CHAPTER XXI - Royal College of Art
Like the Victoria and Albert Museum the
Royal College of Art originated in the
movement for popular education in industrial
design of the 1830's. In 1837 a metropolitan
School of Design was opened in Somerset House
and by 1857, renamed the Normal Training
School of Art, had removed under the auspices of
the Science and Art Department to South
Kensington, where it shared a site with the new
museum. In 1863 it became the National Art
Training School and moved into new buildings at
the back of the museum, that in 1974 were still
occupied by the painting and graphic art departments
(see page 107). Under the influence of
Richard Redgrave and Owen Jones 'the teaching
of design proper was mainly based upon the
botanical analysis of the structures of plants, and
the conventionalising of the forms thus obtained': (ref. 1)
of another teacher c. 1870, F. W.
Moody, it was said he 'had reduced everything to
a system'. (ref. 2) In 1853 Prince Albert had wanted the
Schools of Design to be renamed 'Trade Schools' (ref. 3)
but their original purpose was partly frustrated by
a lack of enthusiasm for industrial designing on
the part both of students and manufacturers, and
became diverted towards general art-teacher
training. The school at South Kensington (with
recruits from Sheffield) did, however, provide
designers and executants for decorative work,
often employing relatively untried techniques, on
the buildings with which the Department was
associated. In 1897 the school received its present
name.
The years before the 1914–18 war saw projects
for a new building to remedy what the Liberal
President of the Board of Education, J. A. Pease,
called in 1912 the 'atrocious character' of the
College accommodation. (ref. 4) The 1863 building
was at that period augmented by huts east of
Queen's Gate that were expected 'to be removed
in a few years' time': (ref. 5) they and the 1863 building
were in 1974 still in use. There was a scheme in
1906 for a College on approximately the Science
Museum frontage to Exhibition Road. (ref. 6) Then in
1912–14 a proposal to build on the island site
owned by the Government between Cromwell
Gardens and Thurloe Place progressed to the
preparation of plans by (Sir) Richard Allison of the
Office of Works, before war intervened. The
Office of Works resisted the wish of the College
and the Board of Education for an architectural
competition or alternatively for the use of a
design prepared by Beresford Pite, a Professor of
the College, in 1913. Considering 'four stone
fronts' necessary, the Office of Works would
consciously have provided a building that 'may
not fulfil all the requirements of the [Board's]
Committee in regard to floor space' in order that
the price-limit of £65,000 should not involve the
sacrifice of'external architectural features'. (ref. 7)
In 1920 the Government leased the island site
to the French Government for utilization by the
Institut Français (ref. 8) and although its reversion to
use for the College project was still in debate in
1929 (ref. 9) it was acknowledged within the Board that
its records 'do not suggest that there has been any
public outcry about the delay in building a new
College'. (ref. 10)
Equally abortive schemes in the 1930's
included one for a College west of the Royal
College of Music. (ref. 11) Actual work between the
wars was, however, limited to a new entrance to
the 1863 building, in which student-participation
strained the College's relations with the Office of
Works (see page 108 note).
In 1948 the College was reorganized and
expanded and has subsequently brought its work
into closer relation than before to the operations of
industry and commerce. By 1951 a new home
was in prospect on the present Kensington Gore
site, which had been leased to the Government
by the 1851 Exhibition Commissioners. (ref. 12) After
consultation with the Royal Fine Arts Commission
in 1956–8 (ref. 13) the designs for the present
buildings were published in 1959. (ref. 14)
The workshop, studio and administrative block
on Kensington Gore (which accommodates the
industrial design departments), and the exhibitioncentre
and assembly-hall block opposite the Albert
Hall were built in 1960–2 (Plate 76c), and the
library, refectory and common-rooms block in
1962–4. The College has proposed building
another block extending along Kensington Gore
to Queen's Gate, to house departments of painting,
graphic design and photography.
The architects of the new buildings (as was
the case with the old South Kensington Museum
buildings) were on the institution's own staff—H. T. Cadbury-Brown (Tutor) in association
with Sir Hugh Casson (Professor of Interior
Design) and R. Y. Goodden (Professor of
Silversmithing and Jewellery). The assistants in
charge were J. F. Metcalfe and (for the hall
block) Elizabeth Cadbury-Brown. The structural
engineer was O. M. Marcel of Clarke, Nicholls
and Marcel. (ref. 15) The general contractors were
Leslie and Company.
The limit of expenditure was set by £424,000
from the Government plus £75,000 from the
Gulbenkian Foundation for the hall block.
The architects have pointed to certain features
of the design. (ref. 16) The arrangement with the main
entrance on the east is intended in part to give
meaning to the space separating the College from
the Albert Hall. The workshop block is designed
to balance in tone and bulk the mass of Albert
Hall Mansions on the other side of the Albert
Hall, and particular attention was paid to the
silhouette of the skyline partly to respond to
Norman Shaw's gables and partly to counter the
relative darkness of a north-facing front. In order
to foster 'spiritual contact' between the building
and passers-by the ground floor of this block is so
faced as to require repainting and thereby produce
the continual 'rebirth of the building'. Inside, the
treatment is intended to be flexible and unobtrusive.
Studios open into the workshops, and
corridors are largely eliminated. The block (of
reinforced concrete construction) is split longitudinally
to give different ceiling heights front
and back: all floors are designed to bear machinery
if required. The natural lighting of rooms is, so
far as possible, from more than one direction. The
all-over plan has, however, been criticized for the
restricted lighting of and outlook from the
common-rooms block. (ref. 17)