Designing a radical change to a giant institution, such as the National Theatre is not simple. It is easy to become scared and give way to traditionalists who would prefer to keep things 'the way they've always been', therefore weakening the design into something way less than it could potentially be. One has to find the balance between timidity or becoming cynical and reactionary.
Cedric Price acts as a model of inspiration for me. Pictured above is his 1965 plan for Parliament. Price is better known for the London Zoo Avery, or his proposal for a giant wheel on London's sky line but this piece really shows some of his personal devotion to ensuring democracy.
If we want an efficient parliament, lets give it a whole efficient building to work in...replace the present historic monument with an up-to-date structure - flexible, accessible and dispensable. New Society, 1965
Price did not propose to move parliament to another location in London, and use the historic monument to, say, sell to a hotel developer. He chose to defy the historic monument by building a counter design in its place. With the proposal of destroying the existing building, he allows us to question the way that parliament, and politics in whole, are perceived.
I'm not necessarily proposing that we destroy the current National Theatre home, but if changes were made, what implications would that have on what is often seen as a 'complete' theatre building?
No comments:
Post a Comment