit and Verfremdung. The viewer seeks authenticity but finds almost

forgottenmemoriesataplacewherethe(visual)narrativeisinterrupted.Byclingingto

what remains of these memories a story about the self is created in which new

possibilitiesariseandresonancelingers.Thelossofself,especiallyinsuchanon-place,

offers theultimatestaging; it’s theplacewhere thiswillbeand thishasbeencome

togethermelancholicallybuttruthfully.

Materialityholdsthepromiseofaffect:experienceisthecounterpartofareasoned

representationofreality.Hereinliesthedangerofthedesireforaframeofreference—

ourunremittingeffortstocapturerealityinwordandimage.MyvisualanalysisofLe

Corbusier’sUnitéd’Habitationshowsthatpreciselybecauseofthisneedforreference

the connection between the architect and his audiencewas lost.Where a pressing

questionarosefortheconsolationofferedbysocialhousing,theanswercameinthe

formofsoberarchitectonicsublimity.Breakingoutofanypossibleframeofreference,

‘undirecting’ the gaze and letting go of form will open up a field of possibilities

eventually.AccordingtoLeCorbusier,thearchitectislikenoothercapableofwaking

in us a profound echo that enables the experience of beauty; La Cité Radieuse is

conceptual, the Unité achieved proof thereof. The relationship between body and

buildingisreflectedinhisHumanistpieceofarchitectureonasculpturalscale,allowing

ustotranscenditsformthroughthesensoryexperienceofitsmateriality.Weattaina

state of dwelling, being and, ultimately, becoming;where architecture is no longer

materiallylimited,itisarchitecturenolonger.

EversincetheonsetofBrutalism,populationdynamicsandchangingpatternsofuse

have caused the transformation of urban cityscapes, leaving a trace of spaceswith

enormousamountsofembodiedenergy.Muchattentionhasbeenfocusedrecentlyon

thefateoftheseBrutaliststructuresasexpectationsregardingtheirformandfunction

areincreasinglychallenging.Asaresult,theyhavebecomepartofanongoingdebate

onbothBrutalism’sheritageandfuture.

OnNovember2,2016,theverymomentIwritethisconclusion,JonStone’sarticle

‘Government Declares War on Brutalist Architecture’ is published online in The

Independentemphasisingthepoignantactualityofthepreviousdebate.Fortunately,

thearticleputsGovernmentMinisterJohnHayes’horrifyingcallforbeautyintransport

insomeperspective,butStone’sdiscussionstillrequiresaseriousafterthought.With

65

his‘JourneytoBeauty’,aspeechdeliveredtwodaysearlier,Hayesentersapleaof‘a

renaissance’ofthebuiltenvironmentwhichhedismissesas‘aestheticallyworthless,

simplybecauseitisugly’(2016).Hayes’speechcontainssomebluntcriticismonboth

(Brutalist) transport architecture and its architects, ‘the culprits’, and the minister

promises ‘the people’ of whom he assumes they crave harmony that he will do

everythinginhispowertoreplacethestructuresofthis‘blindorthodoxyofugliness’

(2016)with something, indeed,beautiful.Andalthoughany suchconsiderations fall

outside the scope of my research, they add to the conclusion that architectural

applications of concrete are likely to be always sensitive to criticism. A genuine

understandingoftheinterrelationbetweenourselvesandtheworldthatsurroundsus,

ontheotherhand,mightpreventusfromhastilytearingdownwhatwethoughtwould

generate in us a strong feeling of repugnance. Developing an empathy for affect,

perhaps by means of a different language, allows the phenomenon to escape our

eagernessoftamingitandwelcomesitintoourexperience.Wemayevenbeableto

furtherexploreitinthenearfuture,eitherpersonallyortheoretically.

Ofcourse,mydiscussionofthedifferentBrutalistmanifestationshasrevealedonly

little of its tremendous architecture. Yet I hoped to gain and share insight into

Brutalism’sabilitytoaffectbycarefullyobservingandindicatinghowtheseaffectsare

built.Quitesimilartomyexperienceasdescribedinthepreface,inthewordsofRoger

Scruton,

Consolationissomethingwe,humanbeings,seek.Itisn’tsimplyphysicalcomfort;it’s

a senseofbeing fullyathome in theworld.We’re,as itwere, sundered fromour

nature and from theworld inwhichwe live, in a state ofwhat used to be called

Entfremdung,alienation,inasenseofwandering;thatwe’re,asitwere,detachedof

whatwereallyare.Andtheseexperiencesofhomecomingareincrediblyimportant

tous.[…]Theproblemwiththemodernworld,inmyview,isthatpeoplenolonger

dwellontheearth.Theymovenomadicallyaround it insearchofsomething, they

knownotwhat,andneverfindingit.Movingfrompersontoperson,placetoplace.

[…] Only if we learn how to dwell can we build. And that’s the secret of real

architecture.(‘Vandeschoonheidendetroost:VoorSophie’2000)

66

Anarchitecturethatmanagestoaccommodatetheserawexperiencesofthesublime

mayconstituteinusayearningforHeimkehr,or‘thedeeplyfeltdesiretoreturntothe

place where you’re finally home’ (Scruton 2000, 15,my translation), and any such

architecturecanbeconsideredanarchitectureofaffect.

67

SAMENVATTINGDooralledaagseervaringenmetdegebouwdeomgeving,eninhetbijzondermetdebetonarchitectuurvanhetBrutalisme,wordenweopvaakindringendewijzegeconfronteerdmetdewereldomonsheenen,uiteindelijk,metonszelf.Dezeervaringenrakenonsmeerdanwebeseffen;hetzijnaffectieveontmoetingen.Hieringaataffectvoorafaanonzeemotiesenreacties,enwordtonslichaameenscalaaansensatiesgewaar.

DearchitectuurvanhetBrutalismeuitdetweedehelftvandetwintigsteeeuwwordt

overhetalgemeengeassocieerdmetderuweenagressievematerialiteitvanbeton.

Voor mij is Brutalisme echter een metafoor waarin beton het lichaam tart. Deze

uiteenlopendeinterpretatiesliggentengrondslagaaneenonderzoekwaarinikopzoek

gingnaarmanierenwaaropdeverontrustingvanhetBrutalismedealledaagseervaring

metbetonverandertineenaffectievearchitectonischeontmoeting.Ikbeargumenteer

datmetnameBrutalismeonsinstaatsteltarchitectuurtenvolleteervaren,vanwege

hetvermogenomwerkelijkteraken.

De oorspronkelijke verbinding tussen architectuur en het lichaam is grotendeels

verlorengegaan.Hetbelangvanlichamelijkcontactendezintuiglijkeervaringwordt

steedsminderonderkend.Tochisditessentieelinhetervarenenbegrijpenvanonszelf

endewerelddieonsomringt.Hetisbovendieneeneerlijkeconfrontatie;zelegtbloot

wat eens verborgen was en toont wat (her)ontdekt wil worden. Ze doet een

ontvankelijkheid inonsontwakenvoordealtijdaanwezige,maar indevergetelheid

geraakte impact van de gebouwde omgeving, die we gewaarworden in affectieve

ontmoetingenmet architectuur. In eenpoging de tegenstelling tussenperceptie en

sensatieteverklarenenaantetonendathetnietalleenomeenvisueleafkeergaat,

maaromeenvisceralekrachtdiediepinonsgeworteldis,brengiklichaamengebouw

opnieuwmetelkaarinverbinding.Theorieënvanaffectzijnessentieelgeblekenindit

proces en hebben een interpretatie van deze architectuur van binnenuit mogelijk

gemaakt.

Dezescriptiebestaatuittweedelen.Heteerstedeeliseentheoretischeverkenningvan

de wereld van beton en vormt de context voor de bespreking van het Brutalisme.

68

Achtereenvolgensonderzoekikhetgebruikvanruwbetoninmodernearchitectuur,de

kritiekenopditgebruikvanuitcultureeloogpuntendegevoeligheiddieonlosmakelijk

isverbondenmethetBrutalismemaarslechtszeldenwordtopgemerkt.Hettweede

deel opent met een overzicht van theorieën van affect, waarna ik drie casussen

analyseeraandehandvandezetheorieën.

Deeerstecasusiseenclose-readingvanReynerBanhamsessay‘TheNewBrutalism’

(1955). De invloed van dit werk op het architectonisch discours moet niet worden

onderschat. Het is een polemiek waarin de weerbarstigheid van het beton iedere

categoriseringlijkttewillenontstijgen.InzichtindegevoeligheidvanhetBrutalismeis

essentieelvooreenherwaarderingvandestromingentoontaandatwareesthetiek

niethetzelfdeisalsschoonheid.

EenfilmanalysevandekortedocumentaireBARBICAN|UrbanPoetry(2015)vanJoe

Gilbert vormt de tweede casus. Een eigenaardige gevoeligheid gaat schuil in deze

moeizameontmoetingmethetBarbicanEstate,eneenverrassendeerlijke.Gilberts

stedelijke poëzie is onwelsprekend, komt los van de taal en is affect ten diepste.

Authenticiteit,zoalshieraangezetdoordearchitectenChamberlin,PowellenBonen

benadruktdoorGilbert,isnietperdefinitiepoëtisch.

De derde casus is een visuele analyse van de Unité d’Habitation (1952) van Le

Corbusier.Materialiteitbelooftaffect;ervaringisdetegenhangervaneendoordachte

representatie van de werkelijkheid. De sobere sublimiteit van Le Corbusiers

architectuurbiedtaffect,ennietdetroostvansocialewoningbouwwaardemassaop

wachtte.Daarwaararchitectuurnietlangerwordtbeperktdoordematerieiszijinstaat

elkevormteontstijgen.

Iederopeigenwijze voorzienessay, documentaireengebouwhetBrutalismevan

commentaar.Hetloskomenvandeconceptenvanschoonheid,taalenvormblijktuit

dedrie studiesen looptparallel aande ideologie vandearchitectonische stroming.

TezamenvormenzeeenmultidimensionaleverbeeldingvanhetBrutalismeenbieden

bovendienruimteaanaffect.

Ditwerkwilbijdragenaaneenbeterbegripvandeideologievaneenarchitectuurdie

voor velenmoeilijk tedoorgronden is endie vaakopweerstand stuit. Tegelijkertijd

vormthet de aanzet tot een gevoelige(r) perceptie,waarin verwachting en realiteit

69

samenkomen.Affectheeftplaats inditgevoelig leven—isditgevoelig leven.Hoede

wereldhetlichaamraaktisalseenarchitectuurvanaffect.

70

REFERENCESAhmed,Sara.2010.‘HappyObjects’.InTheAffectTheoryReader,29-51.Durham&London:DukeUniversityPress.

Alphen,Ernstvan.2008.‘Affectiveoperationsofartandliterature’.Res:AnthropologyandAesthetics53/54:20-30.

Augé,Marc.1995.Non-Places:IntroductiontoanAnthropologyofSupermodernity.London:Verso.

Banham,Reyner.1955.‘TheNewBrutalism’.TheArchitecturalReview118:354-361.—.1966.TheNewBrutalism:EthicorAesthetic?Stuttgart:KarlKrämerVerlag.BARBICAN|UrbanPoetry.2015.Film.JoeGilbert.Barthes,Roland.1972.‘MythToday’.InMythologies,109-137.London:Paladin.—.1993.CameraLucida:ReflectionsonPhotography.London:Vintage.Benjamin,Walter.1985.‘ASmallHistoryofPhotography’.InOneWayStreetandOtherWritings,240-257.London:Verso.

Bennett,Jane.2004.‘TheForceofThings:StepstowardanEcologyofMatter’.PoliticalTheory32(3):347-372.

Berlant,Lauren.1998.‘Intimacy:ASpecialIssue’.CriticalInquiry24(2):281-288.Bertelsen,LoneandAndrewMurphie.2010.‘AnEthicsofEverydayInfinitiesandPowers:FélixGuattarionAffectandtheRefrain’.InTheAffectTheoryReader,138-157.Durham&London:DukeUniversityPress.

Boekraad,Hugues.n.d.‘Visueleintelligentieendeprofessioneleidentiteit’.BriggsRamsey,Sarah.2015.‘Concrete’sManyFair-Faces:TheLocalConditionsofaGlobalMaterial’.RoomOneThousand.http://www.roomonethousand.com/concretes-many-fair-faces-the-local-conditions-of-a-global-material.

‘Bunkers,BrutalismandBloodymindedness:ConcretePoetry’.2014.TVprogramme.BBC.

71

Dant,TimandGraemeGilloch.2002.‘PicturesofthePast:BenjaminandBarthesonPhotographyandHistory’.EuropeanJournalofCulturalStudies5(1):5-25.

Eakin,Paul.2008.LivingAutobiographically:HowWeCanCreateIdentityinNarrative.NewYork:CornellUniversityPress.

Forty,Adrian.2012.ConcreteandCulture:AMaterialHistory.London:ReaktionBooks.

Foucault,Michel.1983.ThisIsNotaPipe.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Frampton,Kenneth.1983a.‘ProspectsforaCriticalRegionalism’.Perspecta:TheYaleArchitecturalJournal20:147-162.

—.1983b.‘TowardsaCriticalRegionalism:SixPointsforanArchitectureofResistance’.InTheAnti-Aesthetic:EssaysonPostmodernCulture,16-30.Washington:BayPress.

—.1985.ModernArchitecture:ACriticalHistory.London:ThamesandHudson.—.2002.LeCorbusier:ArchitectoftheTwentiethCentury.NewYork:Abrams.Grindrod,John.2013.Concretopia:AJourneyaroundtheRebuildingofPostwarBritain.Brecon:OldStreetPublishing.

Grossberg,Lawrence.2010.‘Affect’sFuture:RediscoveringtheVirtualintheActual’.InTheAffectTheoryReader,309-338.Durham&London:DukeUniversityPress.

Hawkins,Gay.2002.‘DocumentaryAffect:FilmingRubbish’.AustralianHumanitiesReview.http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-September-2002/hawkins.html.

Hayes,John.2016.‘TheJourneytoBeauty’.GOV.UK.http://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-journey-to-beauty.

Heuvel,Dirkvanden.2002.‘AsFound:TheMetamorphosisoftheEveryday.OntheWorkofNigelHenderson,EduardoPaolozzi,andAlisonandPeterSmithson(1953-1956)’.OASE59:52-67.

—.2008.‘AnotherSensibility—TheDiscoveryofContext’.OASE76:21-46.Highmore,Ben.2010.‘BitterafterTaste:Affect,Food,andSocialAesthetics’.InTheAffectTheoryReader,118-137.Durham&London:DukeUniversityPress.

72

Jenkins,David.1993.Unitéd’Habitation:Marseilles.London:PhaidonPress.Kerényi,Zoltán.2011.Ablakamúltra/WindowtothePast.http://www.ablakamultra.hu.

Kitnick,Alex.2011.‘TheBrutalismofLifeandArt’.OCTOBER136:63-86.Kopytoff,Igor.1986.‘TheCulturalBiographyofThings:CommoditizationasaProcess’.InTheSocialLifeofThings:CommoditiesinCulturalPerspective,64-91.Cambridge:UniversityPress.

Lawson,Bryan.2001.TheLanguageofSpace.Oxford:ArchitecturalPress.LeCorbusier.1986.TowardsaNewArchitecture.NewYork:DoverPublications.Lingis,Alphonso.2011.‘Seduction’.Aplinkkeliai.http://aplinkkeliai.lt/musu-tekstai/kulturos-ivykiu-kritika/alphonso-lingis-seduction.

Lynch,Kevin.1960.TheImageoftheCity.Cambridge&London:TheMITPress.Pallasmaa,Juhani.2007.TheEyesoftheSkin:ArchitectureandtheSenses.WestSussex:JohnWiley&Sons.

Rowe,ColinandFredKoetter.1978.CollageCity.Cambridge&London:TheMITPress.

Sacks,Oliver.1985.TheManWhoMistookHisWifeforaHatandOtherClinicalTales.NewYork:Simon&Schuster.

Scalbert,Irénée.2000.‘ArchitectureasaWayofLife:TheNewBrutalism1953-1956’.Daidalos75:55-84.

Scruton,Roger.2000.‘VoorSophie’.InHetboekvandeschoonheidendetroost,15-20.Amsterdam:UitgeverijContact.

—.2009.‘BeautyandDesecration’.CityJournal.http://www.city-journal.org/html/beauty-and-desecration-13172.html.

Seigworth,GregoryandMelissaGregg.2010.‘AnInventoryofShimmers’.InTheAffectTheoryReader,1-25.Durham&London:DukeUniversityPress.

Stewart,Kathleen.2007.OrdinaryAffects.Durham&London:DukeUniversityPress.

73

Stone,Jon.2016.‘GovernmentDeclaresWaronBrutalistArchitecture’.TheIndependent.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/euston-arch-declares-war-on-brutalist-architecture-john-hayes-a7393846.html.

Stoner,Jill.2012.TowardaMinorArchitecture.Cambridge&London:TheMITPress.Sturken,MaritaandLisaCartwright.2009.PracticesofLooking:AnIntroductiontoVisualCulture.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Thrift,Nigel.2010.‘UnderstandingtheMaterialPracticesofGlamour’.InTheAffectTheoryReader,289-308.Durham&London:DukeUniversityPress.

Ugrešić,Dubravka.2000.‘Depoëticavanhetalbum’.InHetboekvandeschoonheidendetroost,286-303.Amsterdam:UitgeverijContact.

‘Vandeschoonheidendetroost:Depoëticavanhetalbum’.2000.TVprogramme.VPRO.

‘Vandeschoonheidendetroost:Lievemoeder’.2000.TVprogramme.VPRO.‘Vandeschoonheidendetroost:VoorSophie’.2000.TVprogramme.VPRO.Watkins,Megan.2010.‘DesiringRecognition,AccumulatingAffect’.InTheAffectTheoryReader,269-285.Durham&London:DukeUniversityPress.

74

Fonts:CalibriandCourier