I’ve swithered, and to be honest, prevaricated somewhat, on what the focus should be of this second SHOTY reflection, basically as to whether the attention should be on the winning finalist, the Manse …..not because I was in a huff (!) – there are astounding aspects to this finalist, it’s decor most of all – rather, because the specific circumstances provoking the need for judgement of the draw, invite further reflection more so on the on the debate than the outcome, and the actual winner.
The winner – is a rather difficult term, when associated with the programmes process, generally, for it implies a hierarchical evaluation; and we, the team, and the three judges, have from the outset acknowledged that all the homes submitted are already winners. Nevertheless, the debate in this episode demanded that one be selected, of the two tied; and somehow, the debate highlighted some objective peculiarities which ultimately might help the discernment of exactly why some homes are in fact, better than others, beyond the subjective.
So – speaking of the subjective – my personal preference was the Church conversion. Not because it was objectively better than the Manse, but because the Manse was, in my opinion, worse – and this was all down to personal taste: I could not live with the over-exuberant décor. Although I could appreciate the intention, and the quality by which the interior had been executed it was to me cacophony none the less. I would have had to completely re-decorate and re-furnish – to do so, I would have to strip everything away, and I’d be left then with a shell of a Manse. A challenge, admittedly – but hadn’t the Church conversion had taken on challenges considerably greater? By even just the obvious practicalities, the remoteness of its location, by the absence of services; the buildings condition? Credit due, therefore: the Church conversion already, more meritorious than the Manse conversion, on account of the difficulty of initial circumstances.
Unfortunately, however, if I had lived in the Church, once converted, I would have had to do the same as with the Manse: I would have to re-decorate and re-furnish……for its décor and furnishings were, once again in my subjective opinion, by comparison not cacophonous enough. The space created demanded more……
So – either way therefore, I would be left with a shell, and an inherited one at that – and therein lies perhaps the troubling heart of the debate: the question of value, once purpose has been served; and too, the ability to appropriately appropriate.
Of those two inherited shells, both would forever resonate, though hardly equitably. The Manse was always a home; it is not difficult to imagine that it could continue to be a home still – but, as for the Church? Could one ever truly live in a building so immutably created for a purpose otherwise, and especially one so imbued: a house of ‘God’, as opposed to a home for ‘Man’? One could of course remove the iconography that identifies the Church, as Church. But what then the point, and then there’s the issue of respect: the conversion of Church demands, somehow, that the trappings that make it so are retained (in this case specifically the lancet windows, and the voluminous centre). Conundrum compounds conundrum – for by doing so, this respect due to the built fabric constrains from the outset the making of a home, to be so constricted by both form and fenestration; not to mention the endless echoes that would forever permeate: doubtless, the prayers previously intoned would continually seep out of the walls and flavour the living, whether welcome or not.
Stress, viagra cheap online http://secretworldchronicle.com/levitra-2585.html depression, anxiety or strain prevents natural flow of energy. But the days of confusion and waiting has buy viagra line gone off. For more information on the products available, their viagra soft tablet benefits, contraindications, side effects and so on so forth. This drug leaves no space for clogged arteries that are responsible for premature ejaculation or weak erections. Learn More levitra online
The question remains then, whether it is ever appropriate to re-inhabit a building, devoid of its original use, a concern which applies when any building typology is re-inhabited. One would balk at the prospect of storing wine in a coffee pot, whilst pouring coffee from a wine bottle; what difference a building? Even the re-inhabiting a building of the same typology can provoke subtle troubling concerns, in the same way as one might shudder at wearing clothes of the departed. But here, we have a situation that demands the question: is it appropriate, to so undermine the intentions of a building, designed, created, and maintained in the service of one unique activity, by adapting it to suit another, an alternate, and as unique, activity?
The conclusion is perhaps unavoidable: that it is not appropriate – and furthermore, the outcome of the debate, and the outcome too, of which one of these two finalists is a winner, is pre-determined, and inevitable: it is the Manse, it has to be – for there is in fact no debate: the Manse was once a home, and therefore can continue to act so (despite the inevitable, though minimal seepage). The Church, on the other hand, was a Church – and always will be a Church, no matter how hard one might try to convert it otherwise. Its faith is simply too strong; it is too imbedded, and too demanding to be heard – and no amount of wallpaper could ever silence, though gentle, its persistent cacophony.
It is categorically worth re-iterating, that had no debate been warranted, the Manse, independently, displayed characteristics in which it excelled, as home, inside and out. It was stunning, memorable, and of innumerable merits which in their own right welcome due acknowledgment and inspire consideration as much as this debate might.
As for the debate itself ……that’s just a matter of my opinion……
Michael Angus (Nov 2020)