iPaulina

David Hepher (b. 1935) focuses his work on the urban landscapes of south London, especially the post-war brutalist architecture of social housing blocks, such as the Aylesbury Estate. Visually, his work is unexpected and ambitious; it disrupts the inherent geometric quality of the buildings with messy graffiti and stains, representing the impact of the people inhabiting the architectural space.

The mixed media work on the left was recently on display in the Nunnery Gallery, in an exhibition I visited. The piece immediately stood out because of its scale: at 227×227cm, it strikingly conveyed the effect of a monolithic brutalist building. Hepher said that he was ‘excited by the scale of the subject’, something which comes across seeing the work in person. The composition, like much of his art, is almost lattice-like, directly reflecting the structure of the buildings. The characteristic repetitive, angular geometry of brutalist buildings is a key part of what makes their appearance so imposing and almost oppressive.

One of the most interesting parts of Hepher’s art is his use of textured concrete within the pieces themselves, bringing the tactile experience of the buildings into the materiality of his work, which has a gritty, industrial presence. Concrete is synonymous with brutalism, the term itself coming from Le Corbusier’s use of beton brut, meaning ‘raw concrete’ in French. By using concrete as a surface, Hepher intertwines the actual architectural fabric of the buildings with the work itself; he describes this as engaging in ‘the art of the real’. In some ways, concrete acts as a canvas for graffiti on buildings, and in Hepher’s work it is a literal canvas for his own graffiti. He describes how graffiti is ‘a way of painting about the people who lived on the estate without painting them directly’, reflecting the ‘human side of these buildings’. The vibrant colours juxtaposed with the tower blocks are reminiscent of Le Corbusier’s influence on brutalist housing buildings.

Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720-1778) was a classical Italian architect and printmaker who made many etchings of Rome, including its ruins and prisons. His etchings are typically extremely detailed and almost impossibly precise, while his loose, fluid ink drawings effortlessly portray complex architectural details. Piranesi often uses perspective rather than scale to convey the awe-inspiring nature of giant vaulted ceilings and archways.

Piranesi’s work was greatly influenced by Roman architecture, and he was passionate about the superiority of the Roman style over the Greek, which had been growing in popularity at the time. He was interested not just in the physical architecture of the two schools, but the emotional connotations that Rome held for him. Long regarded and admired as the artistic centre of Western culture, Piranesi took a challenge to Rome as a personal affront, publicly defending his city many times through both artwork and writing.

In the witty drawing shown above, the inscription translates to ‘example of the abuse the Romans have made of the Greek manner’, which is tongue-in-cheek, as in the drawing he emphasises the innovation and creativity of the Roman style compared to the simpler Greek style. The arches, coffered vaulting, and curved walls are emphasised, highlighting Roman architecture’s variety and unique style. The very dark ink in the foreground, and the deep recesses that contrast with beams of light, reflect how the architecture allows light to flood and illuminate the whole space. The outwards curvature of the walls to the viewer, combined with the one-point perspective, create a sense of great depth, making the space seem endless.

Other than his drawings of traditional Roman architecture, one of Piranesi’s most well-known series is Carceri (‘Prisons’). These were completely fictitious, and are extremely personal; they explore a dreamlike fantastical imagining of claustrophobia, perhaps of his mind. The creativity of Roman architecture gave him the confidence to be innovative with his own thinking and paradoxically defy the rules of space and architecture. The cluttered composition and multiple impossible perspectives make the space seem cavernous and trapping. The detail and grandeur of classical Roman architecture prompted him to use etching as a medium to capture its fine intricacies; the same precision and cross-hatching techniques are evident in this imagined world. The structures are complex and interwoven, as are the labyrinths he created in his mind.

To conclude, artists respond to different types of architecture through their choice of medium and methodology, creating specific visual effects that impact the viewing experience. Hepher’s work is much more abstract, repetitive, large scale, and textured than Piranesi’s, conveying the raw, monolithic nature of the concrete blocks he responds to. In contrast, Piranesi’s work focuses more on the effects of light and perspective than Hepher’s, with closer attention to detail in order to portray the grandeur and creativity of the Roman style. Architecture continues to inform two-dimensional artistic methodology, as evident across centuries of artists’ work.

Keya (VI)