Fine Arts

Official aesthetics

Gavin Stamp

The Royal Fine Art Commission was created in 1924 'to inquire into such questions of public amenity or artistic im- portance as may be referred to them from time to time by a Department of State ... and ... to give advice on similar questions when so requested by public or quasi-public bodies, where it appears to the said Com- mission that their assistance would be ad- vantageous.' Today, with a rather wider brief, the 18 unpaid members of the Com- mission are the official guardians of the public interest in matters of architecture, civic amenity and design, whose approval is eagerly sought by developers and whose censure is not to be taken lightly. Con- cerned, as they are, with that elusive ques- tion of 'taste' and dealing, as they do, with governmental and other very influential bodies, the Commissioners' decisions can sometimes seem weak or partial, especially as several of the Commissioners are so closely involved with the architectural establishment. When we find that the sort of insensitive avant-garde building that wins RIBA medals earlier received the pre-

natal blessing of the RFAC, it can seem that the Commission is but a rubber stamp for promoting Modern Architecture.

This is neither true nor fair, although some of the Commission's recent decisions might seem to confirm this criticism. The Commissioners repeatedly endorse the modern architectural establishment's adula- tion of Richard Rogers and approved his designs for the Coin Street development on the South Bank; they also approved the scheme for a huge tower on the Hay's Wharf site by London Bridge (which was thrown out by the Secretary of State after public inquiry). True, • the Commission criticised Mr Palumbo's proposed skyscraper by the late Mies van der Rohe for the City, but this may well have been because its members were irritated that the Secretary precipitately announced that they approved of it before they had actually met to consider the designs.

Critics of the Commission note with dismay that half of its members are ar- chitects — five of whom are knighted. In- deed, this dominance is established by the

statutes of the Commission, but while this may seem to strengthen it as an establis' ment quango, there are good historical altd practical reasons for so many architects sir* ting on the Commission as its concerns at primarily architectural. Early this century many architects felt that public works Britain needed better design and more In" telligent planning, and that in respect of care for historic monuments and in civic art, Britain was anarchic and barbarous compared with the rest of Europe. The Government was persuaded to set up a Fine Art Commission chiefly owing to the lobbY ing of Sir Lionel Earle, the Earl of CraW' ford & Balcarres, and two architects: So Aston Webb and Sir Reginald Blomfield. The Commission was originally establistici ed with ten members, with Lord Crawfor as Chairman and H. Charlton Bradshaw, an architect, as Secretary. Early members,' of whom half were architects, include°, Lord Curzon, Lutyens, Blomfield and vexes it. As Blomfield complained, `.1-11( George,

artists: D. Y. Cameron and Sir

Frampton. The Commission soon showed itself to be vigorous and impartial, even °P.- posing Lutyens's own scheme to put h.15 Mercantile Marine Memorial on the Vic- toria toria Embankment — Lutyens thought its `advice is bosh', but he was obliged to obey:. From the beginning, however, the Comults1 sion suffered from the problem which stile most unpaid Government Commissions, advice from the Royal Fine Art Corral°,• sion is only followed when it suits the COrl venience of the Government on other grounds.' When the Commission unani- mously condemned Sir Herbert Baker's design for South Africa House in Trafalgar Square, its advice was ignored. In 1933 the scope of the Commission was enlarged to include 'any project or develop- Meat which . . . may appear to affect amenities of a national of public character.' 4 1946, it was given statutory power to see anY designs to interview and to inspect, if it ,,,th,nught any project was of public concern. 'lliS is very useful, but, even so, some critics felt that — then as now — the Come mission did not make full use of its albeit limited Power. A strong editorial in the Architectural Review in 1951 by J. M. (now siir„ James) Richards attacked the Commis- t-..-1 for its tendency to compromise rather ,nan to criticise. A case in point was ‘-arlton ° House Terrace, saved by public the in 1933 and now threatened again by " Government: 'Instead of condemning °,-11.trigIII the idea of tampering in any way "nh an acknowledged masterpiece, it had 1 h,nierelY suggested one or two minor s't°difications; like a policeman, who, in- 01e,nd, of preventing a thief aocosh,tdm hiting an its: lady over the head with ecides 15 More diplomatic to persuade him to Tuesii Patch her by less barbaric methods ...' 4 The Commission, argued Richards, was set w13 to be a watch-dog for the public but it etas being used 'as a fig-leaf with which .to whose uP the shame of the very authorities in (;_se Private acts it was designed to expose the Public interest.' co4S is often the way with such bodies, the , ly Mniission stifled criticism by immediate- _ co-opting Richards as a member, but its 'ethods did not change significantly. The behind the scenes and disliked provoking P2blie controversy, even though a public en entraysbe been at hme oComefmfeicstsiivon w'sa oyp oinf igoent has ha7estructive s scheme stopped. Bradshaw sio lMarently done much of the Commis- ititilisa work by a quiet word in the Coae,tiaeum, and his successor, the Hon. siosureY Samuel, who served the Commis- pr_Fern or many years with dignity and tact, ;ed diplomacy to confrontation. Sianluel's exasperation with the Commis -.on,. Ann sometime impotence emerges in the read. al Reports, which make instructive Q„ Ing. All too typical is the report of the r„,,s'linlission's criticism in 1967 of the tzievelo „ Pment plans which wrecked so hi. of Newcastle: 'The Minister of Hous- pi:L aand Local Government failed to sup- 0,g..v ` the Commission in these proposals and e them `In his consent.' Time and time given' governments have rejected the advice adve.IrIb a body set up by Royal Warrant to this se them. When I began the research for RpAar,tiele, I was rather minded to see the rio'_`- as an effete quango, but I now have on doubt that over the years it was usually 2,1..Ibe side of the angels and that, had its imnv2,ee been taken more often, London and thel6larld would be better for it. Most of work of the Commission is behind the

scenes because it is unspectacular: advising on hundreds of cases which range from power stations to municipal bridges, per- suading local authorities that it might be better to employ a decent architect rather than use the borough surveyor. Often its advice was remarkably enlightened. Both Hereford and Salisbury Cathedrals were ad- vised against removing good Victorian fit- tings in the 1950s. This was unfortunately ignored, as was the excellent advice to King's College, Cambridge, not to wreck the east end of the Chapel by installing their prize Rubens as an altar-piece.

The Commission's most important work is negative: stopping things. What is sad is how often its advice is dismissed, even when a design is rejected outright. In 1947 Sir Giles Scott withdrew when his scheme for rebuilding Coventry Cathedral was criti- cised by the Cbmmission; unfortunately, other architects and institutions have not behaved in so honourable a manner. The Commission objected to the height of New Zealand House, the first modern building to destroy the civilised scale of the West End, but the few storeys it had lopped off were not enough. It advised against the destruction of most of the Imperial In- stitute by Imperial College — in vain; it op- posed the 'sheer bulk' of the appalling design of St Thomas's Hospital right opposite the Houses of Parliament — in vain.

Perhaps the worst years were during the property developers' paradise: the philistine Conservative government of Harold Mac- millan. The Commission argued for the retention of the Euston Arch (and later described the new Euston Station as 'un- worthy both of its situation and of its func- tion'.) In 1959 the Commission opposed the construction of the Hilton Hotel in Park Lane both as a design and on the principle that no tall buildings should be allowed on the fringes of the Royal Parks, but, seduced by dollars, this advice — and the opinion of the London County Council — was over- ruled by the Government. On the same grounds, the Commission opposed the tower on the Knightsbridge Barracks (in vain) — to the great annoyance of its ar- chitect, Sir Basil Spence, who was then a member of the Commission. In 1967 the Commission criticised the 435-foot tower proposed by another member of the Com- mission, Lord Holford, for Piccadilly Cir- cus; both these cases seem to give the lie to the suspicion that the Commission is partial to its own members' work. It is in the difficult area of trying to im- prove designs that the Commission can do good but can spoil its own reputation. A typical case was BucklersburY House, an awful building of 1953 which may well yet become more prominent as the south side of Mr Palumbo's piazza. The Commission disliked both its bulk and its detail; the An- nual Report drily commented that `if, when its erection is completed, the public shares the Commission's feeling that its bulk is ex- cessive, there may be consolation in the thought that its architectural treatment, but for the efforts of the Commission, might have been very much worse.'

The Commission has always been prin- cipally concerned with general matters of planning and massing in new developments, but if the details of a design are to be im- proved, by what standards are they to be judged? Several Commissioners deny that in recent decades the Commission has tend- ed to favour orthodox Modern Movement design and point out that it was always prepared to pass work by Raymond Erith, that uncompromisingly conservative Georgian. John Piper, who notes that 'the Royal Fine Art Commission is the only committee I ever sat on which I enjoyed', believes that 'there is absolutely free speech on the Commission, in theory and prac- tice'. On the other hand, another former Commissioner, Sir John Summerson, recalls: 'But of course we did get involved with style — absurdly. We tried to get ar- chitects to strip down — discard the old Classical "cliches" etc etc.' and he cites the case of the building next to the Reform Club in Pall Mall (by those shamefully underrated architects Donald McMorran and George Whitby) 'which started as a quite pleasant sub-Lutyens affair ... '

The current Secretary, Mr Sherban Can- tacuzino, is adamant that the Commission is concerned with excellence in any style. He believes that in a time of cultural anarchy with no generally accepted style the. Com- mission must be democratic to a degree and reflect public attitudes, otherwise it will not command respect. On the other hand, Mr Cantacuzino is certain that 'there are stan- dards of design' and that the Commission should encourage good modern design and reject what is pejoratively dismissed as pastiche — even if it is wanted by the public and would be what any other nation in Europe would prefer. Surely there is a paradox here? And what are the 'standards' of design? The suspicion returns that the Commissioners have a bias.

And who are the Commissioners today, and who chooses them? The appointments are made in Downing Street, but usually on the advice of the Commission's Chairman and Secretary. The Commissioners them- selves are an interesting list: nine lay mem- bers, and nine architects — who manage to represent many of the leading and most suc- cessful firms in the country. The architects are: Miss Elizabeth Chesterton, a planner who replanned Kings Lynn; Anthony Cox, of the Architects' Co-Partnership; Sir Philip Dawson, of Arup Associates; A.J. Gordon; Sir Philip Powell, of Powell & Moya; E.F. Ward, of Gollins, Melvin Ward Partnership; William Whitfield; Sir Hugh Wilson, designer of such new towns as Cumbernauld; and, of course, Sir Hugh Casson, without whom no artistic advisory committee in the land is ever complete.'All very eminent and all, I have to say, or- thodox modernists (with the possible excep- tion of William Whitfield) until the last few lean Post-Modernist years.

As for the lay half, this traditionally in-

The Spectator 13 November 195 eludes a painter and a sculptor, but theft has been no painter since John Piper 0 retired. The sculptor, who is the young Commissioner, is Wendy Taylor (wh°,4; Then there is David Piper, Director of IP` Ashmolean Museum; Mark Girouard, the architectural historian; Sir Ralph Freerriall,d' the engineer; the Duke of Grafton — Conservation' — who is Chairman of ill` Society for the Protection of Anciett; Buildings. These are very approPriat; choices. The remaining lay members seen; WI' little more rum: the chairman, Sir D Christopherson, Master of Magdalene C.,°' lege, Cambridge; Sir Francis Sandilaries' chairman of Commercial Union Assurance' who is presumably regarded as ka: enlightened patron of architecture as '- firm, together with P & 0, planted a little piece of Chicago just off Leadenhall Streeti Mr Martin Moss, director of Simpsons; an the Countess of Airlie, who is AMeri°°.- and who sits on British Rail's advis°11 board. I wonder what sort of architecture she likes? I mention the names of all the Corricais• sioners as collectively they seem to me t° tt less impressive than the eminent Comm sioners in earlier years, but that may simply a reflection of the times in which `ip live. Certainly, to broaden the membershno or to lower its average age would be nd guarantee of better decisions. ,Aeci. °hat whatever I may think of some of the sions and attitudes, it should be said leit few would be able or willing to devote t", time unpaid to the Commission's CO siderable load of work. On average, cases a year are discussed. te die Mr Cantacuzino has tried to promo of Commission's public role, but many 0' to criticisms made by Richards in 1951 are 5a pertinent, particularly about its reluctane is to take a public stand on a matter. Ther still too much diplomacy and seerecYt;ok new Post Office building of monstrous .he is currently rising near St Paul's t° Yid designs of the Public Services Agen°Y,:his? the Fine Art Commission approve ot Possibly not, but why has the Pressr been told of its opinion? If the G°" ore ment's departments are repeatedly to ignis'e its own Commission's advice, thenktic's Commission, if it is to be the Po"„abt watch-dog and not an official lackey, 0" volubly to protest. I would certainly not have the Commis' ° sion abolished or reformed out of existent, we need every body that is a barrier anyd, chitectural barbarism. On the other vne the paradoxically, it could not possibly ha.., the power to enforce its advice; if it did, Commission would probably cease t° .51 to mand respect and possibly become °p very corruption. Committees of taste can be dangerous things. The Fine Art Co :"sit sion tries to strike a civilised balance' the John Summerson considers that 0",..at, whole it did a good job in a funny ;pet ticulate sort of way' and John „sr. I am now rather inclined to agree. `thought (and thinks) it does a lot of g