Posts tagged with "Charles Holland":

Placeholder Alt Text

How has the internet changed architecture criticism?

As Christopher Hawthorne moves on from the Los Angeles Times and as new forms of criticism proliferate, we asked the architecture community what the role of the critic is today, and what it might be missing. What do you see as the role of the critic in architecture today? Why is it important? What aspects of architecture are not being addressed today by critics? What are the problems with criticism today? Here are the responses we received from those who drew attention to the role that technology has played in changing the discourse, from across the country and abroad. This article was originally published in our May print issue and was preceded by a selection of answers from architecture critics themselves. Stay tuned for further perspectives from practitioners, emerging architects, and scholars. Sam Jacob Principal of Sam Jacob Studio, professor of architecture at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and columnist for ArtReview and Dezeen. Previously he was a founding director of FAT Architecture. “I think we’ve seen the decline of the traditional kind of critic (partly because there are simply fewer professional critic jobs) and the rise of a different kind of critic. This new criticism seems to spill over from blogs, from zines, even from Twitter, and inhabits or attaches itself to bits of the internet rather than a particular title. It’s criticism you follow in sporadic streams, link by link, rather than a joined-up totality. This fractured landscape allows a more partisan, more pointed form of criticism. And more voices, each skewed to a particular kind of idea around the significance of architecture. That’s meant, I think, two things: First more direct discussion of the politics of architecture and second, more discussion around the cultural significance of architecture. Both are important, both have given us new ways to understand architecture’s role in society. It’s really a more traditional idea of criticism that has declined. Forms of criticism like the building study, for example, where the critic acts as an arbiter of quality, and as a guide to the way we can understand architecture in historical and disciplinary senses. And this is a shame. It’s a form of criticism that is more expensive to produce (you have to travel) and is less opinion-led, less thinkpiece-y, and probably less clickbait-y, too. The danger, as this kind of criticism declines, is that it just becomes all opinion, written from the desk rather than the field. In this way it mirrors the transformation that’s occurred throughout traditional media. And while the greater diversity of voices is fantastic, perhaps we are losing a way of interrogating, understanding, and communicating ideas about architecture itself, where architecture becomes simply a cipher for other ideas, instead of considering its significance as architecture itself.” Charles Holland Architect, writer, and teacher.  He is the principal of Charles Holland Architects and a professor of architecture at the University of Brighton. “I think the role of the opinion-forming, influential critic is more or less dead. Everyone is a critic now. The rise of social media and sites like Dezeen where the architecture is presented without editorial comment and the critique occurs ‘below the line’ is a clear manifestation of this. The existing idea that critics define and drive artistic movements in the manner of Reyner Banham and Brutalism or Charles Jencks and postmodernism was probably overstated to start with but seems highly unlikely today. That’s not to say the there aren’t good critics around (critic Rowan Moore, for example, is great), but I think the landscape has shifted. The role of the critic today is messier and more ambiguous, blurring the roles between architect, critic, and curator with some people acting happily as all three. My social media feed is full of architectural criticism, only a small amount of which you could ascribe to a critic in the traditional sense. The ‘problem’—if indeed it is one—is that it is harder to establish a critical body of thought or momentum for any one particular position. This is a product of pluralism and a genuflection away from forms of authority, at least overtly. Criticism traditionally served the role of establishing value, of sifting through things to define what’s good, what’s bad and establish the ‘canon.’ That sifting doesn’t really take place with any clear rationale or legitimacy anymore, which is threatening and liberating in equal measure. Architectural and artistic movements are established through a kind of accumulation of works which address similar things and by events like the biennials, which aren’t criticism in the traditional manner, but which establish what is (supposedly) relevant or pressing at any one time.” David Ruy Architect, theorist, director of Ruy Klein, and Postgraduate Programs Chair at SCI-Arc “Criticism falls prey to the general degradation of institutional authority in producing and disseminating information in the contemporary situation. This is the problem posed by Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, and other platforms of our telematic infrastructure. Any person or group with an account on these platforms can produce and disseminate information. Any person or group with an account can produce criticism. In 1976, Simon Nora and Alain Minc were asked by France’s president, Valéry Giscard D’Estaing, to issue a report on the dangers and possibilities of a computerized society. Astonishingly, given what’s happening in the world today, they predicted a coming society where anyone with access to the telematic infrastructure could manufacture and disseminate information, leading to a loss of trust in the veracity of information and to an erosion of the cultural coherence in the society. They warned that such a society might be ungovernable. This was nearly two decades before the first internet browser became available. It is sobering then to consider their recommendation for addressing this danger. They proposed a socialization of information. What this might mean in the twenty-first century remains unclear. A lot of good architectural criticism is still being written today, but it gets lost in the sea of information that is available. The dialectic of fact versus fiction has melted into a flat ontology of mere data. The cynic today would ask in boredom if it even matters that the news is fake. But this is true for all criticism today. There are only two options I see in the face of the contemporary situation. We would either have to rebuild the authority of old institutions (which seems impossible), or we would have to understand that communication and its politics will have to be hypothesized in a new way outside of the framework of criticism (because after all, how can you have criticism without authority?). As sad as I am about this, when anyone can disseminate information, when anyone can ‘like’ or ‘troll’ an idea, when anyone can invent ‘news,’ when the theater of criticism appears more important than the criticism itself (Fox News and MSNBC, for example), what role can any critic play outside of the limited audiences that consumes critique primarily for reinforcing existing opinions? It may be tempting to conceptualize some ‘post-criticism’ society, but as Nora and Minc warned, such a society might be ungovernable. Nonetheless, I continue to think about Nora and Minc’s proposal of socializing information. I consider it to be an important but enigmatic problem. If, miraculously, something can be figured out and implemented one day, I think criticism would have newfound authority. But I think it is premature to dream about the possible positive effects of such a rebirth and the roles the critic might play until we address how to construct such a structure in society. Strangely, I think every constituency thinks their opinions are not being properly addressed. I have my own complaints, but I’m pretty sure everyone has a complaint and feels underrepresented. This is true despite the irony that, no matter how marginal or preposterous, any opinion and orientation to society can be searched for online, and criticism can be found in support of it. With that said, speaking for my own values and my own small constituency, I am puzzled and dismayed by how the left end of the political spectrum seems to be abandoning architectural speculation and formal experimentation. I got into architecture out of a dissatisfaction with the world as given. How can the world be more progressive if everything remains the same or goes backward towards the historically familiar? I understand that in recent times formal extravagance was appropriated as a risk management device by large investors. But how can progressives abandon the project of imagining other possible realities? Isn’t this one of the things architecture does so well? Is demystifying power the only thing left to do? Instead of contributing to the ever-growing disenchantment in the world, can architectural criticism re-enchant some of these abandoned spaces?” Michael Young Partner at Young & Ayata and assistant professor at The Cooper Union. “One of the issues facing contemporary architectural criticism that has yet to be fully developed is how to deal with the dissemination and consumption of architectural images on social media. The primary responses thus far have been to treat it as either a wasteland or a wilderness. The wasteland response sees the image proliferation as out of control and debased, a condition to be excluded from disciplinary criticism. The wilderness response views the image accumulation as wild yet vibrant, a condition to be cultivated and curated. The problem lies in that architecture’s typical disciplinary approaches of criticality that aim to reveal underlying hierarchies, trends, and motivations cannot keep pace nor dent this image acceleration. Social media flattens access, evaluation, and debate. This is both numbing and exciting. It is where the wasteland meets the wilderness. And this requires a different paradigm for architectural criticism.” Francois Roche Principal, New-Territories

Architecture critics died… nobody told you !

For refreshing …If you talk about text in Chicago style, where references and self-references are developed in a strategy of the narcissus discourse and onanism,  with a pinch of left side to caress in a kind of arrogance the moralistic sensation to belong to the elite, in a predictable social class discrimination, drinking millesimal red wine with good consciousness, to engage mercy and charity on the back of the misery of the worlds!!... making kressel music with entertaining name dropping in a flattering play, to get the lift back ///  but you could also refuge in a strategy to build a fortress of knowledge and expertise, as a gold bubble ghetto, for dogmatic control of what which should not be told… …Or... to hear the pseudo philosophers "dedicated" to architecture, in a vulgarization  of the thought... clever monkey parrots...in a parade of brainy speeches bubbles…AT  the condition to never request ion the "voice of the master"...

Ryan Scavnicky Visiting teaching fellow at the School of Architecture at Taliesin, administrator of the Facebook page “Dank Lloyd Wright” and on Instagram as @sssscavvvv. “I think the strength of memes isn’t just about its experimental form. It’s the same principle I apply to architecture but applied to criticism. With architecture, I’m always skeptical about what it actually has the power to do. So with criticism, we probably shouldn’t be focused on changing individual architects (have you met these people?) or critiquing specific buildings, but changing architecture culture in general. Memes focus on changing the student’s perception, loosening the bolts a bit and moving architecture culture away from toxic bravado and into a new space while regaining our singular command over the built world with a more public audience. I do this through producing and writing films as a YouTube comic-critic team with Jeffrey Kipnis via the SCI-Arc Channel and by running a meme account on Instagram. Internet memes are the strongest emerging form of cultural criticism today, thriving in the form of quick and digestible images pregnant with assertive positions. Critics must develop fresh audiences by using strange and experimental critical forms and reflecting those findings back onto the architecture discipline.” Ellie Abrons Principal of T+E+A+M and an assistant professor at the University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning. “In the past, critics (and theorists, I’d add) drove architectural discourse and were vital participants in its culture. They had the ability to read work very closely and to interpret or understand it with focused attention and intellectual prowess and agility. Critics played a crucial role in contextualizing work, in situating it culturally and historically or finding affinities and overlaps with other fields. These days, there’s a dearth of criticism—you don’t see the same quantity and quality of writing that was coming out fifteen or twenty years ago. I see more and more architects writing about their own or their peers’ work in an attempt to play that role. But we’re not really cut out for it, so we end up with thought pieces or musings more than proper pieces of criticism or theory. I’m not prepared to say that it’s a bad thing – it’s just a new model. Contemporary intellectual, professional, and cultural life doesn’t allow the kind of patient and careful interpretation of work that we saw in the past. Our modes of attention have changed due to ever-expanding digital culture—images scroll by, while texts are limited to a caption or a few hundred words. Architecture in general (critics, but also architects, historians, and others) need to better understand how to participate in a world where ubiquitous digitality has altered the material, conceptual, and experiential context of our work.  
Placeholder Alt Text

Charles Holland lands a 30-foot-tall parrot building in U.K.’s Fountains Abbey

A one-eyed spy bird doesn't exactly sound like a child-friendly installation, but that's exactly what Polly is. Designed by British firm Charles Holland Architects (CHA) for the National Trust as part of  Folly! 2018, Polly is a colorful, parrot-like addition to the Studley Royal Water Gardens at Fountains Abbey in Yorkshire. To those outside the U.K., the idea of parrots and other exotic birds populating Britain’s parks may sound farcical. However, during the age of Empire, many foreign imports flew in (or rather, were shipped in) to landscape parks across the country to demonstrate Imperial prowess. "In a less cuddly way, it addresses the issues of power, territory and wealth that underpin them," said Charles Holland, founder of CHA, speaking to The Architect's Newspaper (AN).  Some birds, namely Parakeets, have become a pest since coming over, but Polly is no such nuisance. Standing 30 feet tall and dressed in rounded timber shingles, the steel-framed folly is topped with a camera obscura capable of rotating 360 degrees. This is operated by a wheel at ground level, and vistas of the park looking across the River Skell are projected down onto a white disc inside. The back of the folly has a cantilevered tail and a double rubber curtain forms the entrance while the rest of Polly's perimeter sports mirrored trim at the base. As much Polly is a device for seeing, with its singular lens a nod to the ancient Greek cyclops Polyphemus, Polly is also meant to be looked at. Resting at the apex of Tent Hill, Polly occupies a spot that many visitors to the park will visually encounter. Across the River Skell, which bends round and almost encircles Tent Hill, is a location known as The Surprise View. This spot dates back to the 18th Century when John Aislabie, creator of the Studley Royal Water Gardens, constructed a view of the ruinous Fountain Abbey. Frustrated by his inability to purchase the abbey, Aislabie instead decided to own a view of it. "[Polly] playfully interacts with the whole mechanics of viewing within the garden," Holland told AN. "I wanted to maintain that set of relationships." Move over Cistercian abbey, now Polly has center stage. Holland also explained how the folly drew from previous ephemeral structures that once inhabited the site, such as a tent which once hosted parties and which CHA's folly exhibits the angular forms of. Polly is also light on its feet, a requirement demanded due to the archaeological remains of a temple below, thus meaning the folly has a wide, shallow foundation. Furthermore, the architect also cited the 18th century painting Parrots and a Lizard in a Picturesque Garden by Jakab Bogdany, as well as a frieze featuring parrots in foliage, the latter found at William Burges’ St. Mary’s Church in the Studley Royal grounds. Polly will be installed at Fountains Abbey until November 4, 2018. There it is joined by The Gazing Ball from French artists Lucy and Jorge Orta, and The Cloud by Foster Carter, an 11-year-old schoolboy who won a competition for Folly! 2018.
Placeholder Alt Text

These surreal yellow ceramic stumps question one of architecture’s founding myths

In Marc-Antoine Laugier's Essay on Architecture, the long-standing Vitruvian belief that architecture had its roots in nature was such a matter-of-fact that the book's frontispiece depicted a primitive hut partially made from living treesCharles Holland, director and co-founder of British art, design and architecture studio Ordinary Architecture, however, is eager to counter this "myth." Holland aims to do so with his firm's recently unveiled installation, Foundation Myths.

On view at The Artists Garden, part of the York Art Gallery in England, Foundation Myths comprises ten bright yellow ceramic tree trunks laid out in a linear fashion. At first glance, the installation resembles the remaining pedestals of an ancient colonnade. Speaking to The Architect's Newspaper (AN), Holland said the layout also referred to the structural grid of timber columns that composed the now-destroyed "Great Shed," a structure used for the Yorkshire Fine Art and Industrial Exhibition of 1879. Holland spoke of how he and his firm were eager to reference this in their work, especially given that it was the first commission for the gallery setting.

"We wanted it to have the characteristic of ruins, meanwhile, the character of the trees befitted the column's structure," Holland explained. "Even when they're growing, they're becoming a column," he added in reference to Laugier and his frontispiece. This may not seem to dispel Laugier's "myth" until you consider Ordinary Architecture's aesthetic and material choices. The bright yellow terra-cotta tree trunks create what Holland described as a "pop-ruin." The yellow—inpsired by the local flowers—causes the installation to stand out (in an explicitly unnatural fashion) from the historic surroundings. As a result, Foundation Myths appears as a "formal ruin" while being materially alien and "clearly new." Additionally, the material choice also makes a nod to the Center of Ceramic Art, a new exhibition space at the York Art Gallery which is the largest of its kind in the U.K.

To create the stumps, Holland and his studio used young beech trees—chosen for their smooth trunks which made them ideal for ceramic casting—as inspiration. A series of maquettes were made, later being scaled up as clay molds. After this, the terra-cotta casts were made and glazed by the ceramic manufacturer Darwen, the same company Holland used for his A House for Essex's ornate terra-cotta facade.

Foundation Myths will be on display for one year, running through to August 2017 at the York Art Gallery.

Placeholder Alt Text

Grayson Perry and FAT’s House for Essex embroiled in RIBA debacle

Fashion Architecture Taste (FAT) and Grayson Perry's A House for Essex has caused something of a stir of late. Completed in 2015, the project was built for Living Architecture, an English company who facilitate "holidays in modern architecture." The project has been praised by much of the architectural profession, especially in the United Kingdom. It's design is meant to embody and reflect the life of a fictional "everywoman," created by Perry, from Essex (a region not renowned for being posh or cultured) and named Julie. Born in 1953, she died at the age of 61 when she was run over by pizza delivery person on moped. The house is her "memorial," an “Essex Taj Mahal” Perry says in a documentary on the building. However, when the Royal Institution of Architects (RIBA) failed to award the project a regional prize, controversy ensued. The decision also excludes the building from being available to win the RIBA Stirling Prize which can only be won after winning any RIBA regional (in this case RIBA East) awards. Subsequent backlash saw critic Rowan Moore say that "RIBA East must be populated by really small-minded halfwits if they can’t see that House for Essex is something special." Passionate post-modernist Adam Nathaniel Furman went one further. “I can only imagine what kind of closed-minded, mean, and narrowly dour view of architecture the judges who reached the decision not to award A House for Essex with a RIBA Prize must have, but I do not begrudge them their artistic miserliness," he said. Charles Holland, a founding member of FAT who now runs Ordinary Architecture alongside Ely Ward said he "would be interested to know what their reasons were,” and branded the decision as "bizarre" in light of the projects praise. “I entered it without any assumptions about things like the Stirling Prize but it has made a fairly big contribution to architecture and to the area so it’s surprising that it hasn’t won a regional award," he added. After the furore however, RIBA remained resolute. "The jury’s decision is final. We can’t overturn it,” said a spokesman. Now though, the house has once again been thrown into the spotlight. According to BDOnline, the chairman of the national awards panel said the RIBA East jury should have consulted those further up in the institution regarding their decision. Chair of the RIBA awards committee, Philip Gumuchdjian said that project would be entered for the regional awards again next year. “It’s not a drama. This is resolvable. They can resubmit it next year,” he said. Despite Furman's best efforts though, "A House for Essex" will not be able to be compete for any RIBA national awards this year. Paul Monaghan of AHMM, who are the current Stirling Prize holders, also commented on the building. “It’s definitely a Marmite building nit it’s got a narrative and if you look back in 50 years’ time will it be one of the more interesting projects from RIBA East?”
A House for Essex then could still one day be awarded the accolade that its fans feel it deserves. Even before it was built, the project was defiant in the face of adversity. During its acquisition of planning approval, members of the public lamented that it was “Better suited to the far or middle east” and that it would “open the flood gates to other avant-garde applications".
Placeholder Alt Text

“Ornament is crime” is crime: In London, the debate over architectural ornamentation settled over beer and shot of vodka

There are six clear reasons why Turncoats, a new architectural debating format, is continuing to ruffle more than just a few feathers in Hoxton, East London. 1) It is free. 2) You are given a bottle of craft beer upon entry. 3) A musical comedy act featuring a game of "Hitler or Ham" introduces the evening. 4) The audience must do a shot of vodka before the debate. 5) An intellectual debate on whether ornament is crime proceeds and 6) everyone cheers at the end and goes home smiling. All very well, but what was the result of all this? As tempting as it is to go into detail over the "Hitler or ham" debacle, the real issue in Hoxton Hall on the 27th January was the debate on whether the statement "ornament is crime" is a crime itself. In order to solve this, three panels were put in place with two arguing for and against and the other an independent adjudicator dubbed "Switzerland." And so Adam Nathaniel Furman, architect, furniture designer and founder of the Postmodern Society, stepped forward with the first of what would be four prewritten arguments. Here, he compared ornament to wearing clothes, inferring that dressing our buildings is no different. Further still, ornament evokes a sense of freedom, liberality and identity. "If form was really so pure, we should all walk round naked!" Furman exclaimed. We dress up to represent our ideals and what we stand for and architecture should do the same he concluded. To counter this, Studio Weave co-founder Jane Hall retorted that ornament hides a building's true identity and distracts us from the faults and failings of reality within the built environment. A window decoration, for example, guides our gaze from the cracks in the pavement and potholes in the street. Money is hence more willingly spent on splendor rather than maintenance of our everyday basic needs when the opposite should enforced. Now, the debate was in full swing, and up stepped fashion satirist Bertie Brandes who wasted no time in slating those against decoration. “Minimalists are basic b*****s to the highest degree.” Interestingly, Brandes pointed out that ornament is literally a crime in rented accommodation whereby nailing a picture in to the wall can break the tenancy agreement. From this we can take solace in the fact that implementing decoration is indeed part of the great struggle against the "facist" orthodoxy. “Why should we let architectural class dictate the aesthetic of our cities?” Brandes questioned, suggesting that ornament can help aesthetically democratise our built environment. Finally, Rory Hyde, curator of Contemporary Architecture and Urbanism at the V&A Museum in London, came forward. Like Brandes, he was quick to make an equally sweeping statement: “Ornament is just s**t smearing” he said. Hyde went on to say how Donald Trump's home/palace is rather heavily decorated, posing the question (albeit not so seriously) that to endorse ornament essentially means that one also endorses his policies. However, Hyde later went on to say that the the thing about real palaces is that they do have power and indeed are the pinnacle of ornamentation. With real monarchial palaces, you are always born into them and hence ornamentation is inherently classist. After some light-hearted exchanges, somehow moderated by Charles Holland (co-founder of Ordinary Architecture), the debate eventually boiled down to fascism versus democracy. AN also weighed in on the debate, posing the following dilemma: “In which of the two scenarios is the most powerful ornamental statement made? Scenario One, a street full of flamboyant, heavily decorated structures juxtaposed by one minimalist building, or Scenario Two, a street full of minimalist structures, all uniform in style juxtaposed by one flamboyant, heavily decorated building?” Furman was quick to respond. “I like this idea, in a sense you think of it being similar school uniforms as we dress our buildings. On school days, we all have to look the same, but on the weekends we get to wear what we want.” Hence, freedom only becomes liberating when one is oppressed or when one has the knowledge that one will be oppressed in the future (like on Monday, once the weekend is over). As the evening progressed, the case for ornamentation became stronger. Ornament can be useful for way-finding, it was said using the example that taxi drivers use ornamentation on buildings to guide them around London. Hyde pointed out that while Aravena despises ornamentation, he lets the occupants of his buildings dictate their own ornamental style. Decoration from the user symbolizes pride of place and lets the place become their own. Hyde continued, noting that on the flip side of this, how much choice or freedom do we really have to make it our own? Most look to IKEA to furnish their dwellings. To be truly democratic or liberated would be to make the furniture ourself. Furman essentially closed the lid on the debate. “We pretend that modernism is the pioneer of neutrality, looking at everyone as equal. It may do this, but in doing so just perpetuates a power struggle within this society. Instead, let’s celebrate our differences.” At the end of the evening, with many of the audience drunk on well-presented architectural arguments on ornament (and slightly tipsy from the alcohol) the statement “ornament is not crime” got the biggest cheer. Democracy had triumphed and we were all architecturally liberated.
Placeholder Alt Text

Take a tour of FAT’s quirky house-as-narrative collaboration with Grayson Perry

If there was ever a perfect curatorial pairing, Alain de Botton made it when he selected artist Grayson Perry to work with English architects Fashion Architecture Taste (FAT). Architecturally speaking, their so-called House for Essex is a “built story”—a shrine to an Essex woman named Julie who led a life as a rock chick and later a social worker, along the way marrying twice and finding happiness before being tragically killed by a curry delivery moped. https://youtu.be/qQ1hbD28KDY The dynamic duo of Perry and FAT's Charles Holland collaborated for almost four years on the artwork and its integration into building form. Perry wrote a long poem about Julie and her life, and how her second husband, Rob, promised to build a Taj Mahal for her if she were to die before him. This is that shrine to her life. Perry had the dream of making a secular shrine, and he first started by sketching his visions of the precious, small temple-like house. “My first ideas looked a bit Hobbity, or like something from Game of Thrones: ramshackle with lots of turrets.” FAT helped make his design, well, less "Hobbity," and incorporate the narrative imagery of Julie’s life and death into the building. They decided on green and white tiles, hand crafted for the building, each of which has an iconographic reference to Julie’s life. While practically every surface is adorned with some of FAT’s most intense detailing, there is a subtle touch that allows the more ordinary features to shine through as a spatial enactment of the narrative. Arched clerestory windows are carved out of a richly painted ceiling; their curved voids contrast, Aalto-like, with the surface of the ceiling. Mustard- and ketchup-colored built-in furnishings are detailed with a level of precision that only FAT could make work without going way over the top. The proportions of the telescoping volumes make the outside like a Russian nesting doll, but inside, the interiors are intensely proportioned to keep up with the visual narrative. The cozy, cathedral-like main space soars above, giving way to a chandelier made from the moped that killed Julie. The bedroom features a 15-foot high tapestry by Perry that looks over visitors, and, depending on one’s own reading, gives approval, disapproval, a cheeky glance, jealous yearning, comforting presence, or complete indifference. Every aspect of the home is meant to have multiple layers meaning, like all of FAT’s projects. This one just takes the notion a step further than other projects. The house is the sixth installation of de Botton’s Living Architecture program, “a social enterprise…dedicated to the promotion and enjoyment of world-class architecture. It has produced outstanding houses such as MVRDV’s Balancing Barn and the Room for London, a boat by David Kohn and artist Fiona Banner, with Artangel that sits on top of Queen Elizabeth Hall and gives stunning views of central London. The building is the last project for FAT, which disbanded in 2013. The House for Essex has had wide-ranging coverage in the UK, including an hour-long special on Channel 4, which got good reviews. More information is available at the Guardian. Perry also gave an interactive tour of the house here, and it is a must-watch.