Donald Evans:  My fellow regents, we are gathered here to make another step towards selecting an architect to design the new Blanton Museum of Art.  At this point, we have narrowed our possible options down to a small list of highly qualified finalists.  One of the most promising names on that list is Jacques Herzog, cofounder of the renowned Swiss architecture firm Herzog & De Meuron.  Mr. Herzog is here with us today to present his visions and ideas for this project. 

“Donald Evans”

http://www.nndb.com/people/537/000059360/
 
 

 

 

Jacques Herzog:  I have come today to speak less about the Blanton than I have to speak about the future of your campus in general.  Over the last several months, I have spent hours researching this project.  I am now quite familiar with both the master plan and the prevalent styles of architecture on this campus.  It is my opinion that the current master plan will not serve the best interests of the university.  If the plan is followed, the campus will continue to be haunted by fragments of contrasting architectural styles.  I do not want this to happen, and so I have come today to persuade you to revise your master plan. 

“Jacques Herzog”

http://www.pritzkerprize.com/2001annc.htm
 
 

 

 

Evans:  That is a bold statement, but please continue.

 

Herzog:  Your master plan presents a noble goal, but the methods outlined to achieve that goal are flawed.  Throughout the plan, the necessity for an architecturally unified campus is stressed. On this point, I cannot agree more.  A university “campus needs to be seen as a whole.” [1]  It is imperative to the continued success of an institution that its campus exudes unity and does not feel like “a series of disparate pieces.” [2]  The problem is that the steps in your plan simply will not work.

 

Evans:  I must disagree.  “It was Thomas Jefferson’s University of Virginia that brought the ideal of the academic village to the American campus.” [3]  Today, this Neoclassical architecture remains effective in creating an academic village in which “communal cohesion [is] derived as much from the physical plan as from any philosophy or values.” [4]  The guidelines in our master plan are derived from this classical Greek style that has been so successful at UVA and many other universities around the country.  Don’t you agree that such a design would be successful at Texas?

 

Herzog:  You are suggesting that the proper path to follow is imitation of classical styles from the past.  Mr. Evans, this is a university, and as such, this must be a place that encourages change--a place that values innovation far more than imitation.  A successful professor does not stop at simply studying the work of his predecessors.  He begins by studying them, but he then advances forward with new discoveries and research.  This is the way intellectual progress works.  In the same manner, art and architecture must recognize the past but then innovate and go beyond it.  Pure imitation quickly becomes trite and meaningless.  “Great art, whether expressing itself in words, colors, or stones, simply does not say the same thing over and over again.” [5]  Innovation and change have fueled all previous styles of architecture.  Let me remind you that at one point even the Doric column was a radical new idea. 

 

Evans:  I understand your point and can’t disagree with it.  However, we are not willing to turn our campus into a proving ground for experimental modern design.  Like I said, our goal is to create an academic village with a unified physical plan, and I do not believe that our goal can “be appropriately realized unless all buildings correspond in style.”[6]  

 

Herzog: Allow me to explain.  The goal at the core of the master plan—to reintegrate the buildings on campus and to convey a unified sense of place—will not be accomplished by reverting back to Paul Cret’s “grand classical tradition” from the 1930’s.[7]  What was done in the sixties and seventies remains.  It is not feasible to tear down the PCL, the Ransom Center, and the LBJ Library; these parts of the campus are here to stay.  If all new buildings are no more than imitations of Battle Hall, the modern buildings on campus will be even more alienated.  Your problem with a schism between architectural styles will only increase. 

Future designs should reflect Paul Cret’s buildings from the thirties, recognize the minimalist designs from the sixties and seventies, and continue to move forward.  Like I said, the university is centered on progress and discovery.  It must avoid stagnating in the past.  In order to create a unified sense of place, we cannot ignore the LBJ Library, nor can we ignore Sutton Hall.  We must create a recognizable continuum of architectural styles by fusing aspects of all buildings on campus with completely new elements of modern design.  This is the only way to achieve unity without sacrificing progress and innovation.

“Sutton Hall” Photo: Will McDonald
 
 

 

Evans:  If I may interject, remember that another important goal is to connect this academic village back to nature.  We are trying to avoid building a concrete jungle, yet we realize that most of the modern buildings on campus are large concrete boxes.  Don’t you agree that these buildings pull us away from nature?

 

“Ransom Center, Moon, Tree”

 Photo: Will McDonald
 
Herzog: The reality is that this university is situated in the middle of a large urban area.  During the course of development in Austin, many elements of nature that were once present have been lost.  That said, some nature still exists on this campus.  The way to establish a connection with this nature is not to tear down buildings and plant trees.  Instead, the trick is to make people notice and appreciate the nature that still exists. 

 

Evans:  You are saying these concrete boxes make our students notice nature?

 

 

“LBJ Library”

Photo: Will McDonald
 
Herzog: In many ways, the stark contrast between modern buildings and their natural surroundings forces people to appreciate and bask in the nature that is still here.  I found that the simple geometric and linear design of the Harry Ransom Center brings out the natural beauty in the sycamore and oak trees nearby.  In the same manner, the boxy LBJ library and its large concrete pavilion make the green sweeping lawn down to the fountain even more impressive.  The towering white walls behind the Perry Castaneda Library create an interesting dichotomy with the remaining grove of oak trees there.

 

Evans:  Besides just creating contrast, do you see any other ways that these buildings promote a connection with nature?

 

Herzog:  Yes.  From a distance, the Ransom Center appears to be just a large box of white limestone, but if you move in closer and examine the rock used in the construction, you will find evidence of thousands of years of natural history.  The exterior of that building is covered in fossils which provide a physical connection between the modern building and the natural state of prehistoric Texas.

“Fossils on the Ransom Center”

Photo: Will McDonald
 
 

Evans:  You are full of answers Mr. Herzog, but can you honestly tell me that Jester connects its inhabitants with nature?

 

Herzog:  As far as how to solve the problem with Jester, I must confess that I’m not a demolition expert and, as such, I cannot fix the building.[8]  While I’ll admit that not all the modern buildings on this campus are beautiful, I also believe in “a kind of Aikido strategy where you use your enemy's energy for your own purposes. Instead of fighting it, you take all the energy and shape it in unexpected and new ways."[9]  I had success with this strategy while transforming the Bankside Power Station in London into the Tate Modern Gallery of Art.  I believe that instead of hiding Jester, I can “draw attention away from it with a good building that is appropriately landscaped and oriented.”[10]

 

Evans:  So you would employ this Aikido type strategy in designing a new Blanton?

 

Herzog: Well yes.  That strategy is at the root of most of what I do.  “The strength of my buildings is in the immediate, visceral impact they have on a viewer.” [11]  I will not design another building with a pitched red roof and a “clearly defined basement, body and attic,” [12] because the finished building would fail both at achieving unity and impacting viewers. These requirements in the master plan will only deepen the stylistic schism and result in trite, recycled designs. 

 

Evan:  I understand what you are planning not to do, but can you explain exactly what it is you are planning to do?

 

Herzog:  If I’m chosen to design the Blanton, I will take characteristics of all the buildings on campus and mold them with elements of my own style into a design that builds on the past without sacrificing modern innovation.  The finished design, regardless of its compliance with specific requirements in the campus master plan, will be a work of art and a major step towards achieving architectural unity on this campus. 

 

Evans:  Quite honestly, I am not convinced that we need to rewrite our master plan, and I’m dubious of your methods for promoting unity.  “We want to ensure that the museum is a cultural institution that serves all of Texas and that it occupies a building of great style, character and integrity.” [13]  At this point, I fear that it may not be possible to “bridge [our] differences over the interpretation of the project.”[14]  I urge you to adapt your design to comply with the master plan.

 

Herzog:  Sir, I urge you to reconsider your master plan. 

 

*                      *                      *

 

            Shortly after this meeting, the regents of the University of Texas chose Herzog and Demeuron to design the new Blanton Museum of Art.  The Swiss firm began work immediately and soon presented the university with “a concept drawing of a high-modernist museum of tomorrow.”[15]  The glass walls and flat roof appalled powerful members of the board of regents, and the university demanded that the design change to conform to the master plan.  The Swiss architects refused to compromise their principles and terminated their contract with the university. 

            So, in 2000, the search for an architect began anew.  This time the regents demanded prototype designs. The submitted blueprints reflected a wide array of stylistic preferences among the contenders.  The designs ranged from floating glass boxes to Demetri Porphyrios’s anti-modernist proposal which ignored all the architectural innovation of the last century.  The Austin Chronicle brashly called it a “monstrous slab of Eurosnobbery mixed with a tight-ass architectural convention that went out of practice when the French beheaded Marie Antoinette.”  Although this design did comply with the master plan, Demetri Porphyrios was not chosen.

            Another contender was San Antonio based Overland Partners.  The Overland architects all graduated from the University of Texas and had each spent years studying in Austin.  Their familiarity and understanding of the campus far surpassed any of the other contenders, and this experience might have allowed them to innovate by deviating from some requirements of the master plan without sacrificing unity.  The regents were unwilling to hire such young architects, and the Overland design was rejected.

            Instead, the university chose the established firm of Kallmann McKinnell & Wood.  They pledged to follow in the line of Paul Cret, and President Larry Faulkner commended them for “their imagination, experience, and commitment to this project.”[16]  Their final design incorporated many elements of the typical “UT Spanish-Colonial Revival architecture.”[17] For example, the exterior of the museum is to be made of Texas limestone and interspersed with pink Hill Country granite. The building will be covered by a pitched roof made of red Spanish tiles.  Single paned glass windows and an open air arcade will punctuate the exterior façade.[18]   Construction began in 2002 and was schedule for completion in early 2005.  The project has been plagued by delays and the new Blanton Museum of Art is still under construction.

“View of the new Blanton Museum”

Rendering by Gil Gorski

http://www.blantonmuseum.org/
 
 

 

 

 

Word Count without Quotations: 1796

 


[1] Janice Anderson and William Butler, Campus Master Plan:  The University of Texas at Austin. (Austin: University of Texas at Austin) 8.

[2] Anderson and Butler, 8.

[3] Anderson and Butler, 7.

[4] Anderson and Butler, 3.

[5] John Ruskin, “The Nature of the Gothic,” The Stones of Venice Vol. III (1853): 166.

[6] Anderson and Butler, 8.

[7] Carol McMichael, Paul Cret at Texas (Austin: College of Fine Arts and Hart Graphics) 41.

[8] Mike Clark-Madison, “Classical Revival at the Blanton” The Austin Chronicle (2000).

[9] Jackie Craven, The Tate Modern. <http://architecture.about.com/library/blherzog-tate.htm> (6 February, 2006).

[10] Mike Clark-Madison, “Classical Revival at the Blanton” The Austin Chronicle (2000).

[11] Office of Public Affairs, Blanton Museum Design Architects Reject Commission. <http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/99newsreleases/nr_199911/nr_blanton991116.html>  (6 February, 2006).

[12] Anderson and Butler, 49.

[13] Office of Public Affairs, Blanton Museum Design Architects Reject Commission.

[14] Office of Public Affairs, Blanton Museum Design Architects Reject Commission.

[15] Mike Clark-Madison, “Classical Revival at the Blanton” The Austin Chronicle (2000).

[16] Mike Clark-Madison, “Classical Revival at the Blanton” The Austin Chronicle (2000).

[17] College of Fine Arts, Blanton Museum of Art Reschedules Grand Opening. <http://www.blantonmuseum.org/popup_windows/news/10_2_01.html> (7 March 2006)

[18] College of Fine Arts, Blanton Museum of Art Reschedules Grand Opening.