Born in the post-war period in the United Kingdom, the Brutalism movement was first met with skepticism but has found a new appreciation in the last decade, capturing the imagination of new designers fascinated with the interplay between striking geometric shapes and the exposed raw materials in which they are rendered. From Britain, the movement spread throughout Europe, Southeast Asia, and Africa, gathering different variations influenced by the cultural and socio-economic status of each area. In this article, we delve into the particularities that define Italy's contribution to the Brutalist movement, exploring the style through the lens of Roberto Conte and Stefano Perego. The two photographers have also published a photographic essay on the subject, taking the form of a book titled “Brutalist Italy: Concrete Architecture from the Alps to the Mediterranean Sea”.
The Building as an Image
In the post-war years, Europe was in search of a new identity, based less on enthusiasm and trust in technological innovations, and instead challenging architecture’s role in society. The change in ideology attempted to address the landscape of destruction that followed two consequent world wars, moving to disassociate architecture from politics and assume a more socially conscientious role. The response was a need to scale down and create functionally sound buildings with a minimum of materials or decorations, thus favoring exposed materials and simple shapes.
While maintaining this ethos, Brutalist architects did not abdicate their ‘form-giving obligation,’ in the words of architecture critic Reyner Banham. When it first appeared, the resulting architecture was often classified as ‘anti-art’ or ‘anti-beauty’ for its refusal of the typical aesthetic of the time, but it possessed a different dynamic, a sort of abstract quality. The architectural object, perceived in its totality, becomes an image that can create emotion within its viewer.
It is this boldness that separates Brutalism from other variations of modern architecture, or “, its je-m’ en-foutisme, its bloody-mindedness” as Reyner Banham calls it in his seminal 1955 essay, ‘The New Brutalism.’ Within the broader European Brutalist movement, Italy crafted its own distinctive chapter, weaving together the functional rigor of Brutalism with the country's cultural influences, softening somewhat the tones of its European counterparts.
Structure, Function, Form, and Material
One of the key characteristics of Brutalism is that it strives to ‘be made of what it appears to be made.’ While this honest use of materials is something that many architects of the time value, the majority of previous modernist buildings covered their structural materials with plaster or patent glazing. In the case of Brutalism, concrete, steel, and brink are maintained as exposed as possible, creating a stronger connection between the structural logic, the architectural shape and function, and the capabilities of its building materials.
Experimental designs during the first decades after the war challenged the possible shapes and structures. In Italy, engineer Sergio Musmeci was experimenting with vaults, thin-shelled concrete membranes, and minimal structures shaped in accordance with the forces and stresses to which they should resist. Without computer assistance, new types of structures were tested using models. Similar to Frei Otto, Musmeci used soap and glycerin solutions spread across wireframes to understand the geometry of tension and stress, and micro-concrete to create large-scale test models. Among his few built structures is the Musmeci Bridge, its underside created using a single membrane of reinforced concrete, approximately 40 centimeters thick, that arches up and down, supporting the top of the bridge on finger-like structures, while creating a continuous undulating path beneath it.
Those who do not take risks are either imitating or repeating. If they want to invade a new field they must tackle the unknown. - Sergio Musmeci
Sacred Spaces Cast in Concrete
It is perhaps this ability to shape geometry to create emotion that lends Brutalist architecture to the characteristics of sacred spaces. Staring in the 1950s in Italy, the Catholic church, attempting to reestablish its relevance in the modern world, began to accept the new architectural language of modernism. Brutalism was especially well-fitted to create contemplative and impressive spaces with a minimum of resources. Structures such as the Jesus the Redeemer Church, in Turin, by architects Nicola Mosso, Leonardo Mosso, and Livio Norzi, illustrate how simple materials such as bricks and concrete can create impressive spaces, using natural light and well-proportioned volumes to create spaces filled with emotion, fit for religious service.
Other Brutalist structures, such as the National Temple to Mary, Mother, and Queen, in Trieste by Antonio Guacci and Sergio Musmeci, integrate symbolism within their structural geometry. The modular principle of the 40-meter-tall building uses the triangle as a symbol of the Trinity, while the disposition of the volumes creates a large M as a reference to Mary. Cemetery architecture is another category that involves contemplation, offering even more freedom in expressivity. Examples in Italy include Leonardo Ricci’s Cemetery extension in Jesi, and Luigi Ciapparella’s monumental Cemetery extension, in Busto Arsizio.
Roberto Conte and Stefano Perego’s exploration of Italian Brutalism culminates in the photographic essay published at FUEL Design titled “Brutalist Italy: Concrete Architecture from the Alps to the Mediterranean Sea”. The two photographers have previously explored similar themes, including the book on the variations of Asian Brutalism, titled “Soviet Asia: Soviet Modernist Architecture in Central Asia.” Other explorations of localized forms of Brutalism include the legacy of modernist architecture in Tanzania, the concrete desert architecture of Beersheba and the ArchDaily guide of Modernist and Brutalist buildings to visit in Paris, France.
