Paper short abstract:

Architectural histories and cultural transfer paradigm versus documents, buildings, dates: subverting theoretical constructs on Brutalism by the careful collation of data and the daring proposition of proper inquiring.

Paper long abstract:

The idea of "cultural transfer" permeates historiographical studies dealing on non-European modern architecture. It establishes as an implicit corollary that facts, works, debates and architectural trends occur necessarily first and foremost on the north, and then and a posteriori on the south. Though the concept may be relatively accurate when studying some first modernity manifestations (1910-1940), its indiscriminate adoption to deal with facts, works, discourses, debates and architectural trends of the second modernity (1945-1975) tends to impair or preclude other more appropriate interpretations. The careful and unbiased consideration of documents and dates may become a simple but most effective conceptual instrument, able to overcome the uncritical conceptual crystallization of some current theoretical constructs.

That also happens on the subject of Brutalism, an architectural trend of mid-20th century that is commonly considered, in the canonical books and discourses, as a predominantly European and / or British phenomenon, later extended to other continents. Yet, the careful examination and the systematic collation of a wide geographical range of architectural documents of the period between the 1940s and the 1960s may prove otherwise. Our current investigation on Brutalism is being grounded on the study of the buildings, carefully considering their correct design dates. The ample material already collected and processed has put forward alternative readings and interpretations on the subject, that go completely outside the narrow boundaries of the "cultural transfer" historiographical paradigm, and points to a complex worldwide web of simultaneous and connections, with no single or predominant point of origin.