John McKean's Comments
I read the comments, often interesting, occasionally insightful, from within the architectural profession about Scottish independence. I smile wryly when I see them too often boil down to the polarity dominating all comment trails after thoughtful pieces, from The Guardian to Open Democracy: the risky energies released by liberty and self-government versus the security of holding wealthy big brother’s hand. But surely no-one, in the end, whichever way you vote, is voting primarily for a more favourable professional context for yourself? Any socially responsible architect should read Adam Ramsey’s 42 Reasons to Support Scottish Independence (download it for less than two quid). Argue and disagree if you will, but address the real issues before you decide. Similarly Anthony Barnett’s thank you letter to Scotland published yesterday (https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/anthony-barnett/thank-you-scotland-and-hold-your-nerve). And then, as we are architects as well as citizens, pay a visit to the Miralles inspired horseshoe and the Barry-Pugin stand-off pews, two sword-lengths apart. See how (un)welcome you are made, talk to the ushers, watch the other visitors, note how close or distant you are from the debate. The one at every turn, from architectural detail to official behavior, impresses its intimidation; the other welcomes and invites. In which culture would you rather be governed?
There is no better case for voting YES than that it might end once and for all the patronising and insidious tone in pieces like this with its no doubt no doubt sincere prejudices. Journalists like Hurst are all honourable men, no doubt. The pontificating that Malcom Fraser will not win many friends is as valuable and sincere a thought as the honourable belief that a campaign can be judged by any random post attached by reader. The sincere and honourable husband is left sitting on the bed scratching his wise and knowing head as the wife finishes packing her case. Yes, I can and I am leaving you, he hears as his unbelief looks at the shutting door.
It's a brilliant idea which Strathclyde should have thought of first. Having enjoyed being a student in both buildings, I am charmed to see your joint elevation drawing of Freddy Feilden's next to Toshie's. (I'm just really pleased that in your set of period photos, you didn't use the Henk Snoek one which had me in it!)
Mr Fulcher's article states: Portland Place has come in for fierce criticism from British architects and organisations working to promote peaceful coexistence in Israel and Palestine for its decision last week. It would be constructive if he could substantiate this statement which appears more as an opinion and not to be based on any evidence. His grammar presumes "architects and organisations" as a joint noun, described precisely as "working to promote peaceful coexistence in Israel and Palestine." I have seen no evidence to justify this assertion. The phrase "peaceful coexistence" means, precisely, an equality of existence in peace.
I like the "(eh?)" about poor old itinerant Toshie. I'm pretty certain that he never even visited Northampton far less lived there. Yes, even though doing a very neat conversion of a tiny terrace house there. Great you love it, but I can't wait to hear a bit more about reactions to (rather than reactions to reactions to) the Holl, and of course to see it.
And which of these lovely photos is/are lit by candle light?
Comment on: Kenwood: A home built on slavery?
Kenwood House’ “links to the transantlatic slave trade and West Indian slavery are well known,” Isabelle Priest tells us. She then recites a list of great houses built on the profits of slavery adding that “Kenwood’s ties to the slave trade and slavery remain concealed by the glory” of its recent revamp. Unaware of the Kenwood-slavery link, I am interested, but saddened that Priest finds them too much common knowledge to bear repetition. However, in another publication on the same day last week, Gillian Darley explains that Kenwood was built by the lord chief justice, “a shy Scottish lawyer of exemplary liberal views and actions who paved the way for the legislation outlawing slavery.” Can this really be the “well known link” to which Priest refers in such a different tone?
Precious is such a funny, double-edged word. I must say this building reminded me of visiting Leslie Martin in his wonderfully civilized new-in-old simplicity outside Cambridge and eating oatcakes off beautiful Leachish plates and sipping not quite identically coloured tea out wonderfully elegant simple porridge-hued mugs. But, instead of the Romish mumbo-jumbo with the Gill gang, at least there was Ben Nicolson on the wall. I urge visitors not to be feart of intellectualised phenomenological Anathemata, and just enjoy Richards/Dawkins sensual enjoyment and achievement of little things that matter, in their lovely new building.
After each comment you add "unsuitable or offensive?" but it's difficult to make clear, when I reply "yes" to both, that it is Burns + Nice which is unsuitable and Matheson who is offensive.
And what will happen to/in Freddy Fielden's building?