.jpg)
The book was begun with a degree of excited anticipation. One had lived this era; it would be good to have an overview of it. One finishes the book with some degree of disappointment. While the scope and quantity of Gibson’s work is remarkable, one remains unmoved by it. There is a cold, hard sense of ordered self-consciousness one might call ‘classical,’ in the projects, not unlike that sensed in Mies’s work, but not as startlingly crisp; or as elegantly pure. While Deborah van der Plaat mentions the possibility, but does little more with the thought, Gibson’s manipulative ‘trapping’ attitude labelled as the ‘psychology’ used in his early commercial retail work, seems to linger in all of his projects as a contrived outcome that one can sense and admire, even respect; but there seems to be little joy in the work; just a resonate personal effort and considered ambition:
p.73 This approach of assessing individuals’ responses to their surroundings (in Gibson’s early commercial work) has formed a continuing thread in the development of all subsequent architectural solutions.
.jpg)
.jpg)
There is nothing of that warmth; that longing, a lingering homeliness that one senses in Wright’s work: one might call it heart - not that everything has to be a ‘Wright’: it is just a comparison to try to explain subtle matters, like ‘the taste of a mango.’ One might not worry about this, and appreciate the work for what it is, but it is claimed that the work is for people, and does relate to its place, climate, and context; e.g. St. Therese’s Church at Edmonton that is said to relate to the dark hills - (p.255 Its otherwise low profile references the densely forested mountain ranges which surround its site), just as the Queensland Art Gallery does to the Mt. Coot-tha/Stanley Range, just because, it seems, they are there in the photographs.
p.68 Allan Kirkwood . . . the Water Mall . . . Robin perceived it as being a parallel flow to the river. That it reflected the Brisbane River. . . . he’d say stuff like: ‘It’s time Brisbane rediscovered its river.’ He also talked about the mountains in the background and the way Brisbane fits into a basin that’s surrounded by not so much mountains as hills. (sic)
.jpg)
One senses more of a committed rigour, a coherence, in the early commercial work that seems to feel less laboured, (for want of a better word), and not as contrived as the later work; one might say that the early projects are ‘spiritedly controlled’ with a certain keen enthusiasm. Maybe one can agree with Colin Christ: that Gibson is best seen as a good interior designer; and with Bill Heather and Allan Kirkwood, that he was a shrewd manipulator?
Colin Christ: But the thing that rally appeals to me about the art gallery and performing arts centre are the interiors. I consider Robin’s strength lay more in terms of interior design, rather than the form of the building. ( p.68)
.jpg)
Bill Heather: He was just doing something to suit his clients’ requirements, and they would pay him back. (p.64)
Allan Kirkwood: Robin gave people great confidence in his ability to get things done, and to do things well. (p.64);
but when the client wanted something different to the ‘Gibson style,’ Gibson seemed to lack interest in the project:
Tattersalls Club . . . the client, ‘insisted that the building have a club look, they didn’t want a modern office building . . . I think he visited the site twice in two years.’ (Finn Rasmussen) p.292.
It is interesting to note that neither photographs nor descriptions of this significant, inner-city project have been included in this book. It is as if the editors might be colluding with Gibson, presenting the vision that he might prefer.
.jpg)
One is frustrated by the academic precision of the presentation that doesn’t follow up on obvious contradictions, errors, and vague statements that should be discussed, along with the changes to the buildings over time, modifications that have been made to the ideas expounded. The book is really a picture book, with an accompanying ‘coffee table’ text - some of which merely repeats the words in the essays - (e.g. The Gourmet p.265 where identical words from text are used again to describe the project photograph: c.f. p.121) - with a few considered reviews, overviews, interviews, and a talk. The photos are substantially a collection and collation of architectural shots, cleverly composed, generally with the context framed out, using the guile of the photographers’ eye to assist or create the preferred reading, even when the everyday experience might be much different; sometimes there is a site plan or a floor plan. One has to look hard for a Street View. The photograph of the Kenmore Presbyterian Church and Community Education Centre (the pp.126/127 spread), is typical of the artifice of the architectural photograph.
The Richard Stringer photo of the Kenmore Church has got to be one of the ‘trickiest’ architectural images produced. It shrewdly captures the congregation in just over half of the photo on the left with the right portion of the image being a reflection of the bush in a pane of glass, perhaps an open door, through which the blurred image of the minister can be seen. One could argue that it is a very clever photo expressive of the bushy context of the place, revealing something of the experience of the congregation. On the other hand, it does highlight the cunning art of the architectural image that can powerfully transform the reading of a place usually seen just as a snapshot – as an everyday Street View. Most of the architectural images in this book have been styled for presentation. Very few show a Street View, as seen by a nonchalant passerby. In this way, we can see Gibson’s work taken out of the context that he always claimed to care for and be responsive to.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
p 73. HOOK ADDRESS
We find buildings erected with little or no concern for many of the intrinsic qualities of our cities, natural attributes ignored and views and vistas from our streets and vantage points violated.
Another statement on p.73 records Gibson’s comment that Seidler’s work was ‘publishable’: Here was work (Seilder’s) that was not only published but publishable. What was this quality and why was it desirable? - see https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-rose-seidler-house-private-visions.html. Did Gibson seek to design buildings that were publishable? Did he see the aim of architecture to be publishable? Could this be the 'psychology' referred to? One wonders, is this the criteria for choosing the projects to be illustrated in this book?
.jpg)
One can only think that the motto of the book might be to never speak ill of the dead. The publication sometimes looks like a concerted effort to create a true hagiography, to present a sensitive, creative architect who loved his city and its people, while happily defining himself as the 'fake' Robin Gibson and Partners, suggesting colleagues who no one knows anything about. Might it have been a private family affair? The partners didn’t seem to be anyone of the workers employed by Gibson. What does this say about the man? The book brushes over this odd quirk as though it was a quaint anomaly, or maybe a cunning, almost praiseworthy caper.
The Robin Gibson book, (more formally titled Light, Space, Place: The Architecture of Robin Gibson as if it might be an ad hoc aside), occasionally reads almost like a fantasy story, promoting a fiction about urban links to the river, for example, when actual coherent relations with the adjacent natural waterway are overlooked, but remembered as a pool – p.68 Allan Kirkwood . . . the Water Mall . . . Robin perceived it as being a parallel flow to the river. That it reflected the Brisbane River. . . . he’d say stuff like: ‘It’s time Brisbane rediscovered its river.’ He also talked about the mountains in the background and the way Brisbane fits into a basin that’s surrounded by not so much mountains as hills. (sic).
Gíbson saw this (the river) as a vital link . . . (p.292); but the vision seems as puzzling as the Art Gallery with this pool to remind of the river it ignores; and as strange as the Performing Arts Centre that has foyers looking away from the river, parallel to it, with views to the Museum and Art Gallery. This schism never dis ussed. Why perpetuate a fantasy: to make Gibson look good? In the same manner the book makes no comment on changes to Gibson’s buildings. It notes, almost as an aside, that the State Library was excluded from the heritage listing because of the alterations; and that Mayne Hall is now an art gallery; but there is nothing about any changes to the University of Queensland library, or to the Mayne Hall context; and nothing about the proposed modifications to the Performing Arts Centre by Snøhetta/Rayner. The book seems to want to paint an idyllic vision of Gibson, talking, for example, poetically about urban bridge links that are mean walkways/cyclepaths either side of busy bus routes; or above them. Matters are described in nothing but glowing terms, telling of what was, or might have been in the past, ignoring the impacts of growth, time and functions that are architecture's challenges. The book has a strange sense of being ‘Gibson - a history: the good old days,’ describing outcomes and circumstances in spite of changes in functions, place and circumstance.
.jpg)
If Gibson’s work is all so very good, why not be alarmed by these changes? Why is all the work not heritage listed? p.155 records that the Queensland Cultural Centre, excluding library, was added to the State Heritage Registrar 2015. Oddly, in spite of this protection, it seems that the alterations to the Performing Arts Centre proposed by Snøhetta/Rayner have all been approved.
.jpg)
We are told about the great, quality architecture presented for the people; by the people; for the climate; for Brisbane; for Queensland; of the love of the river; of the idea to make the city great again; with the work presented as if to make one believe; publishing it as though it still might be as it was originally: c.f. University of Queensland Library with its new neighbours and lid that are never revealed. We are told that the Fisher Library in Sydney was the inspiration for this project, but one can see a relationship with the base of the Sydney Opera House. We are told how a response to climate was critical; how layered elevations responded to context; but there is nothing about the full glass walls of the Snøhetta/Rayner being a problem; or of how facile the ripply glass gesture might be as an effort to relate to the river: no recesses or layers here; no comment - there is not a squeak; not even a bleat of regret that Gibson’s work is being altered again with as much vigour as the library was modified by Donovan Hill/Peddle Thorp, so significantly that the modifications were sufficient to deny the building a heritage listing (p.201) - but there are no comments about this; or about how the shrewd siting of Gibson’s buildings at the University of Queensland has been cluttered and obliterated: the publication illustrates and discusses only the buildings as they were constructed; as pristine examples of Gibson’s work; brand new.
.jpg)
.jpg)
One needs things to be made clear and explicit; not to be presented with pretty and seemingly fanciful stories that offer praise for circumstances and qualities that have altered, without asking why this might be so; or whether it might be desirable.
.jpg)
.jpg)
One wonders: what do the authors really think about Gibson’s work be being ‘fixed up’ or revisited by Donovan Hill/Peddle Thorp (Library) and Snøhetta/Blight Rayner (Performing Arts Centre)? One has heard no loud protests about this remodelling; there is merely a noted silence. If Gibson’s projects are such significant and iconic work, why not treat them like the great heritage they are said to be, rather than let them be restyled to suit new fancies to fit other visions? The book shows none of the revised work, and nothing of the dramatic changes at the University of Queensland. Everything is considered as Gibson would have wanted it. The book seems to be expanding only on Gibson’s views and opinions. Should one be outraged, or accept the modifications as inevitable 'progress'? It seems that we are happy to modify Gibson’s work, but want to protect other public buildings like the General Post Office and the old Treasury Building, now a casino, with heritage rigour.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
It is interesting to note that Rayner has a history of being involved with changes in other projects: e.g. TAFE South Brisbane generally, and in particular, Block H; and the original beginning/entrance of the Kangaroo Point Boardwalk – both works by Project Services/Jamieson. Block H was modified in spite of objections that were just boldly ignored – box ticked; no one ever asked about the removal of the designed perimeter and its award winning graphics: there was no consultation on the boardwalk changes that removed the only specially redesigned sculpture for the project, the tiled entry mat, and the main signage directory for the project. It is not known if the artists were contacted. All of these pieces have now disappeared after being dumped against a wall in the Maritime Museum grounds.
Finally there are some more general issues: can one approach architectural history with comments and reviews that ignore the present - e.g. by making bold assessments about the work and its impact and role that ignores how/what it has become today: as in talking about a ‘timeless’ work and its qualities when it has changed use or been adapted otherwise? The enigma here is that we might want to talk about the wonderful response for people, place, climate, etc., etc., but not even note that there have been significant changes to both place and building, or wonder why. Is architecture something only of its time; a performance as in theatre; only the fleeting story of its immediacy; or are we talking about a slightly broader time scale, of only its few years of unchallenged glory? Can we eulogise anything that may concern place and time as in city futures, by ignoring later impacts and influences? The irony is that some projects boast about endurance awards while the lack of endurance of other work is something that seems to want to be ignored.
While the Dalton book, (see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2024/05/john-dalton-shades-of-style.html), stood out for its numerous errors: missing the core hot English summer; and feeling like a forced, contrived argument; the Gibson book has stirred as rarely before with fundamentally simple errors and claims shaped as eulogies that are questionable, and sometimes even false, ignoring not only the actual experience of the everyday and the churn of history, but also the present, as though nothing has happened to anything; even using Gibson’s own words to support arguments, words from a man who was happy to present himself as a lie, with mystery ‘partners.’ It can appear as a very confronting book, wanting to be academically proper in its referencing detail, but happy with the unquestioned, picture book core that presents contrived architectural images to drool over, complete with brief, notebook descriptions, sometimes taken straight from the text, all for architects to ponder; a set of images accompanied by academic essays, with architectural interviews and overviews - again for architects? Or is the publication aimed at a more general audience? The book is a frustrating muddle, reading as something of a novel presenting the life story of Gibson with the writings generally being descriptive, confirming the story of the work by highlighting Gibson’s way of seeing in glowing terms, to reveal the wonderful, ideal world of Robin Gibson, ‘architect extraordinary,’ (apologies to Hunt and Freeland), when the extraordinary matter is that some of these circumstances just never existed, yet remain, spoken of as real without any question or critique. It is the lack of any substantial analysis that is the worry here. Is it like Richard Aldington’s savage critique of Eliot and Pound: that the Gibson myth is so entrenched that even the facts will never dislodge ingrained assessments, understandings, and beliefs? – see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-pounding-critic.html. Has Gibson, perhaps seen as the domineering, self-centred, authoritative individual, managed matters so well as to have left an indelible mark on perceptions? Is he like other persons of this era, filling a place with Gibson Towers, while demanding ‘Brisbane First’ as he rants on with a monotonous repetition about his care for a set of prescribed issues like rivers and hills, layered elevations, and civic connections, all to ‘Make Queensland Great Again,’ while expressing an interest in ‘trapping’ the public – the uneducated people of all shapes and sizes - for commercial advantage? The ‘some people are just too negative’ put down of the critic ignores significant issues, and reveals a preference for the good story, even if the facts are distorted. In this sense the book can be seen to be more of a novel based on the life of Robin Gibson with the aside that ‘some fictions have been created to improve the story.’ It seems that if one repeats the lie enough, come hell or high water, it will stick: yes, it appears that one should never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
(Gibson) Absolutely loved classical music. . . . some music was playing in his car. He said, ‘Don’t you love that?’ He was a nice person . . . (Rosemary Penfold) – p.53; see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2014/03/on-death-of-robin-gibson-architect.html and the Tchaikovsky story, again, on music playing in a car. Gibson gave Allan Kirkwood a lift home and raised the matter of a partnership; (p.292). Gibson used the car as an occasion to communicate with staff in a way that he would/could not in the office.
Ordinary, everyday events are as much a part of history as ‘the facts.’ Each Friday afternoon, (p.289), a collection was taken up from the staff members to buy the beer for the social gathering after five o’clock. Gibson purchased the pizzas. Gibson used the gathering to invite his clients to share in the occasion.
KANGAROO POINT
Kenniger mentions the Kangaroo Point Boardwalk linking to Captain Burke Park at the iconic point opposite Brisbane’s CBD. It should be recorded that the very first report/schematic design for this public walkway/cycle path, had it starting at the eastern end of, and connected to the South Bank Parklands at the Maritime Museum, continuing along the river, and across the point under the bridge to join the river again on the eastern side of the point, to finish at the Dockside development. The walk was designed, detailed, and constructed in four stages, to suit the electoral cycle, which took it to a location just beyond the Thornton Street ferry terminal, where the Brisbane City Council land started. Prior to this, most of the river’s edge was Crown land; everything stopped at the Council’s land. The Brisbane City Council had no interest in continuing this development which had been planned to traverse its land and link up to the Crown land on the eastern side of the point, a strip that linked some significant places.
Alas, it was never to be continued with the same intent; but we still get public bodies raving on about the love for the river in this ‘River City,’ and the city’s coherent relationship with it, etc. (p.332), when it has been a real struggle to ensure that the river is respected and opened up to the public. The Brisbane City Council has installed a wiggly concrete path across its land; nothing else that might explore the intrigues of context, place, history, and views. The original report had a scheme that had public places that responded to historical planting, the river’s edge, the vistas, the open park spaces, and the adjacent heritage buildings as a part of the total journey. The Brisbane City Council showed no interest in completing this project, and ignored the scheme. It is even showing some belligerence in its maintenance of the walkway by turning cycle paths into shared access ways with its loved white lines, a decision which ignores the essential principle of separation. Offers to become involved in this continuing management have been rejected.
.jpg)
Rayner put a bridge at both ends of the Kangaroo Point Walkway, one of which demolished the entry to the boardwalk. Was there ever any discussion? No; nothing. So much for moral rights; so much for morals.
.jpg)
.jpg)
ERRORS & QUERIES
On errors in and queries about the text:
Ironically, the digital world and its layered distractions and challenging certainty, seems to make errors in publications inevitable. Still, one might have hoped that in a $79:00 book produced by a well known publisher of quality, well designed printed matter, the text would have been carefully edited and checked to try to eliminate obvious errors. It is disappointing to have the names of architects wrong, for classic spelling errors to be missed, and for names to ignore their architectural reference in a book on an architect.
Every little error drives a nail into the credibility of, and the respect for the book, especially when one already senses that significant issues are being glossed over in favour of a certain preferred perception of the subject. Perhaps criticism does not sell as well as praise? Are all histories manipulated like this? There are hints that suggest something of the difficult character of the man, but these are buried in layers of created wonder and amazement that one struggles to sense in the reconstituted granite heart of the oeuvre, which is only presented in part in this arrangement of selected projects, leaving one to wonder what the rules for inclusion might have been. Could they have been the same criteria used for the texts?
There are always some people who are very negative (Tom Elich, p.59, in interview on cathedral process). One might add that some are far too positive and see only excellence and wonder and never the contradictions. We create a fake world for ourselves if we fail to see through and understand the hype and the blurb for what it is; and if we merely accept the architectural photographs too, and ignore the real, everyday outcomes.
These are the notes that were jotted down during the reading:
p.48 I ever saw my father go through files . . . instead of ‘never.’
p.52 the pelmets for the lighting that was all a wattle stain . . .
It seems it should have been the paint brand Wattyl, not the tree. Do the authors not know their products? Wattyl Paints had a quality range of stains in the 1960’s.
AI Overview (Gemini): In the 1960s, Wattyl Paints was a successful Australian paint brand with a marketing campaign that led to the term "Estapol" becoming the Australian term for clear finishing timber. Wattyl also introduced its Galvit range of primers, which have been used in corrosive environments since the early 1960s.
p.72 the buildings of Robin Dad . . . should be Dods.
p.72 grammar/punctuation?: The palette of materials afforded him by circumstances and clients was limited, Dod’s work, and the majority of other buildings . . .
p.72. and small office scale work . . . on the Hayes and Scott office – ‘small-scale office work.’
p 73 Anther in Sydney . . . Should be Ancher, referring to Sydney Ancher, who set up a solo practice in Sydney in 1946, then the partnership Ancher, Mortlock and Murray, a firm established in 1952 (that became Ancher, Mortlock and Woolley, now trading as Conrad and Gargett).
p.73 punctuation: an understanding of minimalism held – comma after minimalism.
p.73 His solutions spoke of an architecture which I grew with an Australian background. ? English
Is this the editor or Gibson? If Gibson, should be a [sic].
p.207 the facade was broken up. by concrete and glass . . . error in punctuation and sentence structure.
p.255 above the alter . . . instead of ‘altar.’
p.259 ‘It is the latter,’ he explained, ‘which we [architects] are virtually interested.’ . . . ??? a [sic]?
p.259 the 118-year-old firm’s world ranging interests . . . needs hyphen or a [sic].
p.260 This could not be recommended today, however, similar principles . . . an unnecessary comma after ‘however.’
p.280 punctuation: need comma after ‘river’: Stanley Street, running along the edge of the river limited the capacity to link . . .
p.298 the university who had lobbied . . . ‘the university that’
See also:
ROBIN GIBSON – THE BOOK: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2025/02/robin-gibson-book.html
and
ROBIN GIBSON – THE QUEEN & THE FOUNTAIN: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2025/02/robin-gibson-queen-fountain.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.