5 ms·

Rachel Whiteread’s House: why was this Bow landmark demolished? (2015)

50 points by BerislavLopac 6y ago

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
>> The form elicited unease as when we have an intimate relationship with a space, we start to ignore its intricacies, instead handling navigating through the general form unconsciously. I'm guessing the form rather elicited unease because it was an eyesore and not for any symbolism it might have carried.
- tinco 6y ago
  The park around it is what's an eyesore. Imagine how cool it would've looked if they put some trees around it. Or even a plaza. The park looks like a carefully manicured vacant lot.
  - BerislavLopac 6y ago
    This is what the park looks like now: https://goo.gl/maps/aufMFdV1yBtQbACF6 https://goo.gl/maps/aufMFdV1yBtQbACF6 Google Maps actually even has the Whiteread house itself, although that's just a photo inserted into a 2017 panorama: https://goo.gl/maps/3hVzRrs3PDbNXiwD7 https://goo.gl/maps/3hVzRrs3PDbNXiwD7
- frereubu 6y ago
  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. When this was first done I instinctively hated it because of how much the art world fawned over it, but I've really come to appreciate Whiteread's work, even if she's a bit of a one-trick pony like Philip Glass.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Perhaps, though I find all public sculpture a nuisance simply because it obstructs movement and sight lines. By default it’s simply a net negative. Though I may be in the minority on this one.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
    >> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No objection from me. Just, sometimes it pokes at the eye of the beholder.
    - frereubu 6y ago
      Sure, just a tic from my sculpture degree, where subjective claims like "most people thought it was an eyesore" or "I think it's an eyesore" resulted in a more cordial discussion than objective claims like "it was an eyesore", because the former are more open to questions like "what do you mean by 'eyesore'?"
      - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
        You're right of course, I should have qualified that "eysore" judgement better. For instance, I should have said: "I'm guessing the form rather elicited unease because most people thought it was an eyesore and not for any symbolism it might have carried." The above was closer to what I meant.
bagpuss 6y ago
The use of old or condemned buildings reminds me of works by the sadly short-lived Gordon Matta-Clark. https://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/07/towards-anarchitecture-gordon-matta-clark-and-le-corbusier https://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/07...
Brian_K_White 6y ago
Erase anything interesting.
simonh 6y ago
tldr The people living in the area didn't like it.
helsinkiandrew 6y ago
> a politically embarrassing monument to an impoverished history At the time it I thought the local council were being very naive and narrow minded to tear it down. But now I can see that it would be a constant reminder to those living in poverty with a shortage of housing nearby despite what it was meant to represent.
- octoberfranklin 6y ago
  Yep. Very cool sculpture, poor taste in installation location. Unfortunately given the nature of how the thing's created you can't really move it somewhere else. Might've actually been easier to move the house first.
  - jmkd 6y ago
    The whole point was that this was a house that shouldn't have been demolished (or moved). The council didn't want the sculpture to stay because it stood as a reminder of their policy, the public were in two minds because it was so brutalist in appearance, and they misunderstood it to exemplify gentrification. If it remained today it would be a universally loved and globally visited icon of modern art.
    - IshKebab 6y ago
      I doubt it. It's cool but also really ugly. Imagine if you lived opposite it. Maybe if they made it out of something other than concrete it wouldn't be so bad, but history has proven again and again that bare concrete is just fundamentally an ugly material. Even if it starts ok it ages really really badly.
      - leoedin 6y ago
        > bare concrete is just fundamentally an ugly material "Ugly" is an emotional response, and isn't universal. Maybe some people find bare concrete ugly some of the time, but that's a far cry from it being "fundamentally an ugly material". There's plenty of bare concrete buildings which are appreciated. This house in Chile comes to mind: https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/houses/108353211/amazing-concrete-house-for-sale-in-chile-pushes-the-limits https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/houses/108353211/am... . The Barbican Centre in London makes extensive use of bare concrete, and is widely appreciated.
mellosouls 6y ago
I'm not at all arty-minded, regretfully, I seem to lack the visual aesthetic bone and share the common scepticism of much of modern art, but I immediately reacted with surprise to House as something uncanny, mysterious and disturbing but beautiful and regret it's destruction.
- watwut 6y ago
  Lol, I tend to like modern art. In general, I find it more interesting and playful to look at then most classics. But I did not liked this one.
pjc50 6y ago
Wow, this really ties in to a lot of things. Victorian terraced houses. The reshaping of London by the Luftwaffe. the emptying out of postwar London especially the East End, resulting in that particular derelict look of a lot of the TV and film of the 70s (e.g. The Professionals). An eccentric refusenik in the final un-demolished house. Nineties "cool britannia" art. Concrete brutalism. Art funding vs social services. Local councils and planning schemes. Even the KLF get a mention. See also the Bermondsey Tank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandela_Way_T-34_Tank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandela_Way_T-34_Tank
- codeulike 6y ago
  The House’s economics became even more contentious when Whiteread won the £20,000 Turner Prize for the work (the first woman to receive the honour), and then £40,000 from the rebel K Foundation (composed of members of the defunct pop group KLF) for the ‘worst artist of the year. I remember that! The KLF wanted to make a point about money in art or something so pledged to double the Turner Prize money to whomever wanted it as long as the artist admitted they were terrible. They paid for advertising slots during the award ceremony on British tv. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation Whiteread initially refused to accept the K Foundation prize, but after being told that the money would be incinerated, she reluctantly accepted, with the intention of donating £30,000 to artists in financial need and the other £10,000 to the housing charity, Shelter. It was around that era that the KLF/K Foundation burnt £1 million as a statement/art performance
  - thinkingemote 6y ago
    I think they saw the house as being bad art in general. "Houses are traditionally considered a symbol of the unconscious, by filling a terraced house with concrete and then removing the brickwork shell, Whiteread showed herself to be intellectually, creatively and emotionally blocked — something that is evident in all her 'work'."
sgt101 6y ago
London changed, things that were once - are not now. Bishops Gate is an empty monument to hubris today, the city is obsessively neat and clean - unused and waiting. But for what? I don't think that the commuters are coming back, without them the money ebbs out of the centre - it'll only hold if it changes. Nothing will be the same - but will it be better?
frereubu 6y ago
The best essay assignment I got during my sculpture degree was to pick the work of art that I liked the least and write about why I disliked it so much. It's an excellent practice that often leads to an appreciation of the work, or at the very least an understanding of other people's pleasure in it, which in itself can be enlightening. It's difficult to do without the discipline of an essay - just thinking about it doesn't force you to explicitly articulate your dislike as much - although it's also possible in cordial discussions with someone who does like it. I came round to artists like Rachel Whiteread and Tracey Emin because of that process and it widened my horizons considerably.
codeulike 6y ago
FWIW, wikipedia says the plan always was to demolish it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_art_award https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_art_award "Whiteread's sculpture, House, was demolished, as had been planned from its inception, on 11 January 1994"

50 points by BerislavLopac 6y ago

>> The form elicited unease as when we have an intimate relationship with a space, we start to ignore its intricacies, instead handling navigating through the general form unconsciously. I'm guessing the form rather elicited unease because it was an eyesore and not for any symbolism it might have carried.

tinco 6y ago
The park around it is what's an eyesore. Imagine how cool it would've looked if they put some trees around it. Or even a plaza. The park looks like a carefully manicured vacant lot.
- BerislavLopac 6y ago
  This is what the park looks like now: https://goo.gl/maps/aufMFdV1yBtQbACF6 https://goo.gl/maps/aufMFdV1yBtQbACF6 Google Maps actually even has the Whiteread house itself, although that's just a photo inserted into a 2017 panorama: https://goo.gl/maps/3hVzRrs3PDbNXiwD7 https://goo.gl/maps/3hVzRrs3PDbNXiwD7
frereubu 6y ago
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. When this was first done I instinctively hated it because of how much the art world fawned over it, but I've really come to appreciate Whiteread's work, even if she's a bit of a one-trick pony like Philip Glass.
- Retric 6y ago
  Perhaps, though I find all public sculpture a nuisance simply because it obstructs movement and sight lines. By default it’s simply a net negative. Though I may be in the minority on this one.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  >> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No objection from me. Just, sometimes it pokes at the eye of the beholder.
  - frereubu 6y ago
    Sure, just a tic from my sculpture degree, where subjective claims like "most people thought it was an eyesore" or "I think it's an eyesore" resulted in a more cordial discussion than objective claims like "it was an eyesore", because the former are more open to questions like "what do you mean by 'eyesore'?"
    - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
      You're right of course, I should have qualified that "eysore" judgement better. For instance, I should have said: "I'm guessing the form rather elicited unease because most people thought it was an eyesore and not for any symbolism it might have carried." The above was closer to what I meant.

bagpuss 6y ago

The use of old or condemned buildings reminds me of works by the sadly short-lived Gordon Matta-Clark. https://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/07/towards-anarchitecture-gordon-matta-clark-and-le-corbusier https://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/07...

Brian_K_White 6y ago

Erase anything interesting.

simonh 6y ago

tldr The people living in the area didn't like it.

helsinkiandrew 6y ago

> a politically embarrassing monument to an impoverished history At the time it I thought the local council were being very naive and narrow minded to tear it down. But now I can see that it would be a constant reminder to those living in poverty with a shortage of housing nearby despite what it was meant to represent.

octoberfranklin 6y ago
Yep. Very cool sculpture, poor taste in installation location. Unfortunately given the nature of how the thing's created you can't really move it somewhere else. Might've actually been easier to move the house first.
- jmkd 6y ago
  The whole point was that this was a house that shouldn't have been demolished (or moved). The council didn't want the sculpture to stay because it stood as a reminder of their policy, the public were in two minds because it was so brutalist in appearance, and they misunderstood it to exemplify gentrification. If it remained today it would be a universally loved and globally visited icon of modern art.
  - IshKebab 6y ago
    I doubt it. It's cool but also really ugly. Imagine if you lived opposite it. Maybe if they made it out of something other than concrete it wouldn't be so bad, but history has proven again and again that bare concrete is just fundamentally an ugly material. Even if it starts ok it ages really really badly.
    - leoedin 6y ago
      > bare concrete is just fundamentally an ugly material "Ugly" is an emotional response, and isn't universal. Maybe some people find bare concrete ugly some of the time, but that's a far cry from it being "fundamentally an ugly material". There's plenty of bare concrete buildings which are appreciated. This house in Chile comes to mind: https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/houses/108353211/amazing-concrete-house-for-sale-in-chile-pushes-the-limits https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/houses/108353211/am... . The Barbican Centre in London makes extensive use of bare concrete, and is widely appreciated.

mellosouls 6y ago

I'm not at all arty-minded, regretfully, I seem to lack the visual aesthetic bone and share the common scepticism of much of modern art, but I immediately reacted with surprise to House as something uncanny, mysterious and disturbing but beautiful and regret it's destruction.

watwut 6y ago
Lol, I tend to like modern art. In general, I find it more interesting and playful to look at then most classics. But I did not liked this one.

pjc50 6y ago

Wow, this really ties in to a lot of things. Victorian terraced houses. The reshaping of London by the Luftwaffe. the emptying out of postwar London especially the East End, resulting in that particular derelict look of a lot of the TV and film of the 70s (e.g. The Professionals). An eccentric refusenik in the final un-demolished house. Nineties "cool britannia" art. Concrete brutalism. Art funding vs social services. Local councils and planning schemes. Even the KLF get a mention. See also the Bermondsey Tank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandela_Way_T-34_Tank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandela_Way_T-34_Tank

codeulike 6y ago
The House’s economics became even more contentious when Whiteread won the £20,000 Turner Prize for the work (the first woman to receive the honour), and then £40,000 from the rebel K Foundation (composed of members of the defunct pop group KLF) for the ‘worst artist of the year. I remember that! The KLF wanted to make a point about money in art or something so pledged to double the Turner Prize money to whomever wanted it as long as the artist admitted they were terrible. They paid for advertising slots during the award ceremony on British tv. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation Whiteread initially refused to accept the K Foundation prize, but after being told that the money would be incinerated, she reluctantly accepted, with the intention of donating £30,000 to artists in financial need and the other £10,000 to the housing charity, Shelter. It was around that era that the KLF/K Foundation burnt £1 million as a statement/art performance
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  I think they saw the house as being bad art in general. "Houses are traditionally considered a symbol of the unconscious, by filling a terraced house with concrete and then removing the brickwork shell, Whiteread showed herself to be intellectually, creatively and emotionally blocked — something that is evident in all her 'work'."

sgt101 6y ago

London changed, things that were once - are not now. Bishops Gate is an empty monument to hubris today, the city is obsessively neat and clean - unused and waiting. But for what? I don't think that the commuters are coming back, without them the money ebbs out of the centre - it'll only hold if it changes. Nothing will be the same - but will it be better?

frereubu 6y ago

The best essay assignment I got during my sculpture degree was to pick the work of art that I liked the least and write about why I disliked it so much. It's an excellent practice that often leads to an appreciation of the work, or at the very least an understanding of other people's pleasure in it, which in itself can be enlightening. It's difficult to do without the discipline of an essay - just thinking about it doesn't force you to explicitly articulate your dislike as much - although it's also possible in cordial discussions with someone who does like it. I came round to artists like Rachel Whiteread and Tracey Emin because of that process and it widened my horizons considerably.

codeulike 6y ago

FWIW, wikipedia says the plan always was to demolish it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_art_award https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_art_award "Whiteread's sculpture, House, was demolished, as had been planned from its inception, on 11 January 1994"