A&A Brief Report of the Event
My friend warned me it would be a boring evening at A&A. He was wrong. Something that at first sight seemed like talking about a trivial struggle with bureaucracy turned into a hot discussion, almost too hot for “a gentlemen’s debate”… Well, the open public discussion is what distinguishes the A&A lectures from other venues where one could drawn in abundance of small talk and complements. My friend who forecasted boredom did not realize that the A&A lectures dedicated to public issues are the hottest evenings…
And competitions seem to be in the middle of public and political life. It was indicated already by the title of the A&A evening “What’s wrong with public competition for architecture and art?”
The first speaker Judith Strong, proved that this very question is not only a dilemma of the present times. The history of architectural competitions in England shows pros and cons of different competition systems since 60s. Judith Strong, who started as Competition Officer at RIBA and coordinated over 100 competitions, could offer a unique insight behind the scenes of competition preparation and tell us about not so well known details of architectural competitions from the perspective of their organizer. Using many examples she showed how the structure of a competition could shape architectural landscape. These changes took place in UK: from 60s when the so called ”ginger group” challenged the establishment to open up the competition system, through 90s and the introduction of the new EU procurement legislation, up until today with the new economic climate and Smart PPP. Talking about them, Judith came to the conclusion – a proposition of an “optimal”, in her view, competition system which includes limiting participants, technical and public consultation. (You can download this and other lectures from A&A webpage).
The second speaker, Isabel Vasseur, the director of public art consultancy Art Office gave the insight into the second “A” of A&A, namely the art competitions. She started with a slide showing confused George Bush trying to work out the Rubik Cube. I am still not sure whether it was a metaphor for the perplexed bureaucracy or difficulty in lining up different “colures and sides” of art competitions. The first example presented by Isabel included Andy Goldworthy’s project commissioned in France without any competition at all. It rose the crucial question of whether a competitive way of commissioning art projects is a good idea at all. Some other examples were trying to answer ‘yes’… but the ambivalence was in the air… Anyway, it seemed that art competitions should be designed as cheerfully as art itself.
The climax of the evening was created by Mike Tonkin and Anna Liu. They showed the third side of competitions – from the perspective of artists themselves. Tonkin Liu Architects are known from the competitions they recently won. Architects talked about their awarded project of “Singing Ringing Tree”, but also about the frustration and dilemma of the artists who take part in competitions.
The discussion that took place after the talks shows how competitions could be an important subject for architects, and not only...
The first question regarded public involvement and general philosophy of competitions. Are we concentrating too much on the design and thus lose the potential of competition to shape the public realm in a democratic way? Would it not be possible to involve the public more by direct voting and give the public vote for instance 50% power in the final decision-making? Wouldn’t it be a good idea to use competitions to initiate a general discussion about the public realm.
Architect Peter Fink, who happened to sit in the audience, referred to his 20 years of experience in competitions and teaching and asked for a serious discussion about the transparency in competition organization and the importance being able to receive feedback. He referred to North American competition organization model and presented it as a lot more useful for the public, as well as for the artists.
Questions raised from the audience also regarded the “box ticking culture” which seems to have overshadowed the old principle, that choosing the winner should be based on design merits.
Some sobering comments came form Mike Tonkin trying to explain from the designer’s point of view that winning a competition could become a mousetrap rather than a reward (difficulty in progressing to the next stage of a project, delay in receiving the financial reward). The catch 22 paradox lays in the fact that competitors are asked to present the costs of the design before they even start working on it. Mike also gave an example, showing how being honest towards the unrealistic competition requirements could turn against the designers themselves.
Dr Marcin Kolakowski
All lectures can be downloaded from Art and Architecture website.
If you have any comments on the above issues, or lectures and the evening itself, or if you would like to answer the question “What’s wrong with public competition for architecture and art?” please leave your comments here:
And competitions seem to be in the middle of public and political life. It was indicated already by the title of the A&A evening “What’s wrong with public competition for architecture and art?”
The first speaker Judith Strong, proved that this very question is not only a dilemma of the present times. The history of architectural competitions in England shows pros and cons of different competition systems since 60s. Judith Strong, who started as Competition Officer at RIBA and coordinated over 100 competitions, could offer a unique insight behind the scenes of competition preparation and tell us about not so well known details of architectural competitions from the perspective of their organizer. Using many examples she showed how the structure of a competition could shape architectural landscape. These changes took place in UK: from 60s when the so called ”ginger group” challenged the establishment to open up the competition system, through 90s and the introduction of the new EU procurement legislation, up until today with the new economic climate and Smart PPP. Talking about them, Judith came to the conclusion – a proposition of an “optimal”, in her view, competition system which includes limiting participants, technical and public consultation. (You can download this and other lectures from A&A webpage).
The second speaker, Isabel Vasseur, the director of public art consultancy Art Office gave the insight into the second “A” of A&A, namely the art competitions. She started with a slide showing confused George Bush trying to work out the Rubik Cube. I am still not sure whether it was a metaphor for the perplexed bureaucracy or difficulty in lining up different “colures and sides” of art competitions. The first example presented by Isabel included Andy Goldworthy’s project commissioned in France without any competition at all. It rose the crucial question of whether a competitive way of commissioning art projects is a good idea at all. Some other examples were trying to answer ‘yes’… but the ambivalence was in the air… Anyway, it seemed that art competitions should be designed as cheerfully as art itself.
The climax of the evening was created by Mike Tonkin and Anna Liu. They showed the third side of competitions – from the perspective of artists themselves. Tonkin Liu Architects are known from the competitions they recently won. Architects talked about their awarded project of “Singing Ringing Tree”, but also about the frustration and dilemma of the artists who take part in competitions.
The discussion that took place after the talks shows how competitions could be an important subject for architects, and not only...
The first question regarded public involvement and general philosophy of competitions. Are we concentrating too much on the design and thus lose the potential of competition to shape the public realm in a democratic way? Would it not be possible to involve the public more by direct voting and give the public vote for instance 50% power in the final decision-making? Wouldn’t it be a good idea to use competitions to initiate a general discussion about the public realm.
Architect Peter Fink, who happened to sit in the audience, referred to his 20 years of experience in competitions and teaching and asked for a serious discussion about the transparency in competition organization and the importance being able to receive feedback. He referred to North American competition organization model and presented it as a lot more useful for the public, as well as for the artists.
Questions raised from the audience also regarded the “box ticking culture” which seems to have overshadowed the old principle, that choosing the winner should be based on design merits.
Some sobering comments came form Mike Tonkin trying to explain from the designer’s point of view that winning a competition could become a mousetrap rather than a reward (difficulty in progressing to the next stage of a project, delay in receiving the financial reward). The catch 22 paradox lays in the fact that competitors are asked to present the costs of the design before they even start working on it. Mike also gave an example, showing how being honest towards the unrealistic competition requirements could turn against the designers themselves.
Dr Marcin Kolakowski
All lectures can be downloaded from Art and Architecture website.
If you have any comments on the above issues, or lectures and the evening itself, or if you would like to answer the question “What’s wrong with public competition for architecture and art?” please leave your comments here:
© 2010 Created by A&A Chairman
Powered by 
.
