Noises, Ideas and Concrete: The History of Brutalism

Jul 3, 2025

For

Brutalism is an architectural style marked by its use of raw concrete and massive forms, as well as a somewhat "raw" appearance — hence the name. But it demonstrates itself as more than just a style. Brutalism began as an idea, an attitude, a critique of the paths modern architecture was taking after World War II.

It was an attempt to reclaim material honesty, to value function and expose, without filters, the innards of construction — both in the physical and symbolic sense.

The Origin of the Term

In a debate about its emergence — shrouded in doubts and questions — the divided scene regarding the invention of the term “Brutalism” became increasingly common among admirers and professionals. British architects Alison and Peter Smithson claimed that the term was born with them. Critic Reyner Banham — one of the most prominent figures writing about architecture — stated that the term came from two French roots:

Art Brut – “raw” art, spontaneous, from artists outside the traditional circuit, advocated by Jean Dubuffet;
Béton brut – which means “raw concrete,” used by Le Corbusier in his post-war works, such as the famous Unité d’Habitation in Marseille.

Banham sought to promote a new type of British avant-garde and thought that linking this idea to what was being done in France would give strength to everything.

Other architects and critics also tried to explain the origin of the term “Brutalism.” Some said it came from a nickname for Peter Smithson (“Brutus”), while others claimed it was a Swedish architect who invented the term “Neo-Brutalist” and that this was brought to England as a trend. In summary: no one knows for sure where the term came from, and this already shows that Brutalism has always been somewhat confusing — even in name.

In short, the great debate behind Brutalism revolves around its questioning. Is it an ethical issue (that is, a way of acting, being honest with materials, not hiding anything) or an aesthetic issue (a visual style that anyone could choose)? Banham argued that it was ethical and, for him, Brutalism was about showing materials as they are, without any type of layer or disguise. But over time, the “style” turned into a trend — raw concrete, hard lines, massive buildings — and that went against the original idea.

Hunstanton School and Colville Place

These two projects are considered the beginning of Brutalism:

Hunstanton School (1954): designed by the Smithsons, with exposed structure and straight lines. Influence from Mies van der Rohe.

In a less than obvious way, the movement of Hunstanton School was a fundamental cornerstone of the New Brutalism. And, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that it changed the trajectories behind architecture in the post-war United Kingdom. Beyond a simple steel construction and straight lines, the Hunstanton Secondary Modern School was a public secondary school in Norfolk, England, built in 1954 — designed not only to serve adolescents but also to be a manifesto in the form of a building.

The Smithsons were not only trying to construct a school. They were attempting to redefine what modern architecture meant at that time and to demonstrate that architecture had possibilities. They wanted to show that architecture could be raw, simple, and accessible — without relying on premium materials and finishes. Or, still show the true face of buildings, without hiding their installations and materials. And in light of these and other possibilities, show that public architecture had its value and that the project could engage with social reality — especially with the life of the working class in the post-war period.