Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

What's in a name

  • Comment

It is always a sign of desperation when organisational reshuffles become obsessed by name changes. And so it is with the Department of Culture's notions about architecture in the post-spending review world. It is seriously suggested that a 'champion for architecture' (no bad thing) could head an organisation called, catchily, the 'Standing Committee on Architecture'. Not surprisingly, the Royal Fine Art Commission, as gloomily predicted in this column three weeks ago, would probably have a new role, and a new name, since the public obviously cannot make any connection between fine art and architecture, poor dears. I know, what about 'Royal Fine Architecture Commission' - brilliant. Chris Smith's gang seems to think that the commission is a quango (it is not). They also keep banging on about working with regional architecture centres, noticeable for being largely non-existent, with Cambridge closed and Bristol in desperate financial straits. The role of the rfac is very simple: to oppose rubbish without fear or favour. It needs no new name or new links to carry on with this task, but it could do with some more architect members. You do not need 'community links', whatever they might be, to spot rubbish.

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.