Hct15 akw stefan popa

M.A. History and Critical Thinking Second Semester prof. Marina Lathouri

Writing Exercise 2 Stefan Cristian Popa March 2nd 2015

The Agony and the Ecstasy royal intellectual patronage in the neo-liberal city

The Agony and the Ecstasy royal intellectual patronage in the neo-liberal city Undoubtedly, one of the most polemic competitions for a building in post War London is the one organized to assign an architect to design the extension of the National Gallery on the site previously occupied by the Hampton's Furniture Shop bombed and destroyed during the War. Like many neo-liberal projects, the idea of extending the National Gallery on this site emerged as a result of a complicated process involving property, historic and legal issues. The capitalist citymaking machine determined a brief that would mix private and public investment to develop a heterogeneous program of office space and gallery. This articulation of mercantile and cultural aspirations proved to be the bone of contention, leading eventually to a dramatic situation to displease to all parts involved in the project.

The Agony Many prestigious firms took part in the 1981 competition1. Among them was the office of Ahrends, Burton and Koralek, that initially proposed a building the height of which did not surpass the William Wilkins 1838 National Gallery. They were given the chance, along with other two teams

Fig. 1 Original scheme by Ahrends Burton Koralek mentioned in the a talk by Peter Ahrends in 1986.

involved in the competition, to further develop their scheme. Uninspired or maybe subject to the extremely complicated political and economic forces in action at that moment, they succumbed to the temptation of adding a tower to their proposal which seemed to have been a well appreciated feature in the August 1982, two weeks public exposition of the projects. This decision eventually played against the scheme in the events that followed. Nevertheless, at the given moment, it was 1

The short listed practices for the first phase competition were: ABK; Arup Associates; Covell, Matthews, Wheatley; Richard Rogers; Sheppard Robson; SOM; Spratley + Cullean.

Source: http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/LIBRARY/documents/NATIONAL%20GALLERY%20EXTENSION%20BIBLIOGRA PHY.pdf (accessed on 01 March 2015) 1

enough to determine the jury to hesitantly name the scheme by ABK the winner of the competition.

This solution was more a compromise than a clear, uncontested result.

Only two years later, the project was suspended. In a speech on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Royal Institute of British Architects held at the Hampton Court Palace in December 1984, Prince Charles named the winning project 'a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much loved and elegant friend.'2 His plastic comparison was rightly aimed at the very different aesthetics of the proposed extension. In the view of many the remark was seen as 'offensive, reactionary and ill-considered'.3 Fig. 2 Winning (revised) scheme by Ahrends Burton Koralek.

The Royal intellectual patronage has been a strong force in the power balance of this project that eventually determined its design. On the one hand, this intervention constituted the decisive argument that led to the suspension of the ABK scheme. On the other hand, it had the effect of a revelation as it forced the parts involved to reconsider the very basis of the problem. Recognizing the real cause of the Gordian knot, namely the brief that tried to mix commercial and cultural uses on the same plot, the Board of Trustees of the National Gallery started searching for private sponsorship for the project to replace the need for office space to finance the intervention.

The Extasy The socio-economical situation of the project dramatically changed in April 1985, when the Sainsbury Brothers Sir John Sainsbury, Timothy Sainsbury and Simon Sainsbury, made a donation of 25 million pounds to support the designing and building of the New Wing for the National Gallery. As agreed with the benefactors, a freshly created search committee selected six architecture firms from around the world on a new, interview-based selection method.4 The political setting has 2

The speech continues on an ironic tone: 'Instead of designing an extension to the elegant faรงade of the National Gallery which complements it and continues the concept of columns and domes, it looks as if we may be presented with a kind of municipal fire station, complete with the sort of tower that contains the siren.' Colin Amery, 1991, ' 'Celebration of art and architecture: the National Gallery', Sainsbury Wing' p.49 3 Comment of Peter Ahrendt. Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/5311155/Prince-ofWales-always-outspoken-on-modern-architecture.html (accessed on: 01 March 2015) 4 The architects pointed out as a result of the second selection process were: Mr. Venturi, Mr. Cobb, Mr. Stirling, and 2

been suddenly framed by the emergence of a patron that allowed the project to be materialized. The idea of the Maecenas, an omni-present stimulus for the arts along the centuries, determines also the faith of this project. It is not difficult to envisage the outcome of the project in the absence of such a generous benefactor.

The ABK scheme having been long forgotten, the new selection method appointed the American Architects Venturi and Scott Brown with the commission to design the building. Their architecture was considered to be suitable for the new requirements for the extension because of their preference for using classical details in their designs. What inclined the balance in favour of the Philadelphia based practice was the fact that they did not aim to reproduce the architecture of the original National Gallery building by William Wilkins, but rather reinterpret its historical elements in an original dialogue between old and new.5 This attitude was compatible with all publicly expressed desiderata for the new building.

Fig. 3 Selected project by Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown. Inaugurated by Queen Elizabeth II on 9 July 1991

The project of the extension of the National Gallery stands for a lesson that critique, however strong, pushes the boundaries of what is possible towards challenging the status-quo. It can be argued that the elegant way out of the dilemma through the Sainsbury donation would not have been possible if it weren't for the biting remarks formulated in the 1984 speech of Prince Charles. three English architects, the firm of Colquhuon & Miller; Piers Gough of Campbell, Zogolovitch, Wilkinson & Gough, and Jeremy Dixon and William Jack of the firm Building Design Partnership. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/25/arts/venturi-chosen-to-design-extension-of-the-national-gallery-inlondon.html?pagewanted=1 (accessed on: 01 March 2015) 5 Denise Scott Brown wrote an article back in 1990 explaining her view of the Sainsbury Wing of the National Gallery but did not publish it due to the delicate political status of the almost accomplished building. She argues that: 'Palladio and modernism fight it out on the main faรงade, he advancing from east to west, it from west to east. They meet at the entry, where an Aalto-like crescendo of openings countermands the classical order, expands eastward to accommodate Trafalgar Square crowds, and cuts off at Jubilee Walk.' Denise Scott Brown, 1990, 'In defence of the Sainsbury Wing'. Source: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/in-defence-of-the-sainsbury-wing/5021891.article (accessed 01 March 2015) 3

Source of Illustrations Fig.1: Original scheme by Ahrends Burton Koralek mentioned in the a talk by Peter Ahrends in 1986.

Source: http://architecture-blog.pidgeondigital.com/excerpt-from-a-talk-by-peter-ahrends-in-1986/ (accessed 01 March 2015) Fig.2: Winning (revised) scheme by Ahrends Burton Koralek.

Source: http://preview2riba.contensis.com/001Oldfolders/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/OnlineWorkshops/UrbanAdve ntures/17ABK.aspx (accessed on 01 March 2015) Fig.3: Selected project by Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown. Inaugurated by Queen Elizabeth II on 9 July 1991 Source: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/in-defence-of-the-sainsbury-wing/5021891.article (accessed 01 March 2015)

4