Letter: 'House' raises questions of art

Mr Michael Daley
Wednesday 01 December 1993 00:02 GMT

Support truly
independent journalism

Our mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.

Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.

Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.

Louise Thomas

Louise Thomas


Sir: Is there any hope for art? We now see (Letters, 30 November) an associate editor of the once-venerable Burlington Magazine joining the mewlings and wheedlings of Modernist art critics and administrators against the eminently enlightened decision of the Bow Neighbourhood Committee to see an end to Rachel Whiteread's House.

The truth of the matter is that House is not, properly speaking, a piece of sculpture or a work of art. It is a concrete cast of the interior space of a house - an ordinary, unmodified house. This 'work' does not represent an artist's idea of a house or of its association or anything - it is a literal filling of space with reinforced concrete. It could have been done by anyone, at any time, anywhere. There was nothing special about the house. There is nothing special about a cast of its interior spaces.

To foist such an ugly monument to non-imagination on the open green space of a working-class neighbourhood is to be doubly offensive. First, to the inhabitants, and second, to those artists who remember that the point of art is to work with materials in order to give expression to, or - if you will - make concrete, ideas.

Yours sincerely,


East Barnet, Hertfordshire

30 November

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies


Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in