The Barbican: Brutal or Beautiful

As arguments go, few are as irreconcilable as the question of what makes good art. Individual preferences can lead equally easily to speed-painted pink flamengos at sunset as to Jackson Pollock's famous poles. While all views should be valid, is it possible to set up a heirachy of preferences related to art. If 900 people prefer speed-painted flamingos hanging over their bed and 100 people prefer a screaming Pollock, is the former therefore better art? Or is good art only determined by scholarly debate. If 100 people in berets prefer Pollock and 900 people in acidwash jeans prefer flamingos, do the beret's votes carry 10 times more weight?

I ask this question in relation to London's Barbican - a 1960s mega-construction of galleries, theatres and housing, all draped in lumpy darkgrey concrete (even the book glorifying the construction describes the 'acres of concrete' as "relentless"). My first thought was "Hidious." Why build a block-size shrine to concrete in the middle of London's gorgeously weaving streets. I soon discovered that such a view ran contrary to the beret brigade - and indeed international architectural consensus. What we see is not a concrete monolith but a visionary example of post-war architecture - elevated pedestrian pathways, free from traffic and not a Victorian flourish in sight. But shouldn't art speak for itself, independant of Those Who Know. Just because a building is 'Important' doesn't mean its not hideously ugly, or even a mistake. Surely, inaccessibility should detract from worth.

Luckily speed-painted flamingos are not better art than Pollock despite being more accessible. There is a valid place for grand ideas and experiments. New ground must be broken somehow. So a middle ground might suggest that such 'visionary' efforts should be limited in scale (just in case they turn out to be horrendous). Jackson Pollock used big canvases but they can still be hidden inside a gallery and offset by calming Monets and Van Goughs. At 35 acres, the Barbican may be a test case for this principal of hideability.