Architects and artists

Many architects I know are also artists. Probably this is inevitable or, perhaps, highly desirable. A purely utilitarian architect is not usually very appreciated as human nature is often interested in what works and is pleasant to the eye.

When an architect is much more artistic than utilitarian, s/he often ends up frustrating the daily users of his/her structures while s/he moves on to another artistic project without having to live or work in his/her own. If we look at some schools in various countries, we realise that the architect knew very little about pedagogy and, worse still, did not try to find out more by talking to educators.

At the same time, an artist is not necessarily a painter. However, performing artists are often interested in architecture, especially that related to physical theatrical organisation and cinema studios.

When producers, actors and other theatre people express their opinion about what is expected from a theatre, their opinion has particular validity as they are the experts.

Some people employ architects according to their fame in certain areas. Architects are not famous in all areas of architecture for the same reason that educators, doctors etc. are not specialists in all aspects of their profession. A builder of a theatre who does not discuss at length with theatre artists will end up creating an awkward structure from a functional point of view.

Political architecture

An objective politician does not suffer from political emotion. A rational politician does not believe that the citizens of his country are to be automatically excluded from functional or aesthetic creation on the basis of insufficient talent. A sensible politician must not start jumping and getting excited when he hears the divine sound of a foreign architect's name.

On the other hand, a serious politician must not be excessively chauvinistic, blindly believing that anything a foreigner can do, his compatriots can do better.

Local architectural talent

Let us suppose that I have to choose plans for a theatre (I avoid using the expression "theatrical plans" not to sound irreverential or iconoclastic). I would first of all see if there is local talent which has already proved itself. I have seen structures produced by local architectural talent locally and abroad and they are neither bad looking nor less than functional.

Let us also suppose that one foreigner is better. I would have to make a choice: either throw open my coffers for his massive enjoyment or use trusted local talent while saving some funds for very important basic social structures such as health and education.

No roofs, half roofs and full roofs

I have never understood why some friends of mine say that a roofless theatre is ridiculous and then suddenly made a big U-turn when told that Mr X will be the architect. The ridiculous does not suddenly become sublime at the sound of a name. Also an inferiority complex is strongly discouraged by educators, psychologists and nationalistic politicians - not to mention staunch believers in successful local technocracy.

My own opinion, while respecting that of people who disagree without calling draft projects ridiculous and other names - as this does not lead to fruitful discussion - is first of all that a transparent theatre roof (no puns about transparency please) may have the benefit of allowing the view of stars accompanying suave music. Perhaps some electricity could be saved when there is lightening or a full moon. But, on the whole, this type of transparency - unlike others - is not pleasant as it disturbs the concentration required to enjoy theatrical productions.

A roofless theatre brings with it all the climatic problems that so many correspondents of this paper have mentioned (the most imaginative was the one about wearing a sombrero for matinees) and leads to an expensive theatre being used for only a few weeks per year, making it a bad investment from people's hard-earned tax percentages.

At one moment, the compromise of a half-roof was mentioned and this was appreciated by those who enjoy the spectacular effect of a theatrical adaptation of Gone With The Wind.

Leave it up to him

All this debate produces a genuine headache. A political Pontius Pilatical solution would be to exclaim: "Let the architect decide this." I totally agree with this attitude if it's the architect who is paying for the project. Otherwise, if you pay for a project, you may have a say in its composition. I know nobody who tells an architect, whether it is a case of house design, company building or whatever: "Here's the money. Do what you like and call me when you're ready."

Dr Licari teaches psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics.