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 use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Take the Mac away from Glasgow School of Art, MSPs to be told

Mac fire june 2018 peter drummond web

Questions about whether the Glasgow School of Art should maintain control of the Mac will be raised at a Scottish parliamentary committee, as criticism mounts over the college’s stewardship of the building

Four experts have been invited to Holyrood to give evidence next week (20 September) on the fire that almost completely destroyed Charles Rennie Mackintosh’s landmark building in June.

MSP Joan McAlpine, convenor of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, said the session would explore ‘how we got to this point, whether lessons were learned from the past’ and how to move forward. 

One of the witnesses, Mackintosh expert Roger Billcliffe, told Glasgow’s Evening Times that while he is still considering what he will recommend to MSPs, he believes that using the Mackintosh building as a teaching facility is ‘not reconcilable’.

‘The building is a work of art and a museum; it should be treated like one,’ he said. ‘The future of the building should be under consideration and questions over whether it should remain as a school should be asked.’ 

Another witness, director of the Charles Rennie Mackintosh Society Stuart Robertson, told The Times that the Glasgow School of Art should not direct the rebuilding alone.

’The art school is primarily about teaching of the arts,’ said Robertson. ‘They are not really a conservation body, and it’s a big, big project to take it on.’

But Scottish architect Malcolm Fraser, who will also give evidence, described the idea of taking the building away from the school and turning it into a Mackintosh museum as a ‘disaster’. 

He said: ‘I will be reminding the committee that the building was far more important and creative than a mere reliquary, but was – and must be again – a living, working, inspiring and creative place; and that to deny the artists of a future Scotland this would be extraordinary self-harm.’

Fraser argued that ‘museums burn down too’, pointing to the devastating fire at the National Museum of Brazil in Rio de Janeiro, and said he would be arguing for better statutory oversight of important historic buildings and fire safety.

He also said he would be ‘decrying the school’s dash for cash, and some bad building material choices’.

The other witness appearing before the committee is Eileen Reid, a former Glasgow School of Art employee. 

Speaking in advance of the evidence session, McAlpine described the Mac as ‘one of the greatest pieces of art ever produced in Scotland’ and a masterpiece of global significance.

She added: ‘Glasgow School of Art is also a publicly funded institution so it is right that the parliament hears the concerns of these witnesses, all of whom have extensive knowledge of, and a commitment to, the GSA as an institution and the Mackintosh Building as a cultural icon for Glasgow, Scotland and internationally.

‘While we cannot speculate on the immediate causes of this fire, we expect the panel to discuss how we got to this point, whether lessons were learned from the past and how to go forward in future.’

A spokesperson for The Glasgow School of Art said: ’Parliamentary Committees invite individuals and organisations with an interest in a subject to contribute to a process of information gathering, and we expect to be invited to participate in the process in due course.’

MacAlpine added that, after it has heard from the witnesses, it will make a decision on whether to take any further evidence.


Readers' comments (4)

  • Well said Malcolm!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Absolutely agree with Malcom Fraser, the building should remain the Glasgow School of Art, and continue to provide a wonderful setting for the study of art.
    However the responsibility for the reconstruction and maybe even the long-term care of the building needs to be given to a new organisation, capable of doing the job that the building deserves.

    The first fire was much worse than it need have been because of lack of proper fire precautions regime and equipment.
    The second fire should to have happened, and was also worse than need be because of lack of care: the sprinkler system had not been installed, the watching was not effective, and highly inflammable materials were being stored in the building.

    David Berridge
    Macdonald + Berridge Architects

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Kieran Gaffney

    Turning the Art School into a museum would be a total disaster. What was special about the building was it was still used and loved in its orignal planned function.
    A visit to any of the other "mac museums" is depressing with do not touch / do not sit signs on everything We really don't want that!
    Agree that the art school might not be the right client to rebuild.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Phil Parker

    The building is so gutted it will not be the former building when it’s re-built. It’ll be a copy of the previous building whilst sharing the old outer shell.

    Everything else will be new. I don’t see why the new building cannot be built and specified as an art school. To recreate it and turn it into a museum / art piece would be an act of folly and a deceit.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this 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.