Introduction:
It is an imperatively important thing for all generations to not only preserve the visions of artists but also to accord them the highest respect possible. This should be an endeavor of all stakeholders including government authorities and conservationist as well. The story of Jorn Utzon and his Sidney opera house is one that appeals to the faculties of many as a neglected human creativity by the authorities during its construction time. The effects that resulted from this neglect and outright disregard of the value attached to works of arts are manifest in the myriad of defects we find in the structure in different magnitudes and perspectives. Among the most recognizable and distinctive buildings in the world, The Sydney Opera house has etched a prominent niche both as an Australian and the world iconic monument. It is a building that was designed in a way that it was ahead of its time in architectural and technological prowess.
However, with all the insight the creator had about his superb design, the building was mired in several controversies. It was at first rejected but through the influence of one of the jurors, Eero Saarinen, it was awarded the first prize and winner of the Australian government’s bid. From such controversies that included soaring costs in its initial seven years of construction, the government made several threats to stop the project, and after funds for the construction were withheld, Utzon decided to resign in 1966 and he never went back to see his masterpiece after it was completed in 1973 by other government-selected architectures (Bereson, 2002, pp. 31).
Discussion:
There have been many theories as to why Utzon never went back to Australia. Some argue that it was the infamous and rancorous initial construction years that humiliated him to an extent of never even giving the idea of ever going to Australia a thought. The controversies, feuded relationships with the New South Wales’ government officials, and budget overruns are among the attributed reasons for his indifference. However, it is quite ironical that he was severally quoted saying that he had no bad blood with anybody and that he didn’t hold any grudges (Bereson, 2002, pp. 36).
One such claim is that he believed it to be an education issue through which a person should have a goat’s stomach, one that accepts both sweet and bitter things alike. The point of contention here is that if the government officials at that time had a slight idea of Utzon’s creativity and the need to provide him with all the requirements to accomplish it in his own style, then we cannot definitely doubt what he would have exactly given to Australians and the world at large. On the same note, the real costs of such humiliation to an artist are felt in the sense that it is believed that Utzon never attempted any other major architectural endeavors after the Sydney Opera house project turned sour. Considering the fact that he developed the Opera house structure at only the age of 38 years, and without full architectural skills maturity/experience, we definitely remain convinced that if he was given the necessary financial and moral support necessary, we could be having other (possibly more superior) works of art by him by this time.
Moreover, though Utzon seems to have quietly slipped out of the picture for quite sometime, and not liking the notion of being associated in any further consultation on the building’s construction, we can’t escape the fact that the whole issue didn’t auger well with him. As a man of integrity and with a genius orientation of his caliber, we can beyond any reasonable doubt see some element of the discomfort the whole issue brought to him. Apart from never going back to see his original idea materialize, he didn’t even attend to his inauguration ceremony as the Pritzker Prize (the highest architectural prize) award of 2003 (Bereson, 2002, pp. 42).
Even with all the hindrances that overshadowed this paramount work of arts, the Sydney Opera house achieved unbridled success after its completion. Utzon presented his sketch entry to the select committee in an amazingly original approach. He attempted materials and concepts that were rarely used before and his “sails” design of the roof was particularly interesting. These sails were designed such that they would be constructed from prefabricated concrete shells that would be tilled in blazing white after being fused together by use of adhesives (Maher, 1993, pp. 84). Their inspiration came from the geometry of an orange’s segments rather than obvious harbor sails they appear to mimic. It was also very extraordinary for him to make his model fly in the sense that it wasn’t a mass of the newly invented “brutalism” of the contemporaneous weight blocks, but rather a new dimension in the architectural morphology largely adopted by many today. This work is thus one that entirely resonate in situ conceptual framework. Precisely speaking, not many have actually reached his standards even with the introduction of advanced computerized architecture. He has outlived many and is still an architectural guru of all times as we saw the UNESCO naming his building as a world historical heritage site in 2007 (Hunt, 2001, pp. 28). Another fundamental element we see in Utzon is the fact that over the initial construction years, he was able to some extraordinary malicious negative criticism and publicity, in concerted efforts to build a structure that significantly changed the entire country’s image and world opinion.
There was need for the authorities and financiers of this project to look outside their cocoons at the time when this building was being grounded. It is evident from the proceedings that made Utzon to abandon the project that his adversaries were limited in many ways. One such limitation is the fact that they could not foresee the attention that the completed phenomenon could draw from all angles of the world. It is my personal opinion that if this had been anticipated, then full support would have been provided. In addition, it is vital for institutions and individuals alike to have a broadened overview of innovations. Such lack of information, combined with unhealthy criticism lead to misconstructions about the benefits which innovations in all spheres of humanity can yield.
Similarly, it was this kind of an attitude that blinded the authorities to an extent that they could not realize the cause for the perceived costs escalation and unnecessary delays in construction was as a result of unreasonable low construction estimates on their behalf as opposed to the projections that were suggested by Utzon. Professor Bent Flyvbjerg wrote in 2005 in the Harvard Design Magazine that the huge cost overrun is not the real loss that was brought by the Sydney Opera House project. The real loss he said is that the controversy and the overrun prevented Utzon from ever constructing more masterpiece works.
However, there have been some positive initiatives whereby in the past few years, Australian institutions attempted to heal the breached contract with Utzon. These include the 2002 commissioning of Mr. Utzon to prescribe guideline principles that would assist in interior design renovations. This was aimed at bringing the building as close as possible to Utzon’s original vision which was, in the first place, not preserved to his expectation. Secondly, Mr. Utzon was offered an honorary doctorate in 2003 from the University of Sydney, an occasion he also never attended, but his son, Jan represented him at the ceremony. The same year, as mentioned earlier, Utzon won the most prestigious architecture’s honor-the Pritzker Prize. Though all these attempts were made, a lasting damage had already been done. The line of argument here is that careful scrutiny of any masterpiece works of arts should be done to avoid any regrettable future effects.
Though many years later Utzon was given the opportunity to give suggestions relating to his original interior design of the building, it is evident that no one could actually effect the renovations with the same touch and feeling that Utzon would have. As his grandson once commented, this not only constituted a contamination of ideas and inventions but it also would mean conflict of interest in the sense it could end as a mixed up endeavor without clear cut boundaries as to who did what at the end of it all. This argument has been cited by many supporters of Utzon’s work who claim that elements of possible greed and denial of individual rights of ownership in this nature can be considered an interference with intellectual property rights (Drew, 2002, 11).
Of course, even being hopelessly an opera venue which took seventeen years to build, never furnished properly inside, and whose reclusive architect was without reasonable grounds forced to resign, the building still holds the prestigious position of being the father and the mother of modern masterpiece buildings in the world. Its definitions are beyond a city, reaching to the level of national and continental recognition. Moreover, this is a building that portrays global expressionism of cultural modernity. Its only match as an extraordinary modern building is the 1997 Frank Gehry’s Bilbao Guggenheim (Winter, 2007, pp. 19). As an international architectural icon, the Sydney Opera House will at all times outlive the Guggenheim because it’s the one that did all the difficult initial work first.
Additionally, Utzon’s building has earned the reputation of and status of a myth in the classic modern buildings pantheon. This has been derived from several propositions including the fact that the building was only considered after it had first been classified as a reject that would never be possible to build. It also remains a mystery how Utzon’s sketch came to win the bid because Utzon is said to have disregarded most of the rules that had been given as a measure of the competition. Though most of his construction scheme was rejected, at least the extraordinary roof design won the favor of many, a phenomenon that need the combined skills of all Arup, Anglo-Danish structural engineering company to figure out how it could be done.
The political delays that had persisted since the inception of the idea to construct the Sydney Opera House were welcome by Utzon since they allowed ample time which was critically necessary for the final designing of the project. By the time construction was given a green light to go ahead, just enough primitive architectural computing techniques had been devised, and this significantly helped the complex design and structural calculations that were inevitable (Drew, 2002, 19).
Another remarkable feature that singles Utzon’s work is the fact that it never fits into any chronological or stylistic category. Even his other buildings- government departments like the Kuwait’s National Assembly, houses, churches- looks anything close to it. The building represents a complete one-off structure that has never got a match to date. Most of the architects who have tried to adopt his concept have always ended up looking more of second-rate imitators. This building is certainly an expressive modernism which stands at eminent odds with the international rectilinear style of its time, and a masterful piece that has no eminent challenge so far. The building has be considered a legendary like the pyramids are to Egypt, and in fact it has been regarded one of the 20th Century iconic buildings wonders of the world (Murray, 2004, pp. 102).
Another attribute that makes this building so mythical is that its construction endured much technological, individual, and diplomatic pressure than any other building in the recent history of architecture. In the first place, the government itself was so anxious that work commence as soon as possible. The main reason for this was that there was fear the trust funding and public opinion would turn against them. By the time the first phase of construction began in December 1958, Utzon was still working on several final designs which he had not completed. The sails’ were also not resolved by this time because they were incessantly parabolic during the time. As thus, the work was forty seven weeks behind the schedule as of January 1961 (Groak, 1992, pp. 67).
Other factors that contributed to this kind of delay included the unexpected and unpredictable difficulties such as inability to divert storm water, inclement weather, changes involving original contracting documents, and beginning of construction work before proper construction drawing were prepared and authenticated. Such external interferences were more responsible for the complications that came along during the construction process and should not have warranted the forced resignation and funding denial to Utzon.
A major defect that came as a result of the forced early start and that led to overhaul rebuilt was weak podium columns which could not provide the required support of the roof structure. Furthermore, the government change that occurred in 1965, declaring the project an institution to be governed under the Ministry of Public Works jurisdiction, the last blow that ultimately made Utzon to resign in 1966 (Brookes, 2003, pp. 26).
After Utzon resigned, several changes were made to his original plan. Almost everything that he had designed was criticized by his predecessors and the following are some of such design changes that were effected.
· The podium cladding and paving. The initial idea was to leave the podium open and not to be clad to the water.
· Utzon had planned to use prefabricated plywood mullions system but instead this was replaced by glass
· The major hall was diverted from its original multipurpose concert/opera hall to a concert hall. Contrary, the minor hall was converted to function as the opera theatre and as a ballet as well. This made it unreasonably inadequate for large scale ballet and opera. Furthermore, additional theatre, a library, and a cinema were also added. The main reason why the project’s defects came not because of the incompetence of Utzon but due to the inadequacies present in the original competition briefing document. Moreover, this led to increased waste of already fitted machinery and interiors which were practically removed and thrown away.
· There was to scrapping of Utzon’s interior seating designs, his acoustic, and his interior plywood corridor designs. This in particular has been a major problem especially for the performing musicians who encounter acoustic troubles all the time. Similarly, the concert hall poses aggravated problems because of the high roof that prevents early onstage reflections. An attempt to alleviate this problem by use of “acoustic clouds”- the Perspex rings, was unsuccessful (Brookes, 2003, pp. 54).
The other difference that Utzon had with the new government, particularly with Davis Hughes, included the demand that Utzon and other engineers as well as contractors had to directly report to the client. Utzon was of the opinion that the client ought to be informed of all design and construction aspects by his practice. This relationship proved to be even worse when procurement methods were implicated such that Utzon could not control the cost or the procurement procedures. Of specific concern to him was the fact that he had desired to choose his suppliers for the interior plywood but was never given the opportunity. The government insisted that the tendering system was the most effective way to procure all the required materials for the project (Wargon, 2008, pp. 63).
In most of these disagreements, Utzon was highly not willing to compromise with the clients on some aspects he regarded integral to his design and which the clients insisted on changing. Except for Hughes who wished to show Utzon as a very impractical dreamer, the capability portrayed by Utzon was never doubted. Many, including Ove Arup believed and actually stated that (which incidentally happened) the Opera House, if Utzon was allowed full exercise of his duties, would be the foremost contemporary masterpiece in the world (Conway, 1994, pp. 72).
Conclusion:
The continued struggle indicates in very clear terms that Hughes was maliciously out to destroy and humiliate Utzon. This is why he had offered Utzon a relatively subordinate design architect role which Utzon declined. When Utzon later resigned, a great controversy arose as to who was actually wrong and who was right. There were several confessions that stated that Utzon was actually a perfectionist who had to constantly change his initial plans for better ones at a later date.
All said and done, it goes without telling that Utzon’s masterpiece remains one of its own kinds. Modern architecture was seen as eventually coming to age with this magnificent achievement which stands boldly in the waters with no eminent threat of a close challenge. A sculptural solution of this nature proves that nothing is impossible. The most important thing however, should be protection of international property rights, where an individual is given full autonomy of his or her own creations without external interference. Also, people need to reflect on the wrangles that Utzon went through in an effort to create an internationally recognized building that would not be ashamed of its own seductive sheer beauty for its own benefit.
Work cited:
Bereson Ruth. The Operatic State: Cultural Policy and the Opera House. London, Routledge, 2002, pp 31, 36, 42
Brookes Alan. Innovation in Architecture. New York, Spon Press, 2003, pp. 26, 54
Conway Hazel. Understanding Architecture: An Introduction to Architecture and Architectural History, London, Routledge, 1994, pp. 72
Drew Philip. Sydney Opera House. Australia, Phaidon Press, pp.11, 19
Groak Steven. The Idea if Building: Thought and Action in the Design and Production of Buildings. New York, E ; F N Spon Publishers, 1992, pp. 67
Hunt Tony. Utzon’s Sphere: Sydney Opera House- How It Was Designed and Built. The Architectural Review, Vol. 210, 2001, pp. 28
Maher Mary. Modeling Creativity and Knowledge- Based Creative Design. New York, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993, pp. 84
Murray Peter. The Saga of the Sydney Opera House: The Dramatic Story of the Design and Construction of the Icon of Modern Australia. London, Routledge, 2004: pp. 102
Wargon Alexander. Ove Arup. Architectural Science Review, Vol. 51, 2008, pp. 63
Winter John. Danish Operatics. The Architectural Review, Vol. 221, 2007, pp. 19
;
;
