About
Abbrev:..oAnth.....Motto:...'Nothing to Hide'.#25c3/#CCC.:.. Den Nachgeborenen ein
gemahnendes Vorbild & zur bleibenden Erinnerung - Loc: München (Munich - Germany).
..............................................................................................................................
Intended: a caleidoscope of repostings, feeds & direct postings in EN....DE....FR..
Selected entries from oAnth are provided via scoop.it - oAnth miscellaneous .........
..............................................................................................................................
Start of active postings on this Tumblelog Diary [microblogging -- WP] on Jan 2009,
nonetheless a great number of earlier entries are indirectly implemented via RSS-feeds.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Selection by entry types - starting with the latest. . . . links. . . texts. . . quotes. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . files . . . videos . . . images . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
See likewise . . . . . . . >> 02myTagManual . . . . . . >> latest compilations . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Links & feeds to my Posterous-account are protected - pls use password: oA:acc_
:: at twitter >> 02mytwi01 ... diaspora* >> oAnth ... friendfeed >> 02myffeed01 ::
..............................................................................................................................
............ ABOUT THE ACTUAL SOUP.IO STATUS - - - latest entry 2012-03-27 ...........
2012-05-08 - oAnth: during the coming days I will hardly be capable for personal online
aktivities - only RSS import will be provided, if soup.io works regulary.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
May 10 2012
Futuro – the ideal home that wasn't
As the newly restored first edition goes on show, Justin McGuirk explores an emblem of 1960s architectural utopianism. Just don't call it a spaceship
Before the recession and the return of architectural probity, the phrase "like an alien spaceship" was all over architecture journalism like a cheap suit. Faced with anything that didn't look like a brick box, critics and headline writers would ransack their imaginations before inevitably reaching for the extra-terrestrial. Frank Gehry? Future Systems? Zaha Hadid? Yep, spaceship-mongers. Well there's only one building where that simile is inescapable, and that's the Futuro house, designed by Finnish architect Matti Suuronen in 1968.
Commissioned to design a ski lodge for a slope in Finland, Suuronen produced what he and many others believed was the prefabricated home of the future. An 8m-diametre "rotating ellipsoid" – geometry jargon for "like a 1950s Hollywood flying saucer" – the Futuro remains an emblematic image of the 1960s, despite having been a total sideshow as far as architectural historiography is concerned. Though they went into production in both Finland and America, only around 60 were ever produced (no one knows exact numbers). What is certain, however, is that the very first edition, cabin number 001, went on show last week at the Weegee Exhibition Centre in Espoo, 20 minutes from Helsinki. And as I was in Helsinki for the buildup to its festivities as World Design Capital 2012, I paid it a visit.
There it was, painstakingly restored and eye-achingly yellow, resting on its metal frame (the pod house was often helicoptered on to its legs), its hatch door with integrated staircase lowered invitingly. Entering a space that you know well as an image is usually either a shock or an anticlimax. In this case, it was the overpowering odour that struck me. It turned out to be the glue a restorer was using to put the finishing touches to the floor in preparation for the opening that evening. But it heightened the sense of being in a totally artificial environment. Circular rooms are strange in themselves, accustomed as we are to corners, but this plastic womb was more unheimlich than homely. With its built-in chaises longues arranged around a central hearth, it's more like a swinger's fantasy anyway – Playboy magazine featured it as the ultimate bachelor pad and it was used as the setting of a 1970s sci-fi porn film called The Goddesses of Galaxia.
What remains intriguing about Futuro, however, is that it's the closest housing ever came to product design. In the 1960s, the mechanisation of the domestic interior, particularly the kitchen, was in full force, as we accumulated labour-saving gadgets like washing machines and blenders. Suuronen's plastic capsule had the moulded integrity of a mass-produced consumer product, it was the house-as-gadget, a device for the nomadic lifestyle. What it relates to best is the pop space age furniture of the period – the Bubble chair designed by fellow Finn Eero Arnio or Joe Colombo's Boby trolleys – except this was furniture blown up to an architectural scale. Futuro belongs in a tradition of 1960s utopian radicalism. It picks up where Buckminster Fuller's earlier Dymaxion and Wichita houses (also designed for mass-production) left off, and it floats somehow in the same soup as Archigram's comic-book hi-tech or the Metabolists' capsule buildings. But it had none of the urban vision. For this reason, Futuro sits outside the architectural canon, a kitschy one-hit wonder. It was also a commercial failure.
When it came to London as part of the Finnexpo fair in 1968, the Daily Mail wrote (anticipating critics of the future): "This object, looking like everyone else's idea of a flying saucer from outer Space, is the Finnish idea of the perfect weekend cottage." Except that it wasn't. When the original owner of cabin 001, Matti Kuusla, installed it on the wooded shore of Lake Puulavesi, it caused a local outcry. Suuronen's capsule was far from their idea of the perfect country cottage, because the whole point of country cottages was nostalgic ruralism – the back-to-nature birch-whipping in the sauna that was their escape from the city and its encroaching plastic futurism. An American company, Futuro Corporation, had high hopes for it, but it was a flop there too, never rising above the level of the urban freak show – among other things it was used as a bank in the car park of the Woodbridge mall in New Jersey. The oil crisis of 1973, which tripled the price of plastic, was the final nail in the coffin. And there went another piece of 1960s utopianism. Well, if it calls itself the future, it's probably not.
May 09 2012
Photographer Richard Mosse's best shot
'This is a pool at one of Saddam's old palaces. I had 14 minutes, then they barked at me to pack up'
I wanted to document the US troops stationed inside some of Saddam Hussein's old family palaces. There are 84 dotted around Iraq, but it was 2009, and the clock was ticking as soldiers were being withdrawn. You need media accreditation to get embedded with the US military and, although editors liked my idea, no one was willing to take responsibility for my safety. Eventually, the Yale Daily News agreed. It became a running joke among journalists in Iraq that I had a press card from my old college paper.
I spent a month riding within the US war machine, going from base to base. At one point we stayed at an oil refinery, a picture of hell with an overwhelming stench of crude oil. There was a military dog (it actually held the rank of sergeant) who detested me and would chase me down, savagely biting my heels. The GIs laughed, saying he only attacked insurgents.
We finally reached this palace in the Jebel Makhoul mountains to the north. It was used by Uday Hussein, Saddam's notorious eldest son. I was given just 14 minutes at the site. While setting up my camera for an initial shot of the palace foyer, I looked over my shoulder and noticed soldiers lounging around the empty, ruined pool. What I saw struck me as the long-lost hidden link between the 19th-century French painter Géricault and David Hockney.
Without quite believing my eyes, I intuitively spun my camera around. The subjects had arranged themselves better than I could have imagined: the soldier to the right is spreading his arms like a figure in a classical painting. I had to put my tongue back in my mouth and remember to press the cable release. It's so rare to have that "decisive moment" – especially while using a large, wooden 8in x 10in format camera on a tripod in a warzone. A cloud even passed in front of the sun to soften the hard desert light. I took a single exposure, then a few more elsewhere, before I got barked at to pack up.
The site overlooks the River Tigris: for me, there is something sinister and circular about an occupying army lounging around a toppled dictator's pool, in the area archaeologists call the "cradle of civilisation".
CV
Born: 1980, Dublin.
Studied: English literature at King's College, fine art at Goldsmiths, London; photography at Yale School of Art, US.
Influences: WG Sebald, Werner Herzog, Caspar David Friedrich, Thomas Struth.
High point: Opening my show Infra, of shots of the Congo, in New York.
Low point: The moments between projects. They're like jumping out of a plane without a parachute.
Tip: Don't go to art school initially. Do a degree in something real like physics or music. Then you will have something to make art about.
Thomas Kinkade: the secret life and strange death of art's king of twee
The works of the Painter of Light have been reproduced on furniture and inspired the building of a whole village, but the verdict into his death reveals a bleaker picture
In death, the man who at his peak claimed to be the world's most successful living artist perhaps achieved the sort of art-world excess he craved.
On Tuesday, the coroner's office in Santa Clara, California, announced that the death of Thomas Kinkade, the Painter of Light™, purveyor of kitsch prints to the masses, was caused by an accidental overdose of alcohol and Valium. For good measure, a legal scrap has emerged between Kinkade's ex-wife (and trustee of his estate) and his girlfriend.
Who could have imagined that behind so many contented visions of peace, harmony and nauseating goodness lay just another story of deception, disappointment and depravity, fuelled by those ever-ready stooges, Valium and alcohol?
Kinkade was a self-made phenomenon, with his prints (according to his company) hanging in one in 20 American homes. At his height, in 2001, Kinkade generated $130m (£81m) in sales. Kinkade's twee paintings of cod-traditional cottages, lighthouses, gardens, gazebos and gates sold by the million through a network of Thomas Kinkade galleries, owned by his company, and through a parallel franchise operation. At their peak (between 1995 and 2005) there were 350 Kinkade franchises across the US, with the bulk in his home state of California. You would see them in roadside malls in small towns, twinkly lights adorning the windows, and in bright shopping centres, sandwiched between skatewear outlets and nail bars.
But these weren't just galleries. They were the Thomas Kinkade experience – minus the alcohol and Valium, of course. Clients would be ushered into a climate-controlled viewing room to maximise the Kinkadeness of the whole place, and their experience. Some galleries offered "master highlighters", trained by someone not far from the master himself, to add a hand-crafted splash of paint to the desired print and so make a truly unique piece of art, as opposed to the framed photographic print that was the standard fare.
The artistic credo was expressed best in the 2008 movie Thomas Kinkade's Christmas Cottage. Peter O'Toole, earning a crust playing Kinkade's artistic mentor, urges the young painter to "Paint the light, Thomas! Paint the light!".
Kinkade's art also went beyond galleries through the "Thomas Kinkade lifestyle brand". This wasn't just the usual art gallery giftshop schlock: Kinkade sealed a tie-in with La-Z-Boy furniture (home of the big butt recliner) for a Kinkade-inspired range of furniture. But arguably his only great artwork was "The Village, a Thomas Kinkade Community", unveiled in 2001. A 101-home development in Vallejo, outside San Francisco, operating under the slogan: "Calm, not chaos. Peace, not pressure," the village offers four house designs, each named after one of Kinkade's daughters. Plans for further housing developments, alas, fell foul of the housing crisis.
In the years before his death, Kinkade's business and his life took a battering. There were allegations of malpractice, and his company declared bankruptcy, unable to pay its creditors following a series of court judgments ordering him to pay $860,000 for defrauding the owners of two failed franchises.
Following his separation from his wife and spiralling alcoholism, Kinkade's behaviour became erratic: he allegedly caused a scene at a Siegfried & Roy show in Las Vegas by repeatedly shouting "Codpiece!" at the ageing illusionists. He also engaged in what he termed "ritual territory marking" at a California Disneyland hotel, urinating on a Winnie the Pooh figure.
Kinkade's death went largely unnoted in the art world. There were no lengthy obituaries in the quality press, critics did not line up to extol the beauty or the influence of his art. Maybe they missed a trick. For while Kinkade's work is at best humdrum and technically adequate, its popularity tells us something about his public, about a desperate yearning for nostalgia that pervades parts of American life, a return to the safe glow of some imagined past.
"It's not the world we live in," Kinkade said of his painting, "it's the world we wished we live in. People wish they could find that stream, that cabin in the woods."
And it could be that with his mastery of the market, and his understanding of how to sell his work – "When I got saved, God became my art agent," he once said – Kinkade was the natural heir to the apostle of mass production, Andy Warhol.
"There's been million-seller books and million-seller CDs," Kinkade explained. "But there hasn't been, until now, million-seller art. We have found a way to bring to millions of people, an art that they can understand."
Saatchi captures the confusion of contemporary photography
The Saatchi Gallery's messy, sprawling Out of Focus show reveals uncomfortable truths about the current state of photography
I have visited Out of Focus: Photography, the Saatchi Gallery's big contemporary photography show twice now. The second time around, it seemed, if anything, even more of a messy sprawl of styles, strategies and conceptual conceits. The title, Out of Focus, may have been meant ironically, but it takes on a more pointed meaning if you approach the show as a mirror of the fractured world of contemporary practice.
For me, the most coherent thing about the show is William A Ewing's catalogue essay, which begins by stating the obvious – "Photography is a very strange place to be right now, either inside looking out (the producer) or outside looking in (the public)" – then takes us on a humorous journey though the various continents that currently make up "the entire World of Photography": Commercia, Documentaria, Amateuria, Artistica and Artcontemporanea. As Ewing rightly points out, these continents view each other across vast oceans of mutual disdain. Many commercial photographers, for instance, think documentary photographers are hopelessly old-fashioned, while the latter view the former as corporate whores in thrall to the filthy lucre of advertising. Both watch the continent of Amateuria, "a continent so vast it has never been properly mapped, never mind explored", with a mixture of pity and contempt that cannot quite conceal their nervousness.
Artistica too, the realm of conceptualism and fine art, is currently under threat from the Artcontemporanea arrivistes – artists who use photography having once looked down on it as an inferior form. At the Saatchi Gallery, this "disunited nation" jostles for space, though the majority of the world on display comes from the continents of Artistica and Contemporanea. Mikhael Subotzky is the token documentary photographer, for instance, his large format pictures of the grim small town of Beaufort West in South Africa hanging desolately next to the conceptual pranksterism of Broomberg and Chanarin.
This is as political it gets on planet Saatchi, a rarified place where the main thrust is towards the conceptual. There is a lot of photography about photography: Jennifer West's enlarged strips of film of surfers, all gaudy pinks and blues, point towards both psychedelia and Eadweard Muybridge's photographs of movement. Mat Collishaw's big mosaics, made of ceramic, cement, wood and paint, suggest pixellated computer images. John Stezaker's photographic collages bring new life to old photographs found in film and theatre archives, postcards and catalogues.
There is contemporary portraiture and landscape aplenty, too. In the first big room, there are perhaps too many of Katy Grannan's hard painterly studies of old people caught in unforgiving sunlight on the sidewalks of Los Angeles and San Francisco, just as, upstairs, there are too few – just one, in fact – of Elina Brotherus's stark studies of human alienation. In both instances, the power of the work is undercut. It was good to see Hannah Starkey's mixture of street photography and participatory portraiture again, which seemed quite humble in intent (she finds an intriguing spot then asks passers-by to become part of the picture) in comparison to the work around it.
The most crafted work here is Sohei Nishino's series of city dioramas – New York, Tokyo, Paris – made up of thousands of small photographs combined to create a surreal whole. They are mind-boggling in their obsessiveness and recall those wonderful wrong medieval maps of unexplored territories.
Too much of the work on display is too self-consciously arty or referential, and seems already peculiarly dated. More problematic still, there is simply too much on show to make the whole seem in any way formally unified. This is Saatchiland, though, so that was probably never the point.
What we are looking at is a collection parading as an exhibition. It shouts and screams and sometimes whispers for your attention, but you may, like me, find your mind constantly wandering – and wondering at the sheer size and range of it all. It is a glimpse at some of the continents that make up the world of contemporary photography, but the choices often seem random and the staging haphazard. A big mess of a show, then, but one worth seeing – if only to have your confusion about the current state of photography confirmed.
Now see this
At Gallery One and a Half, Laura Pannack is showing her – no pun intended – revealing photographs of Young British Naturists. As always, it is the casual, everyday nature of the nudity that is most surreal.
Martin Parr and Tom Wood's images of the working class on holiday in new Brighton, The Last Resort, were first shown to great acclaim in 1986. This glimpse of an already lost time is now on show at the Third Floor Gallery in Cardiff.
Edgar Martins's series This Is Not a House is at the Wapping Project, Bankside, London. It explores the fallout of the sub-prime mortgage industry in America. It caused considerable controversy when it was revealed that he had "digitally reshaped" some of the photographs.
May 08 2012
Portrait of the artist: Trisha Brown, choreographer
'Climbing trees and playing sports were my first lessons in art'
What got you started?
I grew up in Aberdeen, in Washington state, which provided a luscious green environment for an imaginative mind. I climbed trees, played sports, hunted and fished with my dad. These were my first lessons in art. I have early memories of movement while playing outside as a child – and I integrate playing into my dance. Of course, I also had formal training: I studied ballet, tap and acrobatics, although I didn't know whether I wanted to go into visual art or dance. I lived between those two until the Accumulations [a series of accumulating pieces made in the 1970s]. Now I live between them again.
What was your big breakthrough?
It was in a now infamous improvisation workshop in New York led by Anna Halprin in 1959. That's when I first got to "fly" [leaving the ground in a spectacular way]. I've been smitten with improvisation ever since: the spirit of playing, and its rhythmic structure, transports me back to my childhood days. And I've always wanted to fly.
Who or what have you sacrificed for your art?
For me, it's all connected. Anything I've done for my art has never felt like a sacrifice.
Your work is closely associated with the precepts of visual art. Are artists too often expected to conform to just one art form?
I've never been worried about what is expected of me. When I first arrived in New York, much of my work was reacting against convention, pretension, romanticism and sentimentality. It was about art. Not visual art or dance art – just art. I'm disappointed to see these distinctions creeping back in. They were dissolved in the 1960s for good reason.
What song or piece of music would work as the soundtrack to your life?
My life has been located between the notes of Laurie Anderson, Alvin Curran, John Cage, countless marching bands, Bach and recently Jean-Philippe Rameau. It's a diverse and complicated soundtrack, but it is brilliant. Maybe William Christie can conduct it.
What are you most proud of?
My work with the National Arts Council in the 1990s [meeting US politicians to advocate for arts funding]. Art reflects the world around us and what the world could become. Bringing that message to those who control funding was a labour of love.
Which other artists, in any art form, do you most admire?
My dear friend Bob Rauschenberg. There aren't enough words for me to describe the friendship we had.
Complete this sentence, please: At heart, I'm just a frustrated ...
I'm not frustrated. I've been incredibly fortunate to have a rich, varied career where I could follow my impulses.
How would you like to be remembered?
As a dancer. I've said before that I'm a bricklayer with a sense of humour. I'd like people to remember that.
In short
Born: Aberdeen, Washington, 1936.
Career: Worked with the avant-garde Judson Dance Theater in the 1960s. Formed the Trisha Brown Dance Company in 1970 and is also an accomplished artist and opera director. Her company perform on 9 May at the Brighton Dome (brightonfestival.org or 01273 709709).
Was Bianca Jagger wrong to take flash photos at the opera?
The activist was spotted snapping away during Einstein on the Beach. In his new code of conduct for audiences, Leo Benedictus looks at what sort of behaviour is now acceptable
Last Friday, the theatre critic Mark Shenton was distracted from a five-hour performance of Philip Glass's opera Einstein on the Beach by a woman in his row taking photographs with a flash. It turned out to be Bianca Jagger. She had been snapping in defiance, Shenton claims, of complaints from those around her. Jagger has since said that others were taking pictures, too, adding that Shenton insulted and assaulted her. (He denies the latter, but admits the former with some pride.) The rules of behaviour in today's theatre audiences certainly seem to have changed. So, in the spirit of public service, and after consultation with Guardian critics, here is a new code of conduct.
1 Don't rattle your jewellery
All noise matters when you've come to listen to something. So a rustling packet in a classical concert can be as distracting as someone walking in front of a cinema screen. This makes even minor noises problematic. Vibrating phones are one example (we'll get to ringing). Vigorous page-turning is another. (In German concert halls, apparently, this is looked upon very gravely.)
Even jewellery is a common problem. "It's women who insist on wearing those multiple bangles," says our classical critic Andrew Clements, "so that every time they move their arms, which they invariably do in the quietest passages, you get extra unwanted percussion." Clements also complains about loud snoring, so if you know yourself to be a snorer, perhaps have a can of Red Bull before the show. The weak-bladdered should have half.
2 Do you really need an audioguide?
If you go to a gallery to be told what to look at, then by all means get one. But if you go along to explore, to be surprised, to linger around works that excite you, then all you have to do is, well, walk around. "Will an audioguide help you to get more?" asks art critic Jonathan Jones. "Or will it distract you from a fresh encounter with the art?"
Freedom of movement, he thinks, should be protected: stand where you like, look as long as you like, go back and look again. Anybody who objects can wait their turn. Freedom of speech, on the other hand, can be a nuisance. "What's annoying," says Jones, "is when someone loudly holds forth about a work, oblivious to strangers who are also looking. This can be distracting and destructive – even on the rare occasions when the showoff actually knows anything."
3 Talking, lateness, cameras, food, body odour
Michael Billington describes food as his "chief beef" in theatre audience etiquette, and recalls someone recently bringing a whole Chinese takeaway into The Duke of York's in London. Tim Ashley describes other people's body odour as his great bugbear, and insists other opera critics say the same. "If you're sitting next to somebody who stinks through six hours of Wagner, it can be a trial," he says. Theatre critic Lyn Gardner, meanwhile, is of the firm opinion that "people's bladders have quite clearly got weaker over the last 20 years".
There are difficult choices here. Cinemas and regional theatres often rely on confectionary sales to survive, so they do end up contributing to the rustling menace. As for lateness, there is a feeling that some venues could be far more sensitive about when they let the tardy in. After an overture is OK; between movements of a symphony is not. (Composers could start notating such moments in manuscripts, using whatever the Italian is for "latecomers".)
The principle, in short, is to avoid annoying people. So if you've annoyed somebody, you're in the wrong (and let's face it, you're never going to convince them otherwise). If somebody complains, obey them – and argue about it afterwards.
4 Your right to throw beer ends where my body begins
This observation from rock critic Caroline Sullivan is a reminder that, although gigs clearly have more relaxed rules than most other shows, there are still rules. And beer-flinging is certainly not permitted. "I experienced it most recently at Kings of Leon in Hyde Park," Sullivan says. "The entire audience expressed their enthusiasm by throwing pints over each other."
Accidental flinging also occurs, often as a consequence of lazy carrying. So if you're buying drinks for your friends, you are not allowed to transport more than three glasses at any time.
Sullivan does not object to mosh pits, though. "If you want to mosh, go down there and I'll stay at the back," she says. Her main grievance concerns her view. "Tall people really should play fair and stand at the back," she says. "I think it should be law." The practical considerations here – if a tall person has a short friend, or if he wants to mosh – have yet to be ironed out.
5 It's called "children's theatre" not "nursery"
Quite naturally, parents want to avoid spending time with their children. But the price of a ticket to a children's theatre show does not include babysitting services from those on stage.
This exercises Gardner, especially when parents look as if they know the rules but can't be bothered following them. "What they do is sit there while the show is going on, looking at their mobiles, and allowing their children to wander all over the stage," she says. By the same token, if you've taken young people to the theatre, and they are clearly bored, don't try to force them to be interested. This is unreasonable and counter-productive. "Not all theatre is good," says Gardner. "A lot of it is really rather dull."
6 Hecklers are allowed to say two unfunny things
Standup is unusual in that audiences are expected to try to spoil it. Many comedians disapprove of heckling and in bigger venues it's impractical; even so, people do sometimes shout funny things, and most comics will have a decent putdown ready if hecklers fail to reach a certain standard.
However, heckling is an art for miniaturists. If you think you've thought of something funny to say, but it doesn't get a laugh, then you need to revisit that assumption. Spoiling the performance in an attempt to save face is not the answer. Drunk people are very slow to learn this. At one Scott Capurro gig in Edinburgh, I remember a young woman having to be physically removed by staff because she would not stop interrupting (a surprise, because his audiences are often only too happy to walk out). Perhaps this punishment should be meted out more often.
7 Off means off
About 10 years ago, it became routine for venues to warn audiences to turn off their phones. About five years ago, everybody stopped noticing. This is a forgetfulness problem, in short, and it will never go away. (Phones also ring at funerals, remember.) Instead, we have to manage it. So when you turn your phone off, it should be off, not silent. This discourages you from distracting people, or yourself, with its vibrations or lights. It's tough but necessary. When staying connected is important, there could be limited exceptions. Gardner suggests that theatres should institute special rows of seats for tweeters (as happens in parts of the US).
Billington even recommends turning off your phone with time to spare. He cites the US director Bartlett Sher, who believes audiences need a while to disconnect themselves from all their everyday worries – perhaps 20 minutes. By the same rationale, you should always arrive early, as Ashley does.
8 Don't be so bloody precious
Overreacting is antisocial behaviour, too. So if somebody's annoying you, in any way, act early. Think carefully about what you hope to achieve, and – if you can achieve anything – speak kindly at an opportune moment. Don't just stew until your anger overflows.
In the theatre, where Gardner describes "a sort of war" between the old guard and the new, this is a growing problem. Star-led casting, in particular, brings in people who are not used to the environment. They are more liable to behave badly, but they are also badly needed. If you love the theatre, then you are doing it a disservice by sending them home annoyed. On the other hand, when something is being a distraction nearby, you have a duty to do something. Others further off may be equally annoyed, but powerless, so they are depending on you.
Remember that – and don't rely on having an enraged Mark Shenton at the end of every row.
Art project brings back memories of Latin America
Hispanic people in Leamington Spa are working with a textile artist to create artwork that reminds them of home
The members of Club Amigos meet in Leamington Spa every second Saturday of the month. The group consists of about 30 people who are mostly from Latin America – Peru, Cuba, Mexico and Costa Rica – and they meet to engage in creative activities aimed at passing on their Hispanic language and culture to their children.
The group has recently been collaborating with textile artist Deirdre Nelson on artwork that reflects the members' conflicted relationship with the notion of home. Nelson is one of a number of artists involved in the Making Moves project – a craft development initiative across the West Midlands led by Staffordshire county council and Birmingham-based craft agency Craftspace.
"We were asked to come up with a project [in Leamington Spa] that would involve and engage the migrant group, and promote the group," explains Nelson.
She encouraged them to draw things that reminded them of home. Some drew everyday objects from their life in Britain, while others were inspired by the countries their families had left. "There was one boy, Alex, who drew a picture of Cuban Indians on a mountain in Cuba because that was where his parents were from," says Nelson.
The drawings are scanned and digitally printed on to a large tablecloth that the group embroiders. "I was amazed at how open the men were to stitching; we had some fantastic sessions where fathers and sons stitched together," says Nelson. The group is meeting this Saturday to celebrate the project and to see the final work.
Nelson has also engaged with Leamington Spa's Portuguese community, who came over to work in service stations along the M40 when the motorway was being built. In her research, Nelson stumbled upon the story of Portuguese love hankies. Traditionally, when a Portuguese woman saw a man she took a liking to she would embroider a handkerchief and embellish it with words and flowers and present it to the man who would then wear it in his pocket. Any other woman seeing him would then realise he was taken.
Traditional
Nelson learned traditional stitching and has created a pattern for a traditional napkin that is being printed on to disposable napkins. "There are lots of Portuguese cafes in the town, so I will give them out to them and that way the work will be seen and spread out across the community," she says.
The public will be able to visit the Making Moves touring exhibition of work starting at Stafford railway station in September. The tour will continue in other community venues around the West Midlands until August next year.
May 05 2012
Anish Kapoor's Orbit tower: the mother of all helter-skelters
Finally, after two years of planning wrangles, Britain's largest public sculpture towers over the Olympic park
Time-lapse film: constructing Anish Kapoor's Orbit tower
As planning applications go, it would be fair to say that case #10/90250/FULODA, submitted to the London boroughs of Newham and Waltham Forest planning committees in May 2010, stood out somewhat. In among the loft conversions and Victorian conservatories that mark the staple fare of the weekly planning agenda in this part of east London, this particular file put the sober case for a 115m steel tower in the form of a vast, deconstructed spiral, painted bright red, lit up at night and visible from 10km away. Did the neighbours mind?
By the time it reached the application stage, the creators of the ArcelorMittal Orbit on the Olympic site (or "Boris's Folly", as it was generally known on the blog sites) had already invited as many neighbours as possible to comment. The Big Opportunity, a conglomeration of interest groups in the vicinity, with 56 members ranging from the East London Inventors Club to the Ladies' Wing of the Followers of His [Hindu] Holiness Swaminarayan Mandir, had been consulted. Responses had been invited from interested individuals from the Orbit's "region", which stretched as far as Milton Keynes, Brighton, Canterbury and Southampton. From all this reaching out, 118 comments had been received and noted by the time of the full planning application: 39% wrote in favour of a design variously described as "beautiful", "fragile" and "feminine". The rest argued in forceful terms that it was "ugly" and "not symmetrical" and objected in no particular order to the fact that it was red, pointless, expensive and an advert for Arcelor Mittal (and quite a cheap one at that).
At an open planning meeting, one of the tower's creators, the engineer Cecil Balmond, who is responsible for some of the world's most inspired and innovative structures, recalls how he thought they had lost it. "From the floor, people just seemed to be lining up with complaints, one after the other," he recalls. "It looked pretty bad at one point. We don't want this and what is the point of that? But then after a while came the counter-arguments: Britain needs something different and new, we can't bury our heads in the sand, all that. I just stood back and listened."
By the time of that public debate, Balmond and his fellow Orbit-creator, the artist Anish Kapoor, had become rather used to explaining their ideas to committees and taking feedback. They had (mostly calmly) addressed the concerns of critics, conservationists, health and safety officers and legacy deliverers one by one. Rather than calling it a tower, they liked to refer to the Orbit as "the tallest sculpture in the UK". In response to a suggestion that this sculpture had no relevance for London or the Olympics, it was argued that "the Orbit will take on a relevance of its own" after the Games had ended. As detractors had correctly observed, the colour red was chosen "intentionally for it not to blend with its surroundings". Charged with asymmetry, they argued that it was "meant to look unstable or fluid". Those who were standing up for the beleaguered bat colonies in the area had little cause for concern either: the low levels of light on the Orbit "would have no discernible effect on the bat assemblage over the Olympic site" or, indeed, on human assemblages in the neighbouring streets.
Last week, in advance of the tower's opening, I went to talk to Balmond and Kapoor at their respective studios about how they managed to stay sane and see this strange project through. In a way, they are typical Londoners. Balmond was born in Kandy, Sri Lanka, Kapoor in Mumbai, India. They both came to England as students and never left. Balmond has his hi-tech base, all 3D printers and biomorphic structures, on the edge of Hackney, a mile or two from the Olympic park; Kapoor's studio is a linked complex of factory spaces that stretches all the way down a road in Camberwell, south of the river (as his fame and ambition have spread so has his workshop; it now has the feel of a kind of aerospace lab manned by medieval guildsmen). In each man's office, scale models of the Orbit have pride of place. And despite what has been a gruelling process, both Kapoor and Balmond retain a sense of boyish excitement – or perhaps simple relief.
Kapoor started out in his teens with ambitions to be an engineer and this project has more than satisfied any remaining vestiges of those dreams: "I hope," he says, "I always will have a fascination with that archaic, elemental need to feel like an ant in an ant colony. To climb up the pyramids and just feel awe at man-made structures. That was the attraction of this for me."
For a role model in that enthusiasm, Kapoor needed to look no further than the project's driving force. Boris Johnson was almost lost for superlatives when announcing that work was starting on his great scarlet tower in 2010: "It would have boggled the minds of the Romans," the mayor declaimed. "It would have dwarfed the aspirations of Gustave Eiffel, and it will certainly be worthy of the best show on Earth, in the greatest city on Earth."
That was certainly the idea to begin with. The story goes that Johnson, keen to make his mark on the Olympic site that had become the fiefdom of the Tory peer Lord Coe, bumped into Britain's richest man, Lakshmi Mittal in the lavatories at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2009. Grasping his opportunity with both hands, the mayor buttonholed the steel magnate about the possibility of funding a lasting symbol of London 2012, boggling the minds of Romans etc. Mittal himself confirms to me that "Boris might have even taken less time than he says to convince me... sometimes you just hear an idea that resonates with you - this was one of them." Soon thereafter, Mittal pledged £17m of his fortune to Boris's priapic fantasy and the mayor sent out a notice inviting the artists and architects of his realm to find a way of spending that money.
"Anish called me up that morning," Balmond recalls. The pair had long been friends and had collaborated on various projects including Kapoor's Marsyas, the brilliant crimson horn that filled the Turbine Hall at Tate Modern in 2002. "He said, 'Have you seen this one?' I hadn't. Then he said, 'Shall we get together and do this? You know, rival the Eiffel Tower and so on?' And I thought, 'Well, no one's going to say no to that.' So we joined up. And then realised that there wasn't the money for the Eiffel Tower."
Kapoor and Balmond sat down with a sketch pad and thought what the reference points might be. As well as Eiffel, they thought of Tatlin's Tower (the vast constructivist monument conceived for Petrograd in the year of the Russian Revolution, but never built). And they thought, too, of the Tower of Babel, particularly Bruegel's version of it, an irregular mass of stone and humanity reaching chaotically heavenwards, like some termite's mound. And then they thought: how can we make a mythical tower new?
"Anish was saying, 'Well, all towers go up, but what can we do that is different?'" Balmond recalls. He couldn't imagine to start with. "But then I thought, everything that goes up is concentric, essentially. That's what we need to get away from. So I thought 'orbit', just as a metaphor originally." He sketched a loose ellipse on a piece of paper. "Now planetary orbits are highly unstable things, whirling around, but they are stable in the sense that they follow a fixed path. So then I drew an orbit that comes back on itself but keeps touching itself. So that was the idea."
It was to be 180m high, the platforms just stuck in as and where. With this sketch, from a starting line-up of 60 proposals, Balmond and Kapoor made the last three, alongside Antony Gormley, looking to recreate the success of his Angel of the North, and the Hackney-based architects Caruso St John. Just before he walked in to present to the first of many committees, Balmond recalls: "Someone from the mayor's office said to me, 'Do you know the budget?' And I didn't. She said it was around £25m. And I thought, 'Oh Christ!' Because what we had I knew would cost £50m to £80m. So straight away we brought it down to as low as we could go and still get a good sightline into the stadium: 115 metres."
That was only the first of a series of compromises. In this sense, as Kapoor observes the Orbit is very much of its political moment: "The basic premise was to do everything you promised for about half the money," he says, with a grin. Earlier in the week he had watched the Olympic mockumentary Twenty Twelve's take on the process. "The organising committee on the show come up with the idea that Orbit should be a symbol for promoting sexual health," he says. "But sadly they copped out half way through and don't end up putting a condom on it as planned. What is astonishing about it is how accurate it was in terms of some of the meetings we all had..."
As Balmond says, with a similar sense of weary mischief: "I suppose the story behind the story is that the competition seemed to go on for ever, round after round." The decision process lasted the best part of a year. "At one of these meetings, I said to Boris, 'Just choose someone, for God's sake. Otherwise nothing will get built.'"
Balmond and Kapoor not only had to convince Nicholas Serota and his aesthetic jury of the value of the design, but also the "legacy committee", who, full of Dome-shaped nightmares, didn't want a "white elephant, still less a red one". So there was insistence on maximum retail and restaurant areas. The elevator had risen up the outside of the tower in the original plan but that cost too much so they put it inside one of the legs. The walkways that spiral up to the viewing areas were originally open but health and safety insisted they be covered. Gaps between stair treads were also removed. "First, any space had to be too narrow for a mobile phone," Balmond recalls, "then it was a 50p piece."
After that, the Olympic delivery people, who were building the stadium site, "were instinctively against it because they had done a brilliant job of getting things ready on time and they didn't necessarily want this huge art piece in the middle of it all, potentially screwing all their plans up".
In order to minimise disruption, the Orbit was put up without scaffolding, and essentially by three men: one in a crane and two rising slowly on cherry pickers, bolting the ultimate Meccano together piece by piece. And, despite all the earlier compromises, both Balmond and Kapoor are immensely satisfied with the result, though they are tired of the question: "What is it?"
"The fact is that you will never get Orbit in 2D," Balmond says. "Its richness and its over-layers can look excessive to a certain kind of mind. But 3D and the scale are the only way to judge the piece. Even then, it's a tough aesthetic for some."
"The problem with models," Kapoor says, "is that you can't pretend scale. You have to experience it."
With this in mind, early on the morning after I had spoken to Balmond and Kapoor, I drove east to have a look at their creation. As I came down from the A12 flyover, the Orbit was rising into the gloomiest morning, like some strange helter-skelter, defiantly red against the black storm clouds (Boris Johnson's greatest regret is that it did not incorporate a slide to whizz down). The Olympic development has sought to make sense of the particularly chaotic bit of urban landscape that the tower presides over; it hasn't succeeded quite and the tangle of the Orbit seems, from all the vantage points I could find, to add to the confusion. The closer you get to it, the less sense you can make of it, beyond a smile-inducing kind of energy and movement. Which is, for better or worse, exactly what Kapoor and Balmond (and perhaps Boris and Mittal) had in mind.
You can see in it what you want, as Balmond observes. Mittal tells me that to him the Orbit "represents the essence of what the Olympics are about, pushing yourself to the limit... building the unbuildable..." (though he also likes the fact that the structure that bears his name is "a showcase for everything steel has to offer...") Pandering a little to his sponsors Balmond admits he did one "cheeky presentation" where he extrapolated the five Olympic rings from the swirl, "a bit of post-rationalisation, but they are there". More than that, though, he claims to see "a kind of semi-organised flux, which was a pretty good way of describing London in the 21st century, and all its energy frothing and bubbling round and around." That kind of thing.
Kapoor's worst nightmare, he said, would have been to create a logo or, worse, a national symbol in the manner of the Beijing Olympics. "I can clearly make sleek objects but this was not meant to be one of them." So what was it meant to be?
"It's a series of discrete events tied together," Kapoor says, which again is something approximating his idea of London. "We didn't want an icon, we wanted a kind of moving narrative. You start under this great domed canopy that sits above you, almost ominous darkness, sucking you in. Then you come up slowly to light. At the top, there is a room with two very large concave mirrors, bringing the sky in, as if you are in the lens room of a telescope. There are moments, walking round, when it looks a jumbled mess, and then at certain points you might see little harmonies and clarity. That is the kind of thing we wanted, not something that gave itself away all at once."
Kapoor and Balmond can talk about their creation in this way because they have had to. But they prefer simpler notions really. "It was just an attempt to answer the question: how do you go up if not in straight lines?" says Balmond, who plans to watch the 100m final from the top. Kapoor, meanwhile, sums up his sense of his creation with a final laugh. "Don't you think it's just amazing that they actually let us build this?" he asks, with undimmed incredulity. And the more you look at it, the more you agree.
The Orbit opens on 28 July, with tickets available to those who already have tickets to Olympic events, and after the Games to the general public. www.arcelormittalorbit.com
May 04 2012
Adrian Searle encounters … Luc Tuymans's Allo!
The Guardian art critic journeys deep into the heart of darkness with Tuymans's Gauguin-themed painting, displayed in A Room for London, the boat perched on the Queen Elizabeth Hall
Gallery: cast adrift in A Room for London
When did I last get butt-naked with a painting in the line of duty, I ask myself. There's just the two of us here: me, and a work by Luc Tuymans called, propitiously enough, Allo!
I'm off to bed. We're in my cabin on a boat called the Roi des Belges ("King of the Belgians"). Tuymans is Belgian too. To be honest, this is the only cabin. It's after midnight and the crew – let's call them "room service" – aren't about. The tide's up. Where's my cocoa?
I'm sailing through the night on the Roi de Belges, the riverboat shuddering and creaking on the roof of the Queen Elizabeth Hall on London's South Bank. Rain slaps at the windows and the wind howls. The Roi des Belges is named after the boat Joseph Conrad captained on his journey up the Congo river in 1890 – a trip that became the inspiration for his most famous work, Heart of Darkness, which itself inspired Francis Ford Coppola's 1979 Vietnam war movie Apocalypse Now. For one colonialist misadventure, read another.
The tub is also A Room for London, a collaboration between Artangel and Living Architecture, working with the artist Fiona Banner. I had been invited on board – following David Byrne, Jeremy Deller, actor Brian Cox (who read Orson Welles's original screenplay of Conrad's story to a live audience here a few weeks ago) and others. Creative types are invited to stay on the boat, to write and to perform, and the public can rent the joint for the night.
This is more nautical-themed hotel suite than boat. But it is shipshape, with high-thread-count bed linen. It isn't the first time I've set sail across the concrete Sargasso of the South Bank either; last time I floundered in a rowing boat on the flooded sculpture court of the Hayward Gallery, courtesy of the Austrian collective Gelitin in the Hayward's 2008 Psycho Buildings show.
Tuymans' painting, like me, is a stowaway. Allo! was painted especially for the Roi des Belges, and the artist has gone on to paint a whole series of related works since this one-off commission. Tuymans's art has frequently returned to the troubled history of Europe. He has painted the gas chamber, Hitler and his sidekicks, the rotten history of Belgium's colonial past and its relationship with Africa – in particular Belgium's role in the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the first post-independence prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in 1961. Tuymans filled the Belgian pavilion at the Venice Biennale in 2001 with a cycle of paintings related to this. Belgium officially apologised for its role in Lumumba's assassination a year later.
Invited to think about Heart of Darkness, and in particular a passage in which the monstrous and haunted ivory-trader Mr Kurtz (the Marlon Brando part in Apocalypse Now) speaks with admiration about two paintings he has made, Tuymans took a different tack. He alighted instead on the 1942 movie version of a novel by Somerset Maugham, The Moon and Sixpence, first published in 1919. Tuymans's painting also involves a bar in Antwerp, a parrot, and the story of Gauguin, retold at several removes.
Instead of Gauguin, who travelled to Polynesia in search of an idealised tropical paradise, Tuymans based his painting on the last scene in the movie version of Maugham's book, which recasts Gauguin as an English painter, Charles Strickland (played by George Sanders), who leaves his family and ends up dying of leprosy in the jungle, where he has covered the walls of his hut with giant paintings before going blind. These, only glimpsed at the end of the film, are filled with images of a Gauguin-like paradise.
Propped against the shutters in my cabin, Tuymans's painting leans among piles of books, which come supplied with the room. I sit and drink with it; dance around the cabin in front of it and get undressed with it. When I'm not scoping out the hotel windows of the Savoy on the far bank of the river with my binoculars, I look at it from the comfort of my bed. This is the life. I have only the painting and the weather to distract me.
Handled with Tuymans's characteristic short stabs and paddled-about marks, the painting, which isn't very big, is an accumulation of touches which creep up to and shrink away from a schematic pencil under-drawing. The more you look, the more variety there is. Approaching his subject, Tuymans keeps a distance, like someone visiting the sick, hovering near the door in case they might catch something.
His paintings have always had a feel of being infected by something – mostly, Tuymans's own sensibilities and lapses of concentration. The smaller his paintings are, the more concentrated the image, reduced to a kind of essence. Getting up really close, my face inches away from the canvas, I sniff the painting in the dark.
It's a fantasy to imagine that this sort of intimacy comes close to the artist's own relationship to the work, even though it is very different from the theatrical encounter with a spotlit painting on a gallery wall, with a gallery attendant present to stop anyone behaving inappropriately. What's appropriate, anyway, in your nightshirt?
I glance at the painting from under the duvet, the boat creaking and groaning in the wind. I give it a sideways look at 4am. I peer at it balefully at dawn and over breakfast. How long can you really look at a painting? And the room itself – cabin, barque or Premier Inn deluxe – is beginning to get to me.
Who knows what the writers invited to stay here spend their hours thinking about? London. Old Mother Thames. Conrad. History. When the shops will open. Jeanette Winterson has stayed, Juan Gabriel Vásquez and Sven Lindqvist. Michael Ondaatje is coming later this summer. I dance about the cabin, waving my arse first in the direction of the Houses of Parliament, then the London Eye, then Cleopatra's Needle and finally St Paul's. If anyone were to cross Waterloo Bridge and look up, they'd be horrified. But the few pedestrians around are heads down under their brollies.
I don't quite know what came over me. Speaking to Tuymans before this trip to nowhere, he told me: "Gauguin was a typical stockbroker. He'd fuck anything that moves." Tuymans said his painting is his joke on modernism, dealing with fake ideas of the new, the exotic and the colourful. The title relates to a bar in Antwerp, near the red light district, where the owner keeps a parrot that cries Allo! when anyone comes in for a drink and a bit of tapas. The painting's colours – a coral red, blue, dirty yellows – are based on the parrot, that living bit of exoticism in the Spanish-themed bar.
He morphs this into his own painting, otherwise based entirely on a movie still from the final scene of The Moon and Sixpence, when the Doctor – a man with a heavy German accent who has gone in search of Strickland – discovers his hut and the fantastical paintings it contains. Seconds later, the painter's native wife sets fire to the hut.
Everything emerges from a darkness that is not quite black, except for a ghostly shadow that seems to be Tuymans's own. More a weight or looming coalescence of darkness than a recognisable silhouette, it is a blot on the image. This, Tuymans says, "is probably where Kurtz comes in". Oh that Tuymans, he's such a tease. His art always depends on the power of suggestion. Most art does. If Tuymans says a painting is about some evil little moment, you are briefed and ready to see it, especially at 3am. It's a wonder I didn't jump ship there and then and get the night bus home. If Tuymans is Kurtz, then I'm the one in search of him.
The vegetation, the darkness, the woozy patterning and the odd shapes between the figures in what Tuymans calls the "mock-Gauguin" backdrop he is repainting from the movie still are as important as the naked figures that swoon across it. The Doctor walks in front of this backdrop, turning away from us. The shadows in the folds of his clothing threaten to climb all over him, and the way the light catches the back of his blue suit is as much a thin, slithery sound as it is a mass of flickering contours. The naked women beyond look stark and overlit, bleached out by movie lights. This is moments before the hut goes up in an enormous conflagration, but the whole painting looks on the verge of eclipse.
What's background? What's foreground? Allo! is a painting of a movie still, and also a painting of a painting that was made only to be seen in a movie. And Allo! was made for a room that is also a mock-up of Conrad's riverboat. All this is hard to get your head around in the middle of the night, looking for Kurtz on a South Bank rooftop. Allo! is a weird thing to spend the night with. But then, so am I. The horror! The horror!
April 28 2012
William Klein: 'I was an outsider, following my instincts'
The great photographer, film-maker and iconoclast reflects on a life spent in pursuit of his personal vision
'People were terrified of him, as though it was the lion's den," the Vogue model, Dorothy McGowan, said of working with William Klein back in the 60s. At 84, Klein has mellowed somewhat, though he still tells it like it is. "People ask me why I never went back home to America," he says, when I meet him in his apartment overlooking the Luxembourg Gardens in Paris. "Have you seen those crazy right-wing assholes who want to be president? The place is so reactionary it just makes me angry. If I lived there, you wouldn't be interviewing me, I'd be dead from a heart attack by now."
Wearing patched, faded denim jeans and a baggy jumper, his mane of white hair thinner now, Klein moves slowly and unsteadily around his spacious but cluttered living room, still stiff from a recent knee operation. His eyes are bright and mischievous, though, and there are glimpses of the confident-to-the-point-of-arrogant young man who ranks as one of the great iconoclasts of postwar American photography. "I'm an outsider, I guess," he says of his groundbreaking early work. "I wasn't part of any movement. I was working alone, following my instinct. I had no real respect for good technique because I didn't know what it was. I was self-taught, so that stuff didn't matter to me."
Having fallen in and out of fashion with galleries over the years, Klein is finally having a moment. Last week, he was given the outstanding contribution to photography award at the 2012 Sony World Photography Awards – work by award winners, including Klein, is on show at Somerset House. In October, Tate Modern will devote a big retrospective show to Klein and the Japanese photographer, Daido Moriyama, exploring the often similar ways in which they each depicted New York and Tokyo. "I think it's kind of stupid," he says, shrugging, when I mention how intriguing the show sounds, "but a lot of things happen without me really being involved. There's a connection all right, but…" He trails off and shrugs some more. One senses that he would have preferred a big London show all to himself, but does not have the energy to kick up the kind of fuss about it that his younger self would have done.
Klein burst on to the photography scene in the early 60s with a series of books about cities – New York, Rome, Moscow and Tokyo – filled with raw, grainy, black-and-white photographs that caught the energy and movement of modern urban life with scant regard for traditional composition. The first, Life Is Good & Good For You in New York (1956), once it got published, earned him the opprobrium of both critics and other photographers alike. "They just didn't get it," he says. "They thought it should not have been published, that it was vulgar and somehow sinned against the great sacred tradition of the photography book. They were annoyed for sure."
The book has long since been recognised as a classic that, alongside Robert Frank's The Americans, broke with the tradition of brilliant but understated observation, as exemplified by Henri Cartier-Bresson. Then, in 1965, just as suddenly as he had picked up his stills camera, Klein discarded it to become a film-maker, making fictional satires of the fashion industry (Who Are You, Polly Maggoo?) and the America right (Mr Freedom) and documentaries on the likes of Muhammad Ali and Little Richard. He did not return to photography until the early 80s. "I thought I had done what I could with it. I wanted a new challenge and film was certainly that, mainly because they never gave me big budgets." He shakes his head as if still baffled by the very notion. "I guess I wasn't really Hollywood material," he says finally, grinning his mischievous big grin.
Instead, he has always been an artist who follows his instincts, whatever the costs. Apart from a stint in New York from the mid-50s to the mid-60s, Klein has lived in Paris since 1948, when, having served in the US army in Germany and France, he received an ex-serviceman's grant to study art at the Sorbonne. On his first day in the city, the Red Cross gave him a bicycle and a map. As he was cycling around, "trying to find all these places I'd read about in books", he saw a woman who literally stopped him in his tracks. "She was the most beautiful girl I ever saw," he says, his eyes lighting up, "I just had to go over and chat her up. She was all smiles, so I asked her out." She said yes, and they were together for more than 50 years. His wife, Jeanne Florin, died in 2005. "Everything I did, I did for her," he told a recent interviewer.
Despite his street-tough exterior, a residue of childhood as a Jewish boy marooned in a tough Irish neighbourhood in Brooklyn, he is, at heart, a romantic, something his long self-exile has deepened. At the Sorbonne, one of his tutors was Fernand Léger, a mischief maker who was at war with the bourgeois values of the university. "He told us not to worry about galleries and collectors, but to go out onto the city streets and paint murals." It was while photographing some interior murals he had made on movable panels – "big hard-edged geometrical paintings" – that Klein had the epiphany that made him a photographer.
"Somebody turned one of the panels when I was shooting on a long exposure, and when I developed the photographs this already abstract shape was a beautiful blur. That blur was a revelation. I thought, here's a way of talking about life. Through photography, you can really talk about what you see around you. That's what I've been doing ever since."
Klein's big commercial break came when Alexander Liberman, the legendary art director of Vogue, saw a small exhibition of his early abstract photographs in 1955 and offered him a job. "Those guys spotted raw talent and encouraged it. They were all Russian Jews in exile: Liberman at Vogue, Alexey Brodovitch at Harper's Bazaar. They had a knowledge of avant garde art and design that the Americans didn't have."
Klein returned to New York and worked for Vogue for 10 years as a fashion photographer, shooting models in the hustle and bustle of the New York streets. It was the first glimpse of his iconoclastic style, photographs full of blur, movement and grainy high contrast. He used long-focus and wide-angle lenses as well as flash, less interested in the clothes than the atmosphere. "They were probably the most unpopular fashion photographs Vogue ever published," he says proudly.
Sensing his restlessness, Liberman offered to finance a bigger, more ambitious project. Klein told him that he wanted to shoot New York in a radical new way, maybe even try to make a kind of impressionistic diary of his wanderings on the streets. Vogue financed the project and provided him with a dark room and a budget for materials. The New York book grew out of this experiment. Klein was, he said later, "in search of the rawest snapshot, the zero degree of photography". He also described himself as "a make-believe ethnographer, treating New Yorkers like an explorer would treat Zulus".
Given his approach, was he surprised that people were shocked by Life is Good & Good For You in New York, which was first published in France in 1956? "Not really. I was showing what they didn't want to see. I was reacting against this romantic idea of New York – the Big Apple and all that. See, for me, New York was like a big shithouse." I look surprised and he grins widely. "Of course, New Yorkers think it's the centre of the earth. My father was like that. He used to go on about how it was the greatest city on earth, the land of opportunity, even though he had a lousy job and never really made it. [His father's clothing business went bust in the financial crash of 1928.] He was like the guy in Death of a Salesman, but all he could talk about was the land of opportunity. I didn't buy that crap."
Klein's New York book did not find an American publisher for several decades. Between 1960 and 1964, he published three others, Rome, Moscow and Tokyo. Then, bored and restless once more, he started to make films.
Klein had worked as an assistant on Federico Fellini's Nights of Cabiria in 1956 – "I just called his hotel and said, 'I want to speak to Mr Fellini' and they put me through" – and as artistic consultant on Louis Malle's Zazie dans le Metro in 1960. Inspired by the French new wave and the films of Chris Marker, he set about biting the hand that had fed him, making Who Are You, Polly Maggoo?, a wacky satire on the fashion industry. It starred his favourite model, Dorothy McGowan. "She was a tough little Irish girl from Brooklyn. Learned French and then learned her lines. She was like Alice in Wonderland in Paris, they loved her, but she wanted Hollywood." What happened to her, I ask. "She got married to a prick," he says, grimacing.
He went on to make some great documentaries, including Muhammad Ali: the Greatest (1969), Eldridge Cleaver: Black Panther (1970) and The Little Richard Story (1980). Was he, I ask, a radical? "I was left wing, for sure." he says "But I had no agenda with the films. I took it as it came. I was drawn to great characters and those guys fitted the bill, though Little Richard was a little bit different."
I put it to him that the film should really have been called In Search of Little Richard.
"Yeah, he disappeared on us. He was crazy like that. We organised a Little Richard day in his home town, Macon, Georgia, and he didn't show up." Did you fall out? "No. I got on well with him, but he was managed by these white hustlers who were like a mafia. They wanted him to endorse a bible for black people. They said: 'We're gonna organise your big comeback, but no crazy hairdos and no wild costumes.' The thing is, without that stuff, there was no Little Richard. He knew that, so he just disappeared. It was a crazy scene, but I had fun." This, you suspect, is the real story of William Klein's life: work as fun, with a little bit of confrontation thrown in.
He returned to photography in the 80s, when he was finally recognised as a pioneer – his early books influencing generations of photographers in Europe, America and especially Japan. He has since been garlanded with awards, and is also recognised as an iconoclast of graphic design, mainly through the use of the bold red and black swipes of paint he often applied to his enlarged contact sheets. Alongside his Tate Modern show in October, his London gallery, HackelBury, will host an exhibition of his art, William Klein: Paintings Etc. "It's a lot of stuff that no one has seen before," he says. "So, who knows, I might surprise people all over again."
April 27 2012
Art weekly
Art and science meet in Leonardo's inspiring vision, while etchings reveal Picasso's inner world – all in your favourite weekly art dispatch
Exhibition of the week: Leonardo da Vinci: Anatomist
A human foetus nestles in a womb that is like the opened skin of a horsechestnut. Drawn with exquisite tenderness and humanity, this homunculus expresses the wonder and fragility of who we are. I find it more moving than a Rembrandt portrait. In a sense, Leonardo da Vinci's anatomical drawings resemble the works of a benign alien, visiting earth and recording its dissected inhabitants with an eye godlike in its capacity to stand back and analyse, yet infinitely sensitive and loving. The delicacy with which he draws veins or nerves like webs of gossamer is just mind-boggling. To look at one of the drawings in this profound exhibition is to enter deep into the very fabric of being. To see them gathered like this is to run short of superlatives, to gawp in sheer amazement at a genius so inexplicable.
Leonardo da Vinci's anatomical drawings are among the most poignant works of art in the history of humanity. I imagine a remote future, in a distant galaxy, where the hyperevolved descendants of our species clutch one of these drawings in their jellied tentacles to remember us by.
The Queen has opened her jewel case to reveal these incredible drawings. They are given a full, spacious, and illuminating display in this terrific exhibition. Curator Martin Clayton argues that Leonardo was a full-time scientist, and a painter second, by the time he made these. The captions and supporting materials – including modern anatomical models for comparison – show how precisely and originally Leonardo explored human anatomy through dissection, in a way that was totally unprecedented. Surgeons still refer to his drawings. He made superb observations, discovering, for instance, how a heart valve works.
The exhibition argues that Leonardo's discovery of the heart valve brought his research to a tragic end: he could not make the leap from understanding valves to recognising that blood circulates. That was impossible given his medieval starting point. It would take more than a century of medical research to get to the idea of circulation. By the time Leonardo's drawings became famous, long after his death, they had been left behind by science. Yet they are the greatest images that exist of the scientific urge itself: of human curiosity. See these, and take your children – if you have them – to see them. Art is science and science is art in Leonardo's inspiring vision.
• Queen's Gallery, Buckhingham Palace, London SW1, until 7 October
Other exhibitions this week
Picasso: The Vollard Suite
A tremendous series of etchings that gives a glimpse of Picasso's innermost imagination.
• British Museum, London WC1, from 3 May
Bauhaus: Art as Life
The utopian art and design movement of Weimar Germany still fascinates and still points to new ideas.
• Barbican, London EC2, from 3 May
Tomb Treasures from Han China
More than 350 ancient artefacts including works in gold and jade.
• Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, from 5 May
Mika Rottenberg
Surreal and comic performance videos from New York.
• Nottingham Contemporary, from 5 May
Masterpiece of the week
Giambologna's Samson Slaying a Philistine (1560-2) in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London SW7.
When Leonardo da Vinci drew his anatomical studies the body was at the centre of art. The Renaissance cult of the nude in action gave rise to Leonardo's investigations beneath the skin. This great work by Giambologna is a powerful expression of that Renaissance art of the physical.
Image of the week
Five things we've learned this week
It's all about subversive DIY at the Milan furniture fair
Jeremy Hunt has a print by Grayson Perry on his wall
Lastly
Sign up for our Art Weekly newsletter
April 26 2012
Artist of the week 187: Alexandre Singh
This New York-based Englishman spins slippery yarns weaving fact and fiction, textbook lore, mythologies and flights of fancy
Tales grow very tall in Alexandre Singh's writing, talks, plays and installations. Take his deceptively dry-sounding Assembly Instructions lecture series, where things rarely fit together in the way you'd expect. Here, free association might spin the floorplan of Ikea into a map of all human knowledge, or posit the leads in Sex and the City as present-day incarnations of Romantic heroes.
Singh's analogies always make a strange kind of sense, though. His 1,000-page tome, The Marque of the Third Stripe, for instance, is a typically elaborate fantasy about Adidas man – Adi Dassler – creating his iconic shoe with the dark arts. Yet it makes an astute observation about the link between current commodity fetishism and age-old magic totems.
This young, New York-based Englishman's slippery yarns seem the perfect medium for the Wiki age, weaving fact and fiction, textbook lore, mythologies and flights of fantasy. But Singh doesn't want us to forget that stories have always been shifty. His long talks, done from memory, hark back to the ancient Homeric tradition where poets would recount epics, passing the tales – which would be reshaped by each new teller's elisions and embellishments – from generation to generation.
Staying alert to double-meaning and duplicity underscores The Dialogues of the Objects, Singh's pre-recorded short plays, which are currently on show in London. Here, objects lit-up on pedestals discuss the meaning of things in voiceover. This includes two packs of cigarettes, a father and son, who find their perfectly planned universe rocked by an ashtray's revelation that the lights in the sky where cigarettes go to die are in fact halogen lamps.
However far-fetched, Singh's stories all create their own convincing logic, illustrating that uniquely human ability to find connections and rationalise just about anything. As a box of matches having its soul weighed at the gates of the underworld asks: "Who's to say in this day and age when up is down and wrong is right? […] Now everything's become, well, so relative."
Why we like him: For his installation The School for Objects Criticised, inspired by Moliere's similarly-titled riposte to his critics, The School for Wives Criticised. Here, objects including a feminist toaster and a neo-post-Marxist bleach bottle have a heated dinner party debate about an art show they've just seen, which bears a striking similarity to the work we're looking at.
Impossible is nothing: Singh's Adidas-themed works were inspired by his love for the brand. It's the only shoe he ever wears.
Where can I see him? In Weighted Words, Zabludowicz Collection, London until 10 June.
April 25 2012
Jeremy Hunt: Can't stop, off to Swan Lake
What has the Leveson inquiry revealed about Jeremy Hunt's taste in art? Did he get to Take That? And how big an N-Dubz fan is he?
On Monday, culture secretary Jeremy Hunt tweeted "With mirth and laughter let old wrinkles come (Gratiano, Merchant of Venice)", a celebratory quote for Shakespeare's birthday. On Tuesday, "Is this a dagger which I see before me?" might have seemed more appropriate.
Perhaps surprisingly, only two of the emails released by the Leveson inquiry this week indicated that Hunt had an interest in the arts beyond the Murdochs' BSkyB takeover bid. One, from News Corp's public affairs executive Frédéric Michel to James Murdoch, reported grabbing the culture secretary "before he went in to see Swan Lake" to discuss the bid. In another, sent later that year, Michel plaintively asked Hunt's special adviser Adam Smith whether Ed Vaizey's refusal to meet News Corp while the deal was going through meant that "you and Jeremy will not be coming to Take That on 4 July".
Between them, Take That and Swan Lake suggest that Hunt has fairly mainstream tastes – and in fact, according to the Royal Opera House, the ballet was an unusual outing; a spokesperson confirms that Hunt is not a regular. Did he or did he not see Take That at Wembley on 4 July? The band's press officer says he has no idea: "He didn't get tickets from us."
In the five years since he was made shadow culture secretary, and then culture secretary when the Tories won the 2010 election, Hunt has given the impression of someone who enjoys the arts without having a deep knowledge of – or passion for – them. To be fair, though, he seems more culturally immersed than his opposite number Harriet Harman, or the shadow culture minister Dan Jarvis.
At a meeting of the rightwing culture thinktank New Culture Forum last year, Hunt said his major policy for the arts was to encourage philanthropy. But this approach ran into trouble earlier this month, after tax relief for philanthropists was restricted in the budget. Nicholas Hytner, director of the National Theatre, said the Treasury had "completely pulled the carpet from under" Hunt's attempts to encourage rich donors.
The culture secretary appears to have an interest in pop music beyond Take That: a journalist who interviewed him for the London Evening Standard last summer (shortly before the BSkyB bid failed) reported seeing a biography of N-Dubz on Hunt's desk. "Well, Tulisa is going to be gracing our screens, isn't she?" he said, of the N-Dubz member who went on to be an X Factor judge. In 2010, he revealed his classical music preferences to Guardian arts correspondent Charlotte Higgins: "I am still early Schoenberg rather than late." He also enjoys Tchaikovsky, attending Opera North's production of The Queen of Spades and ENO's Eugene Onegin, directed by Deborah Warner.
Russian literature seems to resonate with Hunt, too. He admires the poets Osip Mandelstam and Anna Akhmatova, who were dissidents during the Soviet regime, and quoted a poem by Mandelstam in his first speech as culture secretary. Then there's his passion for Japanese culture; Hunt speaks the language after teaching English there.
Like other Tories, Hunt has spoken warmly about their star signing, Tracey Emin. He attended the private view of her retrospective at the Hayward Gallery, and in his first keynote speech on the arts, cited her grafitto "I need art like I need God", sprayed on the sea wall at Margate. "Sometimes graffiti – however objectionable and anti-social it is in principle – can be very thought-provoking," he noted.
But it was culture minister Ed Vaizey rather than Hunt who schmoozed Emin. In 2009, the Guido Fawkes website reported that the pair enjoyed a three-hour lunch at Scott's of Mayfair, and she has also dined with David Cameron at No 10. All this paid off when Emin declared her support for the Tories last year: "At the moment there is a government that actually likes the arts, appreciates the arts and appreciates culture."
Hunt is an admirer of Grayson Perry, too. He went to Perry's recent exhibition at the British Museum, and has a print by the artist on his office wall – alongside a photograph of him meeting Arnold Schwarzenegger in Los Angeles. He picked another contemporary work from the Government Art Collection for his office in 2010: a Mark Wallinger painting from a 1990s series called Brown's (42 sets of silks worn by jockeys riding for racehorse owners called Brown). Alerted to this by the Guardian, the Labour-supporting Wallinger groaned: "That is a shocker. As an artist, it's very hard to vet your patrons – they generally drift rightwards as they get older anyway."
Hunt's trips to the theatre point to a taste divided between blockbusters and political theatre. He saw David Hare's indictment of New Labour, Gethsemane, as well as Lucy Prebble's Enron; the latter might have proved an uncomfortable night for a Tory, though Hunt told New Culture Forum he considered it a prime example of why theatre should keep its subsidy. He has also seen hits such as War Horse, at the National Theatre, and Jez Butterworth's Jerusalem, which he attended on its West End transfer in the run-up to the election.
Hunt's most recent direct intervention in the arts world was his decision to fire Liz Forgan as chair of Arts Council England, saying that a new appointment was necessary in order to encourage greater private giving to the arts, and to help the arts sector "make the most of technological changes". John Tusa, Veronica Wadley and Peter Bazalgette have been mooted as possible successors. Whether Hunt will still be around to appoint one of them seems doubtful – unless, in the words of Take That, everything changes.
• Correction 26/4/12. The article suggested that Hunt's opposite number is Labour's Dan Jarvis. In fact Jarvis is shadow culture minister. The shadow culture secretary is Harriet Harman. This has been corrected.
Photographer Natacha Merritt's best shot
'This is a spider's erection. I boiled it in acid then added extra lighting for a romantic feel'
Spiders have fantastic genitals, even in their non-extended state. Few people have ever seen an erect spider penis, though. Actually, their penises come in pairs called pedipalps: the males ejaculate onto a silk web and suck up the sperm with their pedipalps. Then they try to mate with females, a complex process that often involves a sort of high-speed dance since the females are usually twice their size – at least – and very likely to attempt to eat them.
It's a great mystery what turns a spider on, but I was lucky enough to have an arachnologist friend at the California Academy of Sciences who knew the secret: boil them in a bath of lactic acid, cool and then wait. We carried out this elaborate process, which took about an hour, on a large dead wolf spider; it would be difficult to do anything similar with a live spider, not least because you couldn't pin it down to hold its pedipalps in the desired position for a shot.
After its 3mm pedipalps had expanded, you could see all these big bulbs and structures. Scientists still don't know what some of them do. When it had stabilised, I took 60 images through a microscope at 50x magnification with a Leica camera attached. Then, on a computer, I merged them all into a composite shot: if you just saw one layer of the image, only a little hair would be in focus.
I'm sure pictures of spider erections have appeared before in scientific journals, but I added extra lighting to give the shot a romantic feel. I think evolution is one of the most beautiful art forms. Since biologists wouldn't shoot spiders in this way, it's probably the first ever artistic shot of a spider erection..
CV
Born: San Francisco, 1977
Studied: Biology at San Francisco State University. Self taught photography.
Influences: Otto DixEO Wilsonand William Eberhard
High point: "Seeing my science and art merge into something greater."
Low point: "My last semester of physics. I had to finish it to do the classes I wanted. It was very difficult."
Top tip: "The more you know about your subject, the more beauty there is to capture."
• Sexual Selection by Natacha Merritt is published on 7 May
April 24 2012
The new Scottish colourists
Charles Rennie Mackintosh spattered with paint, a diamond forged in the UK riots, and a bouncy Stonehenge: Adrian Searle has a ball in Glasgow
'Make art so bad they turn away from it, turn back to life," wrote the US artist Paul Thek in one of his notebooks. There's a lesson there, but it's a strategy that could easily backfire. Thek's sketchbooks and drawings fill vitrine after vitrine at the Modern Institute in Glasgow. You could spend all day poring over them, with their landscape watercolours and drawings, bits of bodies, Christ as an erect penis, pages of poems, thoughts on art and religious sentiment. Thek died in 1988. Having been a leading – if not cult – figure in US art in the 1960s and 70s, he ended up disillusioned and marginalised, but clung on to art even as Aids claimed him. His posthumous career is only now gaining ground.
This quiet, essentially archival show is the most surprising thing in this year's Glasgow Festival of Visual Art, though Wolfgang Tillmans at the Common Guild is captivating, too. Displayed in casually elegant arrays, in odd corners and on the stairs, Tillmans' images take us from total photographic abstraction to a tiny black-and-white image of bare trees, from a colourful closeup of a car's headlight to a portrait of an onion.
Tillmans' sense of display – the jumps in scale, the shifts in subject and focus in works that are hung high and low across the walls – echoes our own drifts in concentration. Richard Wright's drawings on paper at Kelvingrove art gallery attempt something similar. There are even some up by the air vents and over the doorways. Architectural fantasies and echoes of Islamic calligraphy, mad whorls and symmetry buried in chaos: Wright makes you wonder how he works with such feverish concentration for so many hours, days, months. Rhythm and pace hold it all together.
The same is true of a couple of shows at the Centre for Contemporary Arts. Rob Kennedy is as much curator as artist, and has insinuated weird, enigmatic films into the workshop areas and storage spaces of the CCA, as well as in the main galleries. He's even balanced monitors in piles of rubbish amassed from the dismantled walls of previous shows. Amid it all hangs a dark Walter Sickert painting from 1907, called Jack the Ripper's Bedroom. Sickert's landlady suggested the ripper might have been her previous tenant. It is a haunted, evil painting, bad enough to make you want to turn back to life, as Thek suggested – or at least go outdoors.
What I like best at the CCA is the small installation upstairs by Charlotte Prodger. A big 1970s boom-box plays Prodger's descriptions of visiting a gay club in Berlin, her thoughts on dance music (she's also a DJ), space, light and being in the world. Thek might have approved. On monitors, little films ripped from YouTube show a young man carefully cutting up trainers and swapping another pair with his boyfriend. It's all very queer: a space of dangerous liaisons, splices and cuts. It has something to do with Prodger's love-hate relationship with structuralist film-making, she says, which provides a sort of bass line to her art.
On a makeshift platform in the Mackintosh Gallery at the Glasgow School of Art, sculptures of Charles Rennie Mackintosh and his wife Margaret MacDonald, made by Dutch artist Folkert de Jong, look down on the school's plastercasts of Michelangelo's slaves, and at other De Jong sculptures. These include William of Orange and a woman dragged from the Seine in the 19th century and brought back to life.
De Jong's figures often have weird coloured splats on their faces, while their clothes are spattered with drools of quick-setting resin. The casts of Michelangelo's slaves, and of the ancient Nike of Samothrace, loom over many of his Styrofoam people with their fluorescing, noxious colour. The festive and the grim, the lively and the dead – all have their place.
At Tramway, California artist Kelly Nipper's Black Forest has live, masked dancers going through movements devised by modern dance pioneer Rudolf Laban. You want to take off your shoes and join in, or take a nap. It's a nice space to inhabit, with huge curtains and patterns everywhere. Nothing much happens. Then again, I didn't really want it to.
Up at the new Glasgow Sculpture Studios, Mexican artist Teresa Margolles talks about the murders (especially of women), drug wars and corruption that blight the city of Juárez, across the border from El Paso in Texas. Her best work is a slide show presenting photographs of Juárez in the 1970s and 80s: family events, wrestling matches, political rallies, public and private celebration. The images parade across the wall, without commentary.
Less successful is her attempt to comment on last year's UK riots. Collecting burnt detritus from the aftermath, Margolles had it turned into a diamond. It sits in a wall-mounted box. The words "A Diamond for the Crown" are carved on another wall. What links the riots with the horrors of Juárez? It's capitalism, dummy. To reinforce the point, Margolles has covered a billboard with filthy bits of sacking, stained from Mexican crime scenes. Apparently, they're soiled with blood and shit, death and dust. There is no doubting her seriousness; the obviousness of much of her work is deliberate, a punch in the gut.
Karla Black, at the Gallery of Modern Art, does her best to entertain. Swags of cellophane festoon the ground floor hall, with its high windows, ornate ceiling and Corinthian columns. This is lightness versus gravity, a foil to the building's pompous decoration. As a centrepiece, Black has installed an enormous slab of compressed sawdust, running the length of the gallery. It's like a giant mattress, or the world's biggest tiramisu, with its strata of different-coloured sawdust. There are lots of finnicky details and the magic drains away as you look. The cellophane swags would have been enough.
Time to turn back to life. Dozens of schoolkids are careening about on Jeremy Deller's full-scale inflatable Stonehenge on Glasgow Green, bouncing into and around the stones. Deller's work is a cheery take on heritage and the Cultural Olympiad. Celebratory, interactive and possibly even educational, it ticks all the public art boxes. On the other hand, Deller might be pointing out that our greatest and most solemn monuments have all become sites of entertainment nowadays. Hooray for our increasingly infantilised culture. No wonder his work is called Sacrilege, even if only druids will take offence. This is not bad art; it's life.
April 23 2012
The Cutty Sark: hoist the main sail!
The Cutty Sark has survived storms, pounding oceans and even fire. As the restored tea clipper reopens in Greenwich, Steve Rose explores our new appetite for nautical museums
We do love our nautical history. Just as it surrounds our isles, so the sea surrounds the myths of who and what made Britain great, from Horatio Nelson to James Cook, from Francis Drake to Charles Darwin – and, most recently, the Titanic. Never mind that this last was a catastrophe: its centenary has been celebrated like a jubilee. Perhaps we need to keep telling ourselves these seafaring stories now that Britain is not so great, and our shipbuilding industry is all but extinct.
But if we can't build new ships any more, we can at least build museums to old ones. And a whole fleet of them has been launched of late. There's Belfast's flashy Titanic visitor attraction, whose design seems a fusion of the vessel and the iceberg; and Southampton's SeaCity Museum, which plays up its own Titanic connection (500 households in the city lost a family member). Now, in their wake, comes the rejuvenated Cutty Sark in Greenwich, which opens to the public on Thursday. Meanwhile, the Mary Rose Museum is due to open in Portsmouth next year; this is dedicated to Henry VIII's flagship, raised from the Solent in 1982, having sunk nearly half a millennium earlier.
The Cutty Sark's prolonged overhaul took on a different complexion after the museum caught fire in May 2007. TV images of flames engulfing the clipper prompted a sympathetic bout of public and private wallet-emptying, meeting the restoration's final cost of £50m, twice the original estimate. Pirates of The Caribbean producer Jerry Bruckheimer even chipped in by lending some of his photos for an exhibition to raise funds. Mercifully, there was enough of the Cutty Sark left to restore, most of the ship having been dismantled and taken away at the time of the blaze.
And here it is, back in Greenwich at last, tall masts soaring over the National Maritime Museum, bowsprit pointed across the Thames towards Canary Wharf. Except now the 143-year-old ship appears to be raised up on a skirt of glass, as if floating on its own viscous little ocean. As generations of school-trippers doubtless remember, the tea clipper's rich history was previously told inside the vessel itself; with the ship three metres up in the air, the vessel is now integrated into a larger museum that extends below the glass and underneath its hull.
This strategy has irked some purists – of which, this being British maritime history, there are many, from the Duke of Edinburgh downwards. A ship belongs in water, many say, or at least a ship should be allowed to remain a ship. Others feared raising the craft would damage its structure (among them architect Julian Harrap, who designed a similar set-in-glass home for Isambard Kingdom Brunel's SS Great Britain in Bristol). But there the glass was flat and at street level, giving a suggestion of water. The Cutty Sark's glass bubble doesn't particularly evoke water, nor is it transparent enough to make the lower half of the hull easily visible to outsiders. If anything, it gives the impression that the ship has been converted into a hovercraft. It's no longer a ship, nor quite a building, but some bizarre hybrid of the two.
There was little alternative, say Grimshaw Architects, best known for Cornwall's Eden Project. The Cutty Sark was too corroded to be seaworthy; having been out of the water for so long, its hull was out of shape and the structure unsafe. In addition, explains Nicholas Grimshaw, to justify the expensive restoration, the new Cutty Sark needed a viable business plan. "The critical thing, as we learned with Eden, is not so much getting together the capital, it's getting the thing to run. If it can't sustain itself, you've had it. However beautifully we did it up, we had to extend its reach in some way and make a commercial success of it."
School trips weren't going to cover it. In today's climate, you need to host corporate events and the like to keep such an attraction going, so the new space created beneath the ship doubles as a venue for hire. Fears over the ship itself have at least been assuaged. Its 12 pairs of supporting steel arms link with a new steel skeleton on the inside, which takes the load off the original hull.
Once you get inside, the romance and discomfort of 19th-century seafaring are palpable. One is led through the hold, up along the low-ceilinged middle deck and out on to the top, with artefacts and displays telling the ship's story along the way – bringing tea from China and wool from Australia, being sold to a Portuguese company, then rescued and brought home in the 1920s. Ship and building are intertwined, through a joint effort of painstaking traditional craftsmanship and hi-tech modern design; but the old and new are clearly distinguishable. The steel is painted dark grey, while the original, corroded ironwork is white. Other new additions, such as a disabled lift and fire escapes, are expressed in steel and glass, in contrast to the original's warm brass and wood.
What's been lost at street level has arguably been gained beneath: a dramatic, light-filled hall with stepped sides and a ship poking through its glass roof. It might be just what the corporate-function market is after, but it's also a powerful and memorable space for the visitor. There's something bracing about standing "underwater" and looking up along the ship's copper-lined keel. Suddenly, you can appreciate just how sleek and streamlined a vessel she is. "It was sort of the Concorde of its age," says Grimshaw. "It was an amazingly fast ship."
Grimshaw is no stranger to fusing naval and conventional architecture. The masts and riggings of tall ships – seen as lightweight, economical supports – were key to the 1980s British high-tech movement in which Grimshaw made his name, along with Norman Foster and Richard Rogers. One of Grimshaw's first buildings was Oxford Ice Rink, whose roof was held up by distinctly nautical-looking masts. He remembers using a slide of the Cutty Sark in talks to illustrate the glazing structure of his celebrated Financial Times printworks, whose columns were created by mast-makers; the screens of his British Pavilion for the 1992 Seville Expo were the work of sail-makers. It's little surprise to learn Grimshaw is a keen sailor.
This crossover is a reminder that Britannia's historic ruling of the waves is also a story of design. The imperative for seafaring supremacy fuelled domestic innovation; it could even have kickstarted the Industrial Revolution. The copper lining of the Cutty Sark's hull, for example, was a military secret that gave Britain the edge: such boats resisted barnacles, making them faster than their rivals. To maintain the secret, though, only British copper could be used, driving the domestic mining industry. "Technical development," says Grimshaw, "was very important for staying on top – for going faster, for holding more."
Ironically, it was a design flaw that immortalised the Mary Rose. The general consensus is that Henry VIII's flagship sank in 1545 after taking in water through her open gun ports: modifications and overloading had made the ship unstable and a strong wind tipped her over. While the Cutty Sark marks the close of Britain's maritime golden age, the Mary Rose represents its beginnings, when Henry VIII first began to build a serious Royal Navy. The 18,000 artefacts retrieved from the ship also represent an unparalleled time capsule of Tudor life, from nit combs to longbows to the skeleton of the ship's dog.
Only half the hull of the Mary Rose survives, so, unlike the Cutty Sark, it has been possible to enclose it in a simple building, even if that building had to be constructed over the dry dock where the vessel has sat since 1982, too fragile to move, its hull being continuously sprayed to prevent it drying out. The new museum is a smooth, low, oval shell that sits unobtrusively in Portsmouth's historic dockyard. Its exterior is clad in long planks of dark, stained timber, much like the Mary Rose herself; but, otherwise, it's not excessively boat-like. "We all felt that what was important about this museum was what was inside," explains Chris Wilkinson, of architects Wilkinson Eyre.
Wilkinson Eyre were also behind Southampton's SeaCity, a conversion of the city's 1930s magistrates' court. But Wilkinson, like Grimshaw, disagrees that Britain is overdoing its seafaring nostalgia. "Maybe it wasn't thought of as important enough in the past," he says. "Technology has also made it easier to discover these boats, bring them up to the surface, and tell the stories that went with them."
As a measure of the influence of all these ships, one need only look at the cities in which these museums are sited: London, Portsmouth, Southampton, Belfast, Bristol. All have been shaped – literally as well as metaphorically – by their seafaring pasts, nowhere more so than at Greenwich where the Cutty Sark now resides, a stone's throw from Christopher Wren's Old Royal Naval College (and, up on the hill, his observatory, from where the Greenwich Meridian takes off).
It all adds up to a neatly choreographed landscape of British power, though there's more to this story than simply how the nation found its might and then lost it again. The recent installation of Yinka Shonibare's Ship in a Bottle – a replica of Nelson's Victory, with African-patterned cloth for sails – near the Cutty Sark site reminds us that there are less appetising sides to the seafaring story missing from this picture, chiefly the slave trade. Architecture tends to set history in stone; these vessels keep it in motion.
April 21 2012
The view from Europe's tallest building
A trip up the Shard yields a 60-mile-wide panorama spanning London. But is its haphazard journey from pipe dream to reality a good thing for the capital?
'Save us from a poke in the eye with a sharp stick," I wrote in the London Evening Standard, in 2000, when property developer Irvine Sellar unveiled plans for a 1,400ft-high pointy cylinder above London Bridge station. I went on to say that if he wanted to build something this big, which would be visible all over London, the least Sellar could do was hire a decent architect.
The sharp stick is now there and a little while ago I found myself high up it, wondering at a 60-mile-wide sweep in which I could see Southend-on-Sea in one direction and Ascot in the other, or, rather, smudges I was told were these pleasure grounds of poor and rich. You can see more clearly Heathrow's Terminal Five and the Queen Elizabeth II bridge in Dartford and Hertfordshire and the North Downs.
You can see, in other words, the whole of London, until now an unencompassable splodge that could last have been captured in a single view perhaps 200 years ago, to its perimeter and beyond. Close to, familiar and not-small objects, such as the Gherkin and HMS Belfast, look like large toys. It is both implausible and real, something well-known seen from an unprecedented place. It's hard to know what to do except gawp.
The stick is now named the Shard and has been redesigned by celebrated Genovese architect Renzo Piano, co-architect with Richard Rogers of the Pompidou Centre in Paris, who replaced the less glamorous firm of Broadway Malyan. The tower has also shrunk, to just over 1,000ft, as the Civil Aviation Authority was worried about planes crashing into it.
It is still big enough to be an object of urban fascination. A fox, a crane driver, base jumpers and other adventurers have all made headlines by getting to the top (or, in some cases, allegedly so). Unauthorised photos of the view from the top have gone viral, or viral-ish. Hacks and citizens are pouring forth their views: it's elegant; it's in the wrong place; it's a piece of international tower envy; it's a citadel of the mega-rich lording it over us morlocks below; it's a London icon. In truth, it is all these things. It is said to be penile, which can only mean that there are some odd-shaped penises out there.
It is also a monument to the hustling abilities of one man, Irvine Sellar. Sellar made his first fortune with what might then have been called groovy fashion boutiques in the 1960s, before moving into property, before going blazingly bust, before starting over again with industrial units in Portsmouth and Warrington. He is the sort of person who gets called a "barrow boy", who had limited experience of building above three storeys before he started on the Shard, and to whom the bigger, more established property companies would condescend.
Sellar bought the site of the future Shard, which is next to London Bridge station and was then occupied by a brownish 1970s building called Southwark Towers, in 1998. He had, he says, no idea it would soon be government policy to support dense development near major transport interchanges. But it was and he spotted a chance. "Railtrack didn't convey the site to me as well as they might have done," he says, "which gave me an opportunity to talk sensibly about building something tall." In other words, he had better lawyers than they had and he got his way.
He got London's newly installed mayor, Ken Livingstone, on his side and Fred Manson, a dynamic planner for the borough of Southwark. Sellar hired Piano, possibly because of criticisms in the press but more probably because he needed someone of Piano's reputation to get planning permission. They made an odd couple – Sellar is stocky and bustling, Piano is tall, well-tailored, and never visibly ruffled. It looked like a marriage of convenience: Piano would lend Sellar his cachet and Sellar would give Piano the chance to build the most conspicuous landmark of his career. Or at least, as few believed the Shard would really be built, Sellar would pay him handsomely to conjure up this spectacular fantasy. Sellar, it was widely assumed, would then sell the undeveloped site for a large profit.
In a few months, Piano ran up his designs. He came up with an elongated pyramidal shape, which he said was inspired by old pictures of spires and ships' masts in the Thames. He talked about its special, extra-white glass and how the canted surfaces would reflect the sky and produce "a nice light presence". Grasping for words at a press conference, he said it would look like a "… a shard … a shard of crystal".
The tower would be a "village", not a monolithic office block. There would be flats, a hotel and restaurants, as well as 570,000 square feet of office space. There would be public viewing galleries, so that Londoners could take possession of it and not just gawp at the exterior. It would be sustainable, to the extent that such buildings can be. Being next to a large railway station would mean that the thousands of people working in it would use trains rather than cars. A "radiator" at the top would use the effect of high winds to help cool the building.
English Heritage objected, in particular because of the Shard's effect on the view from Hampstead Heath, where it would loom over St Paul's. There was a public inquiry, which decided that the tower was a good enough piece of design to overcome such concerns. John Prescott, then the minister in charge of such things, declared that it was "of the highest architectural quality" and granted it planning permission.
Still, there was doubt whether it was possible to finance such a building, in an unfashionable location. Livingstone gave a leg-up to his favourite project by promising to move the offices of Transport for London there. Sellar signed up the Shangri-La hotel group. The credit crunch hit, which might have been terminal to a project so palpably of the profligate boom years, but then the cavalry appeared, in the form of the property arm of the ruling family of Qatar. As their oil wealth means they have no need for credit, the credit crunch did not bother them much.
Sellar now says that "there were moments when things weren't particularly good, but I have never thought that we wouldn't win this". He says he is "not smug or complacent. There is still plenty to do… a beautiful building apart from its architectural merit is not completely beautiful until it's fully let" and they are still looking for tenants for some of the office space. He also says that "it is not about being tall, by the way. It will never be the tallest, but it is the most beautiful". It's not quite believable that height is unimportant to Sellar, although he's right that it's fatuous to chase superlatives, given that the Shard does not quite equal the 82-year-old Chrysler building in New York. It is none the less the tallest building in Europe.
What is there now is more like the designs that Piano produced almost 12 years ago than seemed likely. The ecological radiator has been omitted, on the grounds that it would be expensive and that other equipment would do the same job as well, but otherwise his office has seen off most attempts to cut costs. The glass he wanted is there, as are the public viewing galleries.
He will have his "village", although it will be no Little-Mouldering-on-the-Marsh, and it is hard to see how the social mixing that is presumably part of the attraction of the village idea will take place. The different parts of the building have different lifts and entrances, which reduces the chances of maypole dancing or whatever its modern equivalent might be.
The Shard will have a luxury hotel, and 10 flats near the top, each one of which entirely occupies either one or two floors. These are currently shells, but it does not take much to see that their overflowing abundance of space and views will put them beyond the reach of all but the most hyper of the hyper-rich. Each is rumoured to be worth between £30m and £50m, which means that the 10 of them pretty much pay for the £450m construction cost of the whole building.
So there it is, impressive and with a certain stylishness, even if not quite achieving the "nice, light presence" that Piano promised. It will certainly become – is already – a London landmark and will take its place on T-shirts and tourist shows along with Tower Bridge and the Gherkin. It is made more interesting, if not really a village, by its multiplicity of uses. With its fantasy flats and Hollywood panoramas, it will feed the collective mythology of the city. Rich people may not be fashionable at the moment, but we still like to hear stories about them.
It is also a work of the punk urbanism in which modern London specialises. Other cities would look at the question of increasing development around railway stations and aim for some sort of coherent plan for achieving it. In London, they declared an intention and then gave first prize to the man – Sellar – quickest off the mark. They then dressed the consequences in "outstanding architecture". The Shard was the first and unfortunately the best of such developments. After it came other towers, such as the Strata in Elephant and Castle and the Vauxhall Tower, which repeated the same formula of height next to a station, intrusion on important views, an eco-doodad on top and architecture declared outstanding by John Prescott. The spawn of the Shard come nowhere near to the quality of the original.
So is it worth it? You might say that it depends whether you think London is more like a novel or a painting, about cracking stories and crazy contrasts or about harmonious compositions. Or rather, given that London is in fact a city, and therefore about the play of individual and collective, whether it falls within the hazy rules of the game. It is a thing that pops up everywhere, in views down streets, from parks, from the M25. It is the most conspicuous object in London. It seems to proclaim something significant, yet all it really says is that we have a wonky planning system and that someone called Irvine Sellar was smart enough to exploit it.
I appreciate that anarchy is part of London's DNA, but it is not all of it. I also appreciate Sellar's energy, Piano's skills and the thrills that the Shard offers. I like the view. But not that those skills and energy have gone into making something that, at bottom, is profoundly random.
April 20 2012
Constructive criticism: the week in architecture
A new proposal aims to save Battersea Power Station, the Metropolitan Arts Centre opens in Belfast and Avengers Assemble shows how not to do architecture
The very words "Battersea Power Station" are enough to elicit a collective groan these days, so anaesthetised have we become to bold new plans to turn the London landmark into a theme park/ice rink/hotel/shopping mall/football stadium/urban park. It's defeated architects and property developers so many times, fatigue has just about set in permanently. If they announced it was going to become an intergalactic rocket launchpad tomorrow, we'd all yawn.
But here we go again. Just two months ago Terry Farrell, now Boris Johnson's design advisor, proposed turning the site into an urban park (which would entail knocking part of it down), while speculators observed it would be worth nearly half a billion pounds more without the power station. But now architects Allies and Morrison have come along with another scheme to save it.
The new scheme – jointly devised with Save Britain's Heritage and launched this week – is called Inhabiting the Shell, and like Farrell's proposal, it wisely suggests transforming the building step by step. Unlike Farrell's, though, it aims to do so without demolishing any of it. Nor, like previous schemes such as Rafael Viñoly's, would it crowd out Giles Gilbert Scott's monumental 1930s edifice with tall buildings. In the first phase, temporary seats would be installed in the boiler house (the main space between the four chimneys), and it would be an 11,000-seat open air venue (Pink Floyd reunion gig, anyone?). Later, a roof would be put on and more permanent facilities installed, and finally, hospitality boxes for sponsors put in, some time around 2030. Meanwhile, the two turbine halls either side of the boiler house would be used for events, receptions, exhibitions and launches – like the Brit awards, they suggest. And around it would be blocks of low-rise residential buildings and a public square by the river.
Details are sketchy, and prospects pessimistic until proven otherwise, but there's something appealing about using the building in its raw state, as it is now. As a semi-ruined found space, it's far more atmospheric than it would be as a sanitised shopping mall. The future of the building is currently in the balance, hence Allies & Morrison and Save just putting this out there, though Graham Morrison and Save previously teamed up to study what to do with Battersea just before it was decommissioned, in 1981 – at which time they suggested turning it into a sports venue. Who knows what will happen next, but there's an argument for making it a working part of the city again, like its younger sister Tate Modern. If we don't do something soon, it will have been derelict for longer than it served as an actual power station.
Over to Belfast and on the heels of the Titanic visitor centre, the week before last, another, more conventional sort of cultural institution opened yesterday. This is the Metropolitan Arts Centre, or MAC, a venue for music, theatre, dance and art. It should put the city on the map for the non-maritime-disaster tourist, and it will doubtless put its local designers, Hall McKnight, on the map too – although they did already win the Young Architects of the Year award in 2008. It's an intelligent scheme that integrates into the tight-knit cityscape yet stands out, with its robust industrial-looking facades of brick and concrete. Inside, it opens up into a series of generous skylit terraces and courtyards – destined to become a gathering place in a city where the weather can be unforgiving. The venue's first exhibition compares LS Lowry and local artist William Conor, while its first stage play is about, um, the Titanic.
Now on to a few collisions of architecture and cinema, prompted by the conversion of Covent Garden's underground Flower Cellars into a gallery for the London Film Museum. The new space, by KPF architects, preserves what remained of the building's original brick vaults, but adds in crisp white public areas, and a striking monochrome exhibition space that sets off the opening exhibition of Magnum movie-set photography.
There are rich pickings at the movies for architecture spotters right now. First, the only worthwhile segment of new product-placement sci-fi atrocity Battleship is the lovingly rendered destruction of Hong Kong's famous skyline, and in particular, IM Pei's iconic Bank of China tower, which is symbolically castrated by some flying alien weaponry. They always said it had bad feng shui . Anyone who sat through the very similar Transformers 3 last year will have witnessed an even more detailed rendition of skyscraper destruction – do they have a resentful architect on their special effects team?
There's a skyscraper that needs destroying in the long-awaited Avengers Assemble, Marvel's climactic superhero movie. The movie's actually pretty fun for what it is, but a large part of the action takes place around the new nuclear-powered Manhattan headquarters/shag pad of Tony Stark AKA Iron Man aka Robert Downey Jr. Stark Tower is a hideous, lopsided monstrosity of a building, a mix of oligarch garishness and corporate blandness, with a cantilevered helipad and an ostentatious penthouse bachelor pad. Whoever Stark hired to design it should be exiled to Dubai or Macau or somewhere. Fortunately it does get pretty trashed, but at the end they start to rebuild it – no!
No such bombast in forthcoming French drama Goodbye First Love, though it does centre on a heartbroken young architecture student. When her boyfriend leaves her to go backpacking, she falls for her handsome architecture professor (who finds her work unusually mature, of course). The couple bond over field trips to the Bauhaus and Denmark's Louisiana Museum of Modern Art, and discussions of guttering and downpipes – that's more like it!
Which leads us off the subject but on to what is surely the last word in celebrity design: shoes by John Malkovich. No, really. It's not a Spike Jonze marketing stunt, but a new fashion and design initiative by tyre/softcore calendar brand Pirelli. Malkovich actually launched his own clothing range last year, with the by no means pretentious title of Technobohemian. Even better, for Pirelli he's done a canvas and denim ankle boot with "piqué-print rubber appliqué" – called the "Boholacchino". Something tells us his advertising slogan won't be "Fancy being John Malkovich? Try walking in his shoes."
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...

Scream if you want to bid higher: the high cost of art
At £74m, The Scream went to a buyer with very deep pockets. Such prices destroy rather than celebrate creativity
What is the man on the bridge screaming in Edvard Munch's most famous work? I will tell you. He is screaming: "I am too expensive! I belong in a public collection!"
As an artist, the price of art makes me want to scream. Munch's pastel drawing of The Scream, one of four versions, sold for $120m (£74m) last week in just 12 minutes. When the bidding reached $100m, the audience applauded. As he recorded the final offer, the auctioneer joked: "I love you." What is that love born of? It would be mean to say the love the auctioneer proclaimed was simply born of greed. After all, perhaps you really have to love art, love The Scream, and love its buyers, to value it at £74m. But trophy prices that only the super-rich can afford are damaging. Few public collections could even begin to raise £74m for a single acquisition.
This version of The Scream is the only one to include a poem by Munch on the frame, which describes the inspiration behind the series. It reads: "I was walking along a path with two friends – the sun was setting – suddenly the sky turned blood red – I paused, feeling exhausted, and leaned on the fence – there was blood and tongues of fire above the blue-black fjord and the city – my friends walked on, and I stood there trembling with anxiety – and I sensed an infinite scream passing through nature."
A piece of this magnitude belongs where everyone can see it. The enjoyment, understanding and popularity of such iconic works is humanity's inheritance. Human beings can fall in love across generations; people from all over the world can come to understand each other through their cultures; and we can all celebrate together by listening to great music – but not if the great artefacts of our age are squirrelled away in a rich person's downstairs loo.
Even if a public collection could afford to plough huge amounts of its energy, effort and cash into making such a purchase, it would not be right: there is so much else you could do with that kind of money. Think how many great works by younger artists you could buy with just £500,000. Think what a difference a sum like that could make to gallery education departments (schemes aiming to widen access to the visual arts). From time to time, galleries do attempt to rescue an important work "for the nation"; but, despite some high-profile successes, such as the purchase last year of Bruegel the Younger's Procession to Calvary, the capacity to do this is more limited than is widely perceived. Crazy auction prices do nothing to help us hang on to our art.
There is another pernicious result of the art market's buoyancy. In this recession, art is still seen as a good investment: everything else may be in flux, but Picasso will always be Picasso. This inflates the value of public collections, meaning galleries come to be seen as places housing treasures with a high monetary value – not as buildings filled with ideas, aspirations and possibilities. National collections, with their armies of trustees, are protected from local councillors eager to sell off a Lowry to manage a deficit – but smaller ones aren't. Last year, a painting by John Everett Millais was sold by Bolton council for £74,400 to fund a new museum warehouse. Such de-acquisition should go from being a taboo to being illegal.
What's the solution? That's trickier. We can appeal to rich people's sense of public spirit, in the hope that they will donate, or at least long-lend, work to museums. But the problem is that public officials in museums are not there to chase and flatter wealthy collectors but to display the important art of the past, to reveal unseen histories, to reflect what is going on today while pointing to tomorrow.
Contemporary artists are split into two camps: those who are quite happy to create objects that work well as investment vehicles; and those (mainly younger) artists who couldn't care less. Neither group has a claim on making better art. You can make valuable, interesting, important art out of gold as well as sausages. I am keen on contemporary artists making a living, but we all need to beware the dangers of the inflated art market.
If contemporary art remains too expensive, it will not be bought by public museums. The collections of the future won't have good work that reflects, challenges or explains what is going on now. In the end, the best currency an artist can receive is footfall and discussion. There is no point in showing your work only to the "right people". Art shouldn't just be available to all, it should also be available in multiple ways – and we should encourage all people to make it.
Hey artists! Don't turn ideas into cash. Make art cheap. Give your art to public collections and don't demand a tax break. Make art that has no investment potential. Don't get caught up with making money. Get caught up with making things better.