Architects' rights under spotlight over 'offensive' Parliament House fence
Romaldo Giurgola must be rolling in his grave. Like the recent peaceful protesters rolling down Canberra's Parliament House slopes one last symbolic time, the architect considered the idea of a security fence around the building "offensive".
Hundreds roll down the lawns of Parliament House in a protest against plans to fence off the area.Credit:Rohan Thomson
With Giurgola's death earlier this year, fellow architects have defended the integrity of his design. Australia's most famous architect, Pritzker-prizewinner Glenn Murcutt, reminded politicians that Giurgola's emblematic design "expressed freedom".
"Putting a fence around it is putting a noose around it."
Danish architect Jorn Utzon in front of the Sydney Opera House during its construction.Credit:Getty Images
Democracy isn't the only thing under symbolic attack. Ken Maher, the Australian Institute of Architects' national president – reportedly "deeply outraged" – declared "the moral rights held in the building will be seriously compromised". With the fence scheduled to be installed next year, everyone seems to have been ignored. But then we have a long tradition of overriding architectural vision – Jorn Utzon being the most notorious example.
If the Parliament House stoush sharpens the focus on an architect's moral rights, it's worth asking what exactly are they and when are they upheld?
Under the Berne Convention architects (or artists as they are classified in the convention and the Copyright Act) have a right to claim authorship. "That's a right of attribution and a right to integrity," says Dr Claudio Bozzi, Deakin University law lecturer. "The right of integrity basically means they have a right for their work not to be destroyed or mutilated. The term used in Section 195 of the Copyright Act is 'derogatory treatment'."
The section states: "Derogatory treatment in relation to an artistic work means the doing in relation to the work of anything that results in a material distortion of the destruction or mutilation of or material alteration to the work that is prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation."
The exterior of the RMIT Design Hub showing the skin of 16,000 sand-blasted glass discs. Credit:Paul Rovere
Given Giurgola's intent was to create an open space, a fence may seem a clear mutilation of his design. But, as Bozzi notes, "national security trumps just about everything".
"That aside, it's really hard to qualify under derogatory treatment," he says. "You've really got to show that the architect suffered 'prejudice' as a result of the mutilation or destruction of the building." Even in the case of the Sydney Opera House, Bozzi believes that despite the insult to Utzon, "he would be hard-pressed to argue that he didn't get any work after the alteration to his design".
Sean Godsell at the RMIT Design Hub.Credit:Josh Robenstone
It's not just national security that demands buildings be altered. A client's needs can change. In Melbourne, the RMIT Design Hub by Sean Godsell is a jewel-like building covered in moveable glass discs. One of the most internationally recognised buildings in the city, it has won numerous awards and been published extensively. The Design Hub is undergoing two significant adaptions: the replacement of its toughened safety glass on the facade after nine discs broke and an interior fitout to accommodate its undergraduate architects. But after five months of consultation over the fitout, the contract with Godsell was terminated in October.
Relations broke down over the conversion of multipurpose space in the basement into a workshop; specifically how the exhaust, dust, fumes and noise would be extracted.
The Parliament House Lawns will be closed to the public. Credit:Elesa Kurtz
"The dean of the faculty of architecture insisted that we make changes to the building which I fundamentally disagreed with for good technical and good design reasons," Godsell says. "He overrode that professional advice and insisted that we either make the changes or we go."
RMIT's dean of Architecture and Design, Professor Richard Blythe, counters: "We need the workshops in that space. It's as simple as that. There's no ambition to ruin Sean's architecture at all. In fact RMIT is going to lengths to try and make sure that doesn't happen. We've employed three extraordinarily good architects [March Studio, Searle and Waldron, and Make Architecture]. The whole intent of the fitout is to respect the building to make the most of the extraordinary spaces that's he's created."
Godsell adds: "I would have thought the ultimate mark of respect would be to continue to engage with the author of the building."
The architect will have to wait until the start of the academic year to see if the additions and alterations affect his original design. Meanwhile, Godsell wonders about his right of authorship: "The argy-bargy with RMIT is not the story. Shit happens between architects and their clients. The real issue is at what point does the architect as author of a work of art cease to be relevant? How do I promote that building as a building that I've authored? I can't."
Most Viewed in Entertainment
Please explain
Our weekly podcast giving you insight into the stories that drive the nation.
Listen now