While rummaging around on Wikipedia, I discovered that the building I work in is an example of “brutalist” architecture. Now I know that these styles were invented to express certain social ideals – efficency, functionality, etc. But I’m having trouble seeing it as anything but a big, ugly block of concrete. The concrete part only makes matters worse because I know that it will be there forever and ever. What strikes me as even funnier about this, however, is the fact that they (don’t ask me who, I’m just too lazy to look up the architect associated with the movement) called it “brutalist.” Even “critical regionalism” beats that. Not to mention someone having to okay the project and say, "Hey, let's build something brutalist! They say that shitty is in." To name something “brutalist” is just resigning yourself to the fact that it’s not very pretty. I’m going to start a new architectural style if I can get the funding. I’m going to call it “ugly.” And it’s going to be just that. Ugly. And when I’ve built several “ugly” structures and everyone grows sick of them, having realized that they crap up their cities, I’m going to take it to a whole new level, the only logical next step, and create buildings in the spirit of “dumb.” And people will walk by and say, who’s the idiot who thought that up, it’s really the “dumbist” thing I’ve ever seen. And they won’t be wrong.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Just brutal
While rummaging around on Wikipedia, I discovered that the building I work in is an example of “brutalist” architecture. Now I know that these styles were invented to express certain social ideals – efficency, functionality, etc. But I’m having trouble seeing it as anything but a big, ugly block of concrete. The concrete part only makes matters worse because I know that it will be there forever and ever. What strikes me as even funnier about this, however, is the fact that they (don’t ask me who, I’m just too lazy to look up the architect associated with the movement) called it “brutalist.” Even “critical regionalism” beats that. Not to mention someone having to okay the project and say, "Hey, let's build something brutalist! They say that shitty is in." To name something “brutalist” is just resigning yourself to the fact that it’s not very pretty. I’m going to start a new architectural style if I can get the funding. I’m going to call it “ugly.” And it’s going to be just that. Ugly. And when I’ve built several “ugly” structures and everyone grows sick of them, having realized that they crap up their cities, I’m going to take it to a whole new level, the only logical next step, and create buildings in the spirit of “dumb.” And people will walk by and say, who’s the idiot who thought that up, it’s really the “dumbist” thing I’ve ever seen. And they won’t be wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This is hilarious, Kevin. Dan's been trying, for several years (unsuccessfully), to discern the "hidden beauty" in HCW.
The hidden beauty of HCW is in its sturdy, aesthetics-be-damned design. I firmly contest that in times of nuclear blast, devastating weather, apocalyptic ice age onset, or zombie uprising, there'd be no place safer than good old Helen C.
I firmly believe that we are the "hidden beauty" within H.C. White. As someone in England once said to me, "we're forced to make our own sunshine."
Whatever. If there were a disaster of some kind, HCW would protect us, sure, but then we'd be trapped inside it forever. The amount of "Lost" I've been watching lately convinces me that there's probably a button you have to push every 2 hours hidden in the back of Robyn's office.
Post a Comment