ARCHITECTS AND ARCHITECTURE IN VICTORIA. THE PERIOD FROM THE 1960s THROUGH TO THE PRESENT DAY.
A SERIES OF DISCUSSIONS WITH SOME OF THE MORE INFLUENTIAL MEMBERS OF THE PROFESSION FROM ACROSS THIS PERIOD.
After numerous discussions amongst the initiating members about the nature and ideals of the project, and subsequent discussions with other members of the profession from this period a list of those architects who are probably significant holders of personal and professional knowledge of this significant and influential period of architecture in Victoria, and by extension Australia, was developed. This seemed to indicate those architects and academics that might be interviewed to elicit this important knowledge.
The interview process is seen as important as the idea behind the Lustre Project is to gather this important first-hand knowledge as a resource of not only architectural material, but to most importantly place it intimately and integrally in the social context of this period and the lives of those involved. This couching of the architectural and professional knowledge in the personal social memory of these architects is one of the fundamental ideals of the project. This will give the whole project a greater, deeper and richer significance, and allow the material to be useful to other fields of study, and to a wider audience who will then be able to see and interpret the integration of these developments within architecture in the broader social context. And, these stories will be much more interesting, and also illustrative of the great importance of personal and social knowledge in our understanding of our ideals and plans for society and culture. The context and the interrelationships will become evident and more real.
Also the politics of the architectural situation for these practices is also most important. This is both the politics of getting and completing projects, and the politics within architecture as a profession. Of course this ‘politics of the profession’ will also demonstrate the connections and divisions within architecture, and we may be able to see these played out in both the nature of the work and the influence of the work.
History as story, history as endeavour, and history as the confluence of circumstances and influences will be directly laid out in this interview process.
The material of these interviews will, hopefully become an invaluable record and resource for this very important period in Australian and architectural history.
The following is a list of questions that have been taken to each of the interviews undertaken to date. We envisage that these same questions will be used in subsequent interviews. We have relied on those conducting the interviews, through their relationship to the architects being interviewed, are able to add into this list, questions and lines of enquiry that seem pertinent to the interviewee and the situations being discussed.
Why did you become an architect?
What is your favourite building?
Do we need to give you a time period, or culture, or place?
Who were the notable influences on your work and your career;
At particular time periods?
When you were working on a particularly strong run of buildings?
What do you think is your best building?
Or, what do you think is your most worthy building?
What is the building you are most proud of?
Who were the longest lasting influences and interests with reference to your own work?
What role did politics play for you and your work?
How strong was architecture;
As a profession?
As a groupof people (camaraderie)?
As an internal critique process?
Was there much discussion about Australian architecture?
And did this discussion involve the other arts?
Was it driven by considerations of Australia primarily, or really as a discussion of architecture in Australia?
How has architecture’s position in Australian society changed?
What differentiated architecture in Australia from work overseas?
How were offices run with regard to matters such as administration procedures, money structure, staff levels and longevity, and how legal matters relating to the projects were handled?
How big was your practice, and how consistent was its size?
What was the role and effect of the annual architecture awards, and the social situations surrounding the awards?
Do you have any comments regarding the intentions and (lost) opportunities of the (in)famous “Last Laugh” gathering.
How much did architects travel, where to, and what effect did this have on the work?