What is it about public art that sparks such passionate debate?
It usually begins with a generous impulse: to honor a prominent citizen, beautify the city, show respect for the importance of art in our lives. But the process of deciding just what art to put where frequently inspires strong disagreement – contention that, on reflection, has obvious roots.
Public art is meant to provoke, to enlighten, to provide new ways of seeing the world around us. To be successful, an artist must have freedom to create.
Public art: Who decides? — baltimoresun.com.
Architects Anupam Bansal and Rajesh Dongre find interesting ways to blend their buildings with the surrounding landscape.
Most laboratories in India are rather dull box-like spaces — their architecture focussing on functionality without even a passing nod at the aesthetic. The new development at the National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS) in Bangalore, however, promises to be refreshingly different.
Experimental designs – Business Standard Gargi Gupta / New Delhi.
The British architectural profession has had a largely negative response to plans for London’s 80,000-seat Olympic stadium, which were unveiled last month. Critics say that the design, by HOK Sport and architect Peter Cook of HOK, lacks the flair of conceptual images shown during London’s bid to host the 2012 Games. But the city’s Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) defends the stadium as an adaptable and practical structure that can be re-used.
Critics have panned designs for the 2012 Olympic Stadium in London, an 80,000-seat arena created by HOK Sport and architect Peter Cook of HOK. The building is intended to be dismantled and re-assembled elsewhere after the Games.
Critics of the stadium, including several newspaper columnists and architect Will Alsop, have voiced a long list of complaints starting with the fact that there was no competition to chose the designers.
London’s 2012 Olympics Stadium Panned | News | Architectural Record.