Christopher Beanland: Architecture attack - what’s with our appetite for destruction?

 

Christopher Beanland
Saturday 25 January 2014 20:00 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

If you went to the National Gallery and tore up a Titian, you’d be arrested. But what about blowing up a historic building which has defined a place and its people; a building in which sweet nothings have been uttered and lives altered? Go for it! It’s strange how our attitudes to destroying art and destroying architecture are so different.

“I don’t make didactic films, but if there’s one implicit lesson [in my new one], it’s that one should hang around before one destroys stuff,” reckoned Jonathan Meades, when I spoke to him recently about his new documentary celebrating the “concrete poetry” of mid-20th century Brutalism, which is on BBC4 next month. “People are beginning to see the merits of Brutalism – even as it’s being destroyed,” he lamented.

Meades is right – and I’m not just thinking about the recent architectural hara-kiri we’ve committed on our best 1960s buildings, such as Portsmouth’s Tricorn shopping centre. In the 1960s it was neo-Gothic that was thought “ugly” and Leeds, Chester, Glasgow and the others replaced whole swathes of Victoriana with huge new roads. Ugliness is not a fixed notion – it’s a faddish one.

Art has found itself similarly threatened in the past, of course, as was explored in Tate Britain’s recent Art Under Attack exhibition about British iconoclasm. But what about the future? If we smash up “bad” buildings, will we also then start torching Damien Hirst’s complete works as “bad” art? Unfortunately, probably not: most art, even the rubbish, is preserved and most buildings, especially the best ones, are not. In fact, only 2 per cent of British buildings are listed.

Oddly, our attitude towards preserving public art falls between art and architecture – like architecture, it’s permissible to destroy it; like art, there’s outrage when we do. In October, for example, Kenneth Budd’s beautiful mosaic commemorating the 1839 Chartist Rising in Newport, Gwent, was demolished by the local council, provoking the ire of Hollywood actor and local lad Michael Sheen. Fellow campaigner Stephanie Roberts, an artist, said: “To destroy a monument as powerful as this is pure disrespect.”

We shouldn’t preserve everything in aspic. Times change. But demolition is often a farce, with decisions made by people who know nothing about architecture. That’s because it’s often an expression of power too; ultimately, some men just love to swing their wrecking balls.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in