Brutalist architecture often evokes a variety of strong responses, ranging from harsh criticism to skepticism to careful curiosity. Nowadays, it is rare to hear someone saying that they really enjoy the Brutalist style, because its bare, concrete, and imposing forms have passed their prime. One of the biggest criticisms of Brutalism is that it often appears too cold and inhuman.
Back in the 1950s through the 1970s, the momentum was firmly held by the fathers (father and mother, to be exact) of the Brutalist architecture - Peter and Alison Smithson - and supported by the favorable conditions of the post-World War II world. That is, the primary concerns of the construction were the inexpensive design methods, which often easily translated into the "honesty" of the materials and the straight-forward nature of building.
Not surprisingly, it is easy to trace the origins of Brutalism in the aesthetics and philosophy of Modernist architecture. The word Brutalism originates from the translation from French of "raw concrete", which was the primary material of choice, particularly favored by Le Corbusier. Used rather informally at the early stages of the emerging style, the term became an official description with critic Reynor Banham's title of his 1954 book "New Brutalism" to describe the new architectural aesthetic.
The angular geometries and the roughness of the unadorned concrete has been the striking feature that moved the Brutalist style away from its association with Modernistic simplicity of nonreferrential forms into a league of its own. Brutalism became more closely associated with a social Utopian ideology that rang especially appealing in the years that followed the destruction brought by the World War II. However, the failure of successful communities to form in the early low-income Brutalist structures decreased the appeal of the ideologies of the style, as many of them began to be seen as a failure.
In the late 1960s, Brutalism enjoyed a lot of support from the college campuses, as a lot of the architecture of this particular style was incorporated into the expansion plans of many campuses throughout the United States. The Yale Art and Architecture Building of 1958 by Paul Rudolph was one of such buildings and is often considered to be one of the most known examples of Brutalist architecture in the country. The building was made of ribbed, bush-hammered concrete and was praised widely, when it was first opened, by everyone from architectural critics to the American Institute of Architects, which bestowed the prestigious Award of Honor on the building.
As the time went by, the reaction to Brutalism became more lukewarm and, then, negative. Exemplified by the loss of favor of the afore-mentioned Yale Building, the negative criticism replaced praise. When a large fire broke out on June 14, 1969, destroying a big part of the building, many have thought that this fire was the result of arson committed by a dissatisfied student. There were also rumors that many Yale architecture students deemed the building so ugly that it should have been destroyed. A practical criticism of Brutalism, not solely rooted in aesthetics, is the fact that because many of the buildings were built out of poured concrete, they were extremely difficult to modify at a later date.
Having been considered dead for quite a number of years, Brutalism has recently experienced a new sense of resurgence. Many of the aspects of the Brutalist architecture that have been criticized in the earlier years have been softened up with previously rough concrete facades receiving surface treatments, such as sandblasting, or being covered in stucco. Many modernist architects have, thus, incorporated many elements of the Brutalist architecture in their buildings, without necessarily labeling them to be of the Brutalist style.
Brutalism has taken a lot of chances in exploring the severeness of untreated materials, most notably, concrete and has enjoyed periods of acceptance and revival. Though still looked upon with a few raised eyebrows, the style has come to hold a firm influential spot in the architectural history. It continues to influence, both directly and indirectly, many architects, who quietly incorporate the elements of the Brutalist philosophy and mode of material treatment into their architecture.