 |
 |
 |
 |
Art
in architecture
Historically,
the grand architectural orders make no obvious distinction between the
arts and the architecture, or I should say that the structural fabric
of the building. Capitals on columns were decorated just as the structures
themselves, although remarkably pure, followed decorative themes. The
development of architectural dialogue seems almost the history of the
relationship of these two elements. It was almost unnatural to consider
them apart.
Frank Lloyd-Wright and Machintosh were probably the last great innovative
architects for whom it was natural to make the assumption that the two
were inherently linked.
The modernist “international style” which also became the
style of the “industrialised” method of buildings so important
to cost effective construction in contemporary buildings was based on
the thinking of the German, and French modernist architects of the 1920
and 30’s.
The theoretical position underpinning this style saw decoration as superficial
and unneccessary. It never really came back, a feeble “ironic”
inclusion in the self-concious end of post-modernism. But on the whole
people seemed content to build faux versions of old buildings in modern
methods if they wanted that sort of thing.
I mention all this not to reprise an old chestnut for it’s own sake
but to try and find context for the increasing habit of inclusion, an
arts project in the new build.
Is it a sort of possible return to the relationship of art and architecture
enjoyed by the grand orders?
Decorative arts in architecture still seem as alien now as they were in
the mid part of the twentieth century. I think they became symbolic of
the pomp and arrogance of empire. The post war world wanted a more egalitarian
gentle world with more democratic choice underpinning greater security
for all. It didn’t seem right to build any more empiral gin palaces,
unless of course they were cinemas. Decorative arts in architecture somehow
became the symbol of this and out it went. And indeed the new building
for a while at least seemed pretty good without them.
(Never-the-less, having said that,) new buildings seemed to lack the humanity
of the old and they were becoming more pompous anyway.
The arts are fashionable, a revival of prestige fuelled by spectacular
auction prices, even, previously unheard of, for living artists and remarkable
new galleries in the country at least paid for by the lottery. I suspect,
also, a lack of other employment pushed many of young people into the
arts.
Even setting all that aside it seemed likely that something like the current
arts project in new buildings would appear.
It is of course wonderful, buildings are so much better for it, human.
Institutions that own them are made to think about people despite profits,
share prices or whatever intruments of control dominate them. People get
to live with and maybe like arts output that they wouldn’t otherwise
experience regularly and it’s all outrageously cost effective.
But the cherry on the cake has to be arts in health facilities.These more
than any other need a human interface with their users.
It may just be wishful thinking but it is possible to see the beginning
of a cycle that will re-grow art and architecture as it was in the grand
orders but re-developed for the new egalitarian age where the art includes
rather than alienates.
This booklet describes some of the issues generated by this relationship
especially in P.F.I’s which are enabling so much new estate to be
built.
back
to top of page