Exhibiting Architecture
Why exhibit architecture in an art gallery? How do we look at architecture as an art form? Is it pretentious to even try? Especially, one might argue, modern architecture that originally sought alliances with modern industry and engineering: ostensibly the opposite end of the cultural spectrum to the white walled gallery. Is it better to think of this as an exhibition, not of 'architecture' itself but rather as an exhibition of drawings and models of architecture: something much more closely aligned with the familiar contents of a contemporary art gallery? To do that though, would be to undermine the art of building which would become incidental to the exhibition. No, the drawings, models and photographs are not exhibited here as an end to themselves. We are here to consider these buildings and the architect that ties them together in the context of an art gallery.

 

This may seem obvious, and these questions may seem semantic, but in fact they run to the core of the way architecture is practiced, commissioned, and perceived. It is far from pretentious. On the contrary, it is a vital part of an increasingly important public discussion on our built environment. Exhibiting architecture in an art gallery asks us to consider the work less in practical terms (although this can never be fully ignored), and more in cultural terms. We are asked to consider the social, cultural and political questions raised by aesthetic and spatial devices employed by the architect. We are asked to consider the relevance of this work beyond the social limitations of each project. While art is regularly housed by architecture, this exhibition places architecture in the house of art.

 

Aesthetic Devices

The cultural issues raised in this work are partly raised through aesthetic devices familiar to audiences at an art gallery. The dialectics of figure and ground, solid and void, dark and light, complexity and simplicity, literal and lyrical are common to art and architecture. The gallery's audience is predisposed to look for materials, textures, and details that make cultural sense. In this exhibition, the audience is invited to ask questions about the proportion of a window, the texture of a battened wall, the use of natural light, the asymmetry of an elevation, the junction between a wall and a ceiling or a column and the ground. In the materials Toomath uses we can observe a comfort with the prosaic, but we can also see that he seeks to elevate these materials through a keen attention to detail. He does not typically use elaborate details, but he does work hard to give materials and building elements some definition with clear forms and legible junctions. He places value on these elements. Remember that not all architecture does this: Toomath believes in the elegance of daily life and he makes that known through his aesthetic decisions. It is in these aesthetic decisions that Toomath stakes out a position on how we inhabit the world.

 

Spatial Devices

It is not only aesthetic devices that Toomath uses to declare his cultural position, but spatial ones too. His plans are highly considered arrangements of the activities his buildings accommodate. His houses carefully arrange living and sleeping spaces, landscape and entry, with service and entertaining spaces. His larger buildings consider the relationship between the interior and the city, the sequential experience of a gallery visit, formal space and casual space. Throughout his planning is a general tendency for informal spatial composition and open plan living, particularly in his domestic work. His predilection for informality suggests a certain view of how people relate to each other in public: while buildings may have monumental qualities, the spaces created tend to encourage casual relationships between their inhabitants. Spaces often overlap with each other, approaches to a room are often tangential rather than central, and edges of spaces are often blurred. In addition to aesthetic devices, these spatial devices also stake out Toomath's cultural position on how we inhabit a place - both on a particular project, and in general terms.

 

Cultural Values

The cultural positions inherent in Toomath's work raise philosophical questions about the values of the people who made the building: not just Toomath, but also the parties that commissioned the work, and more broadly the society it was conceived within. The commissioning party inevitably privileged some aspects of the project over others, and Toomath responded more strongly to some aspects of the project than others. The suppliers of materials, the technical limits of the construction industry, the planning regulations and the economy have all played their role in shaping the building - by placing greater or lesser value on certain aspects of the project. Some projects, for example, emphasise the kitchen as a place for entertainment while others will treat the kitchen as a service utility. Some urban projects are oriented more toward the city street than a rich interior. Some projects are primarily concerned with the efficient production of simple space, or a particular building element that is repeated as part of a wall assembly. Some projects are self-consciously pared back and others introduce complex materials and construction techniques in order to produce a finely tuned atmosphere. The privileging of one aspect over another - aesthetically or spatially - is inevitably a reflection of the value placed on that aspect. Architecture makes those values evident. This exhibition is then, not only one of architecture but also of cultural values: the values of Toomath who links this work together, and the values of a generation of architects for whom Toomath is an exemplar.

 

Modern Values

The observation of cultural values that are evident in each project is one way to look beyond the stylistic achievements of the work. Cultural values are always already there in one form or another. They are embedded in the material; the form; the details; the construction system; and the plan. This work by Bill Toomath is celebrated, in part at least, because of the values embedded in it and his talent for articulating them in built form. In the context of the international movement we call Modern Architecture it represents an exemplary body of work. Not only does his work capture the values of particular people commissioning the work, it captures values that help define the Modern world. Modern Architecture has had many stylistic revivals in New Zealand and become an aesthetic staple for our middle classes. However this exhibition, including the audio with Toomath himself, asks the audience to consider the values and broader cultural ambitions of Modern Architecture in New Zealand.

 

Many of those values are as pertinent now as they were in the middle of the twentieth century. Toomath, and a whole generation of talented architects, saw tremendous value in the sparse but careful use of materials; the careful putting together of proprietary elements; the informality of a classless society; and the potential beauty in a deep consideration of everyday life.

 

Sam Kebbell

 

Biography of Bill Toomath

Since studying architecture at Auckland University from 1945-49, Bill Toomath has practiced architecture in Wellington for more than forty years. As a student he was a joint founder of the Architectural Group in 1946, and challenged a curriculum he and others felt to be increasingly irrelevant. He received a scholarship to travel and spent a year motorcycling around Europe before a Fulbright Award in 1952 enabled him to complete a Masters in Architecture at Harvard. There he was taught by I.M. Pei. He briefly worked with Walter Gropius at the Architects' Collaborative, then with I. M. Pei in New York for about 18 months.

 

Returning to New Zealand in 1954, Toomath set up his own practice. While he designed many private homes, Toomath was also involved with public buildings (including Wellington Teachers College (1966-1977), and Wool House (1955, in association with Bernard Johns & Whitwell)). As Head of Wellington Polytechnic's School of Design from 1979-1989 he mentored a generation of young designers, while maintaining his own practice. An active member of the Architectural Centre since its earliest days, and the Wellington Civic Trust for the past 25 years, Toomath has also been an advocate for heritage buildings. He campaigned to stop the demolition of the Old Town Hall, and Old St Pauls.

 

Toomath considers himself 'a fundamental modernist'. His practice covers the entire period of modernism in New Zealand and he is regarded as one of our leading architects.