Situs Promosi Arsitektur

Situs Promosi Arsitektur

Tampilkan produk Anda di sini. More »

Inovasi terbaru

Inovasi terbaru

Setiap hari ada inovasi baru More »

Asuransi Jiwa Indonesia

Asuransi Jiwa Indonesia

Banyak perusahaan asuransi menawarkan produk-produk unggulan. Pilihlah yang paling sesuai kebutuhan Anda More »

Kontraktor di Bogor

Kontraktor di Bogor

Kontraktor rumah mewah More »

Selamatkan bumi dari pemanasan global dan penebangan liar

Selamatkan bumi dari pemanasan global dan penebangan liar

You can completely customize the featured slides from the theme theme options page. You can also easily hide the slider from certain part of your site like: categories, tags, archives etc. More »

 

Kembalinya aliran Brutalisme Arsitektur

Memahami pencapaian akbar Louis Kahn, kompleks Dhaka’s National Assembly , yang pembangunannya dimulai tahun 1962, berada di tengah danau buatan. Pada tahun 1971, pembom the Bangladesh Liberation War  mengatakan telah mencegah  menjadikannya puing. CreditClaudio Napoli

Dalam peringkat  untuk suatu langgam artistik, “Brutalisme” meraih skor hampir di puncak. Like the much kinder-sounding “Fauvism” or “Impressionism,” it was a term of abuse for the work of architects dimana bangunan memusuhi penggunanya — membrutalkan mereka — with hulking, piled-up slabs of raw, unfinished concrete. These same architects, centered on pasangan Inggris Alison dan Peter Smithson, enthusiastically took up Brutalism as the name for their movement with a kind of pride, as if to say: Itu benar, kami adalah kaum  brutal. We do want to shove your face in cement. Bagi dunia yang sedang mencoba lupakan pahitnya Perang Dunia II, in need of plain dealing and powerful messages, this brand of architectural honesty was refreshing.

Menafikkan adanya dasawarsa penuh kemashuran, setidaknya diantara para arsitek dan perencana, kemashuran Brutalisme memudar pada pertengahan dasawarsa-’70-an. Film seperti “A Clockwork Orange” mengubah mahakarya Brutalis menjadi lambang dystopia masa depan. Anggaran perencanaan sudah dipangkas, dan para brutalis sudah kehilangan tulang punggung. Lebih dari tiga dasawarsa, contoh-contoh karya brutalisme lainnya yang bersebaran telah menderita dari  menua dan diabaikan, temboknya retak dan bocor, dimana-mana terancam pembongkaran total. Tom Menino, walikota terakhir Boston, menggagas untuk melego balaikotanya, salah satu contoh karya brutalisme termashur di Amerika Serikat; dan pada tahun 2013, cuek pada kampanye pelestarian gedung, Bertrand Goldberg’, berbentuk daun cengkeh,  Women’s Hospital in Chicago menyerah pada godam penghancur bangunan.

Photo

Gedung tua Whitney building di Manhattan’s Upper East Side sedang menikmati “kehidupan kedua”nya sebagai the Met Breuer. Credit©Ezra Stoller/Esto

Namun kini, seperti chevron mustache, Brutalisme sedang menapaki kehidupan kembali. Despite two generations of abuse (and perhaps a little because of it), an enthusiasm for Brutalist buildings beyond the febrile, narrow precincts of architecture criticism has begun to take hold. Preservationists clamor bagi pertahanan mereka, historians laud their ethical origins and an independent public has found beauty in their rawness. For an aesthetic once praised for its “ruthless logic” and “bloody-mindedness” — in the much-quoted phrasing of critic Reyner Banham — ini adalah putaran mengejutkan untuk sebuah peristiwa.

Bagi masa yang panjang untuk menhormati Brutalism,e the internet has proved an unexpected boon companion. Popular Tumblrs unleash endless streams of black-and-white images of gravity-defying cantilevers from the world over. A hulking concrete school in downtown Miami swallowing students! A concrete ski resort in Chamonix, France, that appears poised to tumble off the edge of a mountain! Brutalism, it turns out, lends itself to ­Instagram-style scrolling, one eye-popping hunk of brush-hammered weirdness after another.

Brutalisme adalah upaya an architectural ethic, rather than an aesthetic. It
had less to do with
materials and more
to do with honesty:
an uncompromising
desire to tell it
like it is,
architecturally speaking.

The long overdue intellectual revival has also followed. In countries still reeling from the worldwide financial crisis, it’s a solace to look back to an era of muscular, public-minded development. MoMA’s recent “Latin America in Construction, 1955-1980” show reminded architects and a lay audience alike of the masterpieces of this ­forward-looking, confident era, such as Lina Bo Bardi’s Museu de Arte de São Paulo, with its glass facade sandwiched between two enormous slices of raw concrete, suspended impossibly high off a plaza by swollen red staples. In 2014, the British critic Jonathan Meades produced a combative reconsideration of Brutalism in a two-part television documentary for the BBC, putting the style back into the mainstream of welfare-cutting Britain.

Finally, last year, there was a consecration of Brutalism by art officialdom, when the Metropolitan Museum of Art moved some of its modern collection into the old Whitney, that smooth inverted ziggurat on Madison Avenue, with its signature angled windows. They changed the name of the refurbished museum to the Met Breuer, paying unusual tribute to the building’s Bauhaus-trained architect, Marcel Breuer.

Continue reading the main story

Photo

Boston City Hall came under threat of demolition when a mayor deemed it an eyesore. Credit©Ezra Stoller/Esto

THERE’S NO QUESTION that Brutalism looks exceedingly cool. But its deeper appeal is moral. In the words of Reyner Banham, it was an attempt to create an architectural ethic, rather than an aesthetic. When the Smithsons called their work Brutalist or part of a New Brutalism, the brutality to which they referred had less to do with materials and more to do with honesty: an uncompromising desire to tell it like it is, architecturally speaking. The Modern movement in architecture had supposedly been predicated on truthfulness in materials and forms, as well. But as a dreary stroll down Park Avenue will remind you, Modernism swiftly became a gutless orthodoxy, its high ideals devolving into the rote features of the International Style, a repetitive and predictable series of gestures (curtain walls or ribbon windows, recessed plinths, decorative piloti, windswept plazas, ornamental lawns and flat shimmering pools).

What was and still is appealing about Brutalism is that it had a kind of purity to it. For their first large project, a school in Hunstanton, and in subsequent projects, such as the Economist building in central London, the Smithsons went back to the lessons of the modern masters, to Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier: to build transparently, cleanly and truthfully. “Whatever has been said about honest use of materials,” Banham wrote in a 1955 article, “most modern buildings appear to be made of whitewash or patent glazing, even when they are made of concrete or steel.” The Smithsons’ project at Hunstanton, by contrast, “appears to be made of glass, brick, steel and concrete, and is in fact made of glass, brick, steel and concrete.”

Photo

Paul Rudolph merancang the Yale Art and Architecture Building, which opened in 1963, while acting as department chair. The interiors were restored in 2008, decades after a mysterious fire in 1969 — some suspected disgruntled students.Credit©Ezra Stoller/Esto

Honesty in materials was allied to the rough, prosaic goals of social democracy. Brutalism is, as the critic Michael J. Lewis has pointed out, the vernacular expression of the welfare state. From Latin America to Europe to South Asia, Brutalism became the style for governments committed to some kind of socialism, the image of “the common good.” When the most representative building of our era is 432 Park Avenue, Rafael Viñoly’s elegant middle finger of a luxury condo tower, the tallest in the world, looming ominously over Manhattan, it is bracing to revisit a period when planners sought out the best, most avant-garde-minded architects to build libraries, city halls and public housing.

Photo

With her SESC Pompeia leisure center from 1986, the Italian-born architect Lina Bo Bardi showed that Brutalism could be extraordinarily playful, with zigzagging bridges that connect a former drum factory to three tall towers. CreditIwan Baan

Still, Brutalism wasn’t fully popular with a broad public, whose members were never convinced that awe-inspiring concrete dourness was what society was truly missing, and it ultimately depended on the good will of sympathetic planners. Once politics turned against the welfare state in the 1980s, Brutalism was doomed. Budgets were gutted; public housing lost its funding; the market came to dictate development. The delirious, pink-granite fantasies of postmodernist office towers rose to loom over the gray Brutalist housing projects, left to molder and decay. All buildings require upkeep, and in a sense the deliberate neglect of Brutalism had the same effect that starving public bureaucracies did.

But the renewed interest in the movement has yet to produce any meaningful change in the culture of what gets built and how. This resurgence has not — not yet anyway — led to any revival of interest in public-minded development. Politics has been divorced from architecture. In fact, love for Brutalism has often led to gentrification. Many social housing projects, such as Erno Goldfinger’s Trellick Tower in London, have become much sought-after private housing. Architecture bookstores sell postcard packs of the greatest hits of Brutalism; you can buy a Trellick Tower mug to sip expensive coffee in your pricey Trellick Tower flat. The aesthetic of Brutalism may at last triumph over its ethic.

 dari: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/t-magazine/design/brutalist-architecture-revival.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-0&action=click&contentCollection=Design%20%26%20Interiors&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *