I attended the MAKING SPACE conference at the Chelsea School of Art yesterday.
Rather than put my thoughts in to a word document to gather virtual dust, I'll put them here:
Key themes of the conference explored how we inhabit, appropriate/reappropriate and 'make' things in spaces, with specific reference to art and design education.
What makes a space a
place - are the art studios we have here spaces or places? Are they destinations or designations....interesting.
Notions of flexible and open plan space were described by Sunand Prasad (president of RIBA) as at risk of being designed for non-functionality...I think this is what we academics fear most. Through over-flexibility of design we risk the integral function of the space becoming ok for everything, good for nothing. This is the paradox of non-functionality
as design criteria.
I was interested by the idea that 'function seeks out appropriate form' (S.Prasad) - are we allowed to let new spaces change or ease over time anymore? I always think of new spaces like new shoes - you need to give them time to take your shape, to become a little rough around the edges, in order to really be able to work in them. We discussed the way that artists often reappropriate spaces that aren't studios, asking questions around the legitimacy of space.
Is there a difference between social spaces where we learn and learning spaces where we socialise? Is one more conducive to making than the other? Someone said that spaces for art making need to have an emotional charge (though this sounds more intense than it probably is - perhaps we mean a place that energises us or allows for freedom of thought/action) surely the impact of this emotional reaction to or connection with a space would facilitate better 'making'.
And where, if anywhere, do we locate ownership? Obviously students are transient but there must be some sort of temporary ownership (custody?) of the space throughout its useful life...or is that the job of the art tutors... or would that just result in the perpetuation of our (probably very dated) ideas about how the spaces should be used.
Mies Van Der Rohe has a lot to answer for...
On a different note, we discussed architect/client relationships (particularly in terms of creative spaces - galleries/ university buildings/art spaces etc) and the Kiasma contemporary art gallery in Helsinki was mentioned
http://www.kiasma.fi/index.php?id=11&L=1 alongside the Guggenheim in Manhattan
http://www.guggenheim.org/ These are examples of buildings - and thus spaces - that were architect led (opposed to client led). They might be classed as contemporary artworks in and of themselves - with their function following (or perhaps even totally disconnected from) their form. Frank Lloyd Wrights Guggenheim Museum is a particularly good case study; to paraphrase Sunand Prasad rather badly, the Guggenheim is 'A Frank Lloyd Wright' in the same way you might travel to see 'A Picasso' or 'A Monet'. You travel to see his building, which happens to
function as a gallery. But you cant move further than 7 feet away from each painting (unless you want to view it from over 50 feet away). So the building's designated function has been compromised by its architectural form. This becomes an experience, a day out, or a visit to a landmark - Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge, Guggenheim Museum. Which interestingly is exactly how I saw it when I visited it myself - the shows were somehow far less important than standing at the bottom of the ramp and looking up...
Now, there is a real danger of mentioning a certain pink shoe box in West Brom here, but I'm not going to.
left hand image - Guggenheim
right hand image - Kiasma
