The proposed design for Tate Modern 2.
After continuing my research I’ve found that the critical responses to the announced Tate extension plans are flying thick and fast. In order to understand in a more practical sense what the main concerns are in creating a new gallery (or extension) I decided to look at what the critics saw as lacking in the Herzog and de Meuron’s design, the Tate Modern 2. I thought that if I looked at what the critics saw as lacking I might be able to find other aspects that need to be negotiated in the creation of a gallery. It was not hard to find these articles. It seems as if the moment the Tate Modern announced the plans for an extension the presses ran hot with opinions and critiques.
Archiseek
Tate Modern 2
http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=5118
The most striking and straight to the point critique I found was on Archiseek, a self-described online architecture resource. Here members of the site can post comments on a discussion board. I admire the wit inherent in the entry by Paul H who posted this from Queens, New York:
“I really like it, London seems to be really happening, a lot of exciting projects but it reminds me of this!!!!”
Paul H’s comparison to the Tate Modern 2 design.
As straight to the point as this is, it is only informative on the opinion of one person and based purely on aesthetics. Aesthetics will always be controversial; it relies on the subjective viewpoint. What I had set out to see was what practical and communal concerns would need to be overcome in the creation of a gallery. But as this and the following entries will show, aesthetics is a major factor, not just for the critics but the local community who have to live with whatever construction is finally erected.
From an Australian point of view (and I know it is a side track) I would like to note that one of our most beloved landmarks, the Sydney Opera House was not ‘completely’ popular when first presented to the public in architectural designs. Now it is a national landmark and major (golden ticket) tourist attraction.
The Times
"Tate Modern's chaotic pyramid"
Times Online, July 26, 2006
http://www.timesomline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2285488,00.html
Britain’s The Times reporter Dalya Alberge states that the Herzog and de Meuron’s “futuristic design is a chaotic-looking glass structure featuring huge blocks protruding from a pyramidal form.” She goes on to mention the juxtaposed reviews that see the design dismissively as “a work of a child with a tub of bricks” or grandly as “the ziggurats of ancient Babylon.”
Other than mentioning the ambitious nature of the design and the advantage to tourism provided by the proposed viewing deck atop the seventy-metre construction, Alberge’s news article is just that, a delivery of news. Other than the adjective in the title that the design is ‘chaotic’ the article is a narrative of critical commentary from a third party and a notation on the funding source and the project’s aims. In this way the article provides a general summary of the critical response and funding sources, but I cannot help feeling that such critical opinion came in an avalanche of instantaneous (automatic) responses after the announcement of the planed extension and unveiling of designs. I find them all a little to hasty to object. Perhaps when I move my research onto to printed media I may be able to find extended and discussion-based articles.
Spiked
"Making a mess of the Tate Modern extension"
Wednesday 9 August, 2006
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1437/
The next article I found was on the website Spiked, written by Karl Sharro and dated Wednesday 9 August 2006. After discussing Herzog and de Meuron’s description of their design as a ‘pile’ of boxes, Sharro wrote an eloquently succinct line.
“I don’t often find myself agreeing with other architects on the proper description of their buildings, but I must say that ‘pile’ is indeed what comes closest to describing the proposed extension."
This personal statement and its preceding description are the emboldened lead-in to article. I find that such a statement attracts the reader’s interest and concurrently leaves little reason for them to continue to read, as the personal opinion of the writer is so clear from the outset. Having said that, I found his discussion of the theories of the Modernists and Deconstructionists and Jacques Derrida informative. They provided a reason behind his objections where as many other articles available on the internet read like personal preferences. All, of which are valid but not very useful for the purposes of my research project.
Additional articles:
The Observer
http://www.observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1827016,00.html
"Art world braced for Tate-extra"
Author: Rob Sharp
Date: Sunday July 23, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1830048,00.html
"Tate Modern 2: The Epic Sequel"
Author: Jonathan Glancey
Date: Wednesday July 26, 2006