Question

In the mid-twentieth century, the architectural movement known as Brutalism emerged not merely as a pragmatic response to postwar austerity, but as a robust ethical discourse. Proponents of Brutalism championed the use of *béton brut* (raw concrete), arguing that the unvarnished exposure of a structure's material reality and functional mechanics constituted a moral imperative of honesty. This transparency was intended to serve as a populist rebuke to the bourgeois deception inherent in decorative cladding and superficial ornamentation. Ironically, the phenomenological reception of these edifices by the general public inverted the architects' egalitarian intentions. To the laity, the monumental scale and uncompromising textures of Brutalist structures were overwhelmingly interpreted as hostile, opaque, and emblematic of bureaucratic alienation. Ultimately, the movement's obsolescence was catalyzed not by structural deficiencies or fiscal constraints, but by this intractable semiotic schism: the designers' structural vocabulary of social transparency was inextricably decoded by occupants as a language of authoritarian indifference.

Based on the passage, which of the following inferences regarding Brutalism and its reception are most strongly supported by the text? Select all that apply.