Letter: Private prejudice, public interest and Bow's 'House'

Mr Richard Shone
Monday 29 November 1993 19:02 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.

Sir: Eric Flounders' letter (25 November) shows a Gradgrindian adherence to the facts of the commission and a Pecksniffian attitude to the spirit of its execution. The supposedly objective tenor of his letter is called into question by his expressed dislike of the work itself. He calls it 'this piece of experimental nonsense': House could not be further from an experiment.

As with all her work, Rachel Whiteread's initial conception was carried through to its foreseen conclusion and shows no signs of trial or uncertainty. Nor can I see how it could be called 'nonsense' when it is so potent in its allusions to public and private life, to memory and materiality, fact and poetic evocation, embodied in a form that is immediately accessible. It is an oustanding work of our time.

If there is anything experimental about House, it was the Bow Parks Board's decision (admirable in itself) to allow it to be erected. But it appears, from the evidence of the vote for demolition taken on 23 November, that the board is unable to deduce the right conclusion from its experiment: that it has worked triumphantly.

Yours faithfully,

RICHARD SHONE

Associate Editor

The Burlington Magazine

London, WC1

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