22 C O N T E X T 1 3 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 4 carved with light and shadow. He evoked Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier and Mackintosh. Yet, perhaps tellingly, the design is driven by tension, imposition and vanity. The seminary was never attuned to its location, and its lack of self-awareness was its undoing (surely more metaphorical of the client than intended). Closing after just 13 years, the heating never worked properly, flashings failed, there were 38 floods in two years, winters were ‘hellish’ and much of the construction turned out to be improvised. It is now more famous as a degraded ruin, scorned by most of those who care to comment as a total failure. But by no means are all voices against St Peter’s. It has staunch fans, as uncompromising as the building, set on rescuing its reputation as a symbol of the era, even if not an exemplar. These are mostly architects, right? They’re part of the conspiracy, aren’t they? This is where Farquhar sees his opportunity. He wants to use the site’s tensions for worthy ends in a place low in economic and social confidence. With a background in improving access through art, perhaps NVA is better placed than many to rally to the cause. Perhaps artists can shout about it from the outside more successfully than can architects from within. Farquhar wants to channel the anger around this building, not making people love it or even just live with it, but to use it as a tool, like therapy, releasing tensions and letting blood. Conventional proposals for capital-led rescue (flats, hotel) have failed, so he wants to hunt down cultural value instead. A great artistic subculture has adopted the site for its own expression, falling for its antiestablishment character perhaps because of the thrill of its deeply establishment purpose. Farquhar wants to feed off a subversive ‘postgrowth’ agenda to celebrate its failure as a capital asset and welcome it – all too early – as a heritage asset, turning it from brutal burden to romantic muse. Almost by stealth (and with a colossal goodwind bearing in mind the £6 million price tag) he sees the site becoming a cherished cultural artefact for what it is, not what it was meant to be. Is this unconventional? I think not. We fetishise thousands of conserved sites cherished more as ruins than for their original purpose. We protect countless fragments of our past ignorant as to how they were loved or loathed at the time, concerned for our cultural narrative if we lose them. Why should we treat this architecturally significant fragment any differently? In another talk, the early technical failure of harling at Mackintosh’s Hill House had us wringing our hands to correct fabric while upholding significance. Why should we treat the technical failures at St Peter’s any less sympathetically? Forsaking St Peter’s will only increase the tragedy as another attempt at the mid-20th century utopian ideal is wiped away. If conventional conservation can not save an unconventional building, why not let the artists prove us all wrong? Jules Brown KEYNOTE ADDRESS Cultural ambitions Fiona Hyslop MSP, cabinet secretary for culture and external affairs, provided the keynote address. Fiona Hyslop MSP, cabinet secretary for culture and external affairs provided the keynote address. In a rapid gallop through policy and organisational developments, as well as individual projects, she was keen to stress the importance of the historic environment to Scotland and the Scottish Government. She began her address by referencing the importance of 2014 in Scotland in terms of politics, culture and sport, citing, among many events, the referendum, the Commonwealth Games, and the Scottish Parliament’s hosting in Edinburgh of the second International Culture Summit. As well as these noteworthy events she reminded the day school that 2014 will also be remembered for the fire at Glasgow School of Art. She quoted Neil Baxter of the RIAS at the time of the fire, describing the event as ‘like watching an old friend die’. She praised the work of the firefighters, who made important cultural decisions to minimise the fire’s impact to the historic A visualisation capturing some of the significance of Gillespie, Kidd and Coia’s 1960s seminary at Cardross (Illustration: James Johnson, reproduced by courtesy of NVA)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=