Art School Vandalism


The destruction by fire of the Glasgow School of Art’s world renowned Mackintosh building is an act of vandalism. The question remains unanswered: why was gross negligence passed off as an accident?


How did the fire start?

The first fire was caused by a degree student’s ‘installation’. (I’ll discuss installations shortly.) It started when ‘flammable gases from a foam canister used in a student project were ignited’, according to a report by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

The report concludes that the blaze began in the basement when a film projector caught fire igniting gases from the expanding foam and took hold quickly through gaps in the walls. Old ventilation ducts assisted its spread into neighbouring studios and upwards through the building. The cause of the second catastrophic fire has yet to be determined. The authorities who presided over both conflagrations still run the school. They should resign.

The student work in question was foam panels fastened to three walls, with one wall left blank to receive images from a projector. At the time of the incident, visible gaps between the panels were being filled by applying expanding foam from a canister. Readers will note there is no mention of classical art materials such as pencil, paper or paint yet this was in the Painting and Drawing department. More of that later.

An illustrious history

Mackintosh’s art school is regarding internationally as a world class building, a work of outstanding originality. The design has many European and Japanese influences yet its author’s genius was to integrate his sources into a whole that is truly Scottish in style. It was not built exactly as he designed it. The budget was kept low, materials skimped.

The accomplishment is remarkable. The interior does exactly what it was intended to do – give inspirational space to budding artists and sculptors, together with exhibition space, a library, and office space for administrators. To work there was uplifting. 

Aside from producing artists of the highest calibre, the GSA includes the study of architecture, product design, and automotive design. For example, Jaguar cars entire new automotive range emanates from GSA graduate, Ian Callum.

Philistines regard art as a frippery. The French with the Louvre and their love of art are mystified at our attitude. To them as with Italians and Germans, art is the very expression, the embodiment of a nation’s soul. Primitive man understood the power of art. He venerated galloping horses, antelope and bison on his cave wall and signed his work with a hand print.


The Library – completely lost, ever last precious item

The danger of smugness

I must declare an interest. When involved in the unsuccessful spearhead to save the Edinburgh College of Art and 300 years of its history sucked into Edinburgh University’s commercial objectives, (appropriation was a foregone conclusion) I had occasion to discuss that hapless Glasgow school’s predicament with a former director, Professor Dugald Cameron. We agree a university is wholly at odds with the ethos of a rebellious, rule breaking arts institution. I warned Professor Dugald that the GSA was next for radical reform. Professor Cameron felt the GSA was in safe hands.

Dundee and Aberdeen’s art schools are lost to their respective universities. Not a single art lecturer thinks the union beneficial. Their creative and curriculum independence is lost. I told Cameron to expect the GSA fashioned for corporate goals, perhaps architecture industrial design gaining precedence, drawing and painting definitely sidelined. Cameron expressed some anxiety but thought the GSA  on solid ground..


The Reid building – a monstrosity from an aesthetically illiterate architect

Where did the rot begin?

The rot began with the man at the top, in fact, a woman, Seona Reid, now Dame Seona Reid. She had moved from director of the now defunct Scottish Arts Council to director of the GSA. Colleagues considered her a good if rather dry bureaucrat dedicated to the job.

Pushed by the diktats of commerce and industry over fine art, plans for a new grandiose addition to the art school came to fruition under her watch. The ‘Reid’ building, as it came to be christened, a shrine to commercial design, proved a tragic diversion.

What we got was brutalism; an ugly edifice that consumes the Mackintosh and straddles a corner building like a predatory sea slug consumes a mussel. It did more than that; it sapped energy, attention, and finance that should have been put at the disposal of the Mackintosh building first.

Some blame is attached to those who employed Reid. It appears officials who work in arts institutions, from the shop assistant to the director, need have no artistic skill or vision. That is bad news.

Nor do they need an aesthetic education, though it helps. We assume they are creative because of their title, but they are invariably plain, old-school pen pushers and socialites. As for the Mackintosh, one must assume Reid knew its worth but not its value. Mackintosh’s school demanded priority. Under Reid that did not happen.


Prince Charles and Professor Tom Inns survey the ‘accident’.

What is an installation?

At this point it’s worth defining what an ‘installation’ is, and why they’ve become fashionable causing art schools to dump life drawing, still life, and fine art in general.

To begin with graduates ‘artists’ – if we can still call them that – leave art school unable to do the basic – draw. They’ve been schooled in installations most of their student days.

An installation in epitome is, an artist gets up in the morning, has a ‘concept’, recruits friends to help gather the bits together and construct the idea, and then calls it a work of art. Installations can take many forms: a thousand objects on a floor, a giant sock puppet, elements hung from a ceiling, or a video on a loop, and so on, and so forth. Much of it is ephemeral, a lot so large it needs a museum space to exhibit it.

Colleges encourage students to specialise in installations and enter them for national competitions. The result is a cynical public that scoffs at vast sums paid for tat with a title. One need only think of Damien Hirst’s preposterous cow in formaldehyde. You don’t need expensive art materials, oils, inks, acrylics, canvas, or framing. Encouraging students to create installations saves art colleges the cost of art materials. The GSA did exactly that. This policy had a direct bearing on the catastrophe.

The man who mistook a crime for an accident

Professor Tom Inns, Reid’s successor, appears not to have foreseen the urgency to install smoke alarms or water sprinklers. Nor does he seem to have dictated better and safer working standards from his students.

Professor Inns is in the same category as Reid, an administrator. He studied engineering not painting or fine art. He was given charge of one of the world’s greatest art schools. His excuse for the fire is deplorable.

Ten questions that must be answered

  • Why was a student allowed flammable foam?
  • Why was a student allowed to place foam on an ‘A’ listed wall?
  • Why was a student using a film projector in Painting and Drawing?
  • Where was the student and the supervisor when the fire began?
  • Why did the supervising lecturer allow flammable materials?
  • Had the Clerk of Works checked for banned flammable materials?
  • Were students given a fire and safety talk before working on projects?
  • Was the degree show given a mandatory fire inspection?
  • Why has no one been charged with negligence?
  • Why has nobody resigned?
  • Finally, what happened to the £8 million awarded to the School for upgrades to the Mackintosh, including a sprinkler system?

Where does the buck stop?

One: The director of the GSA and the governors failed to protect a world heritage building of international importance. Board members such as the broadcaster Muriel Gray, chair of the Board of Governors, expressed deep sadness at events, but like her colleagues she failed to shield Mackintosh’s irreplaceable work. Nobody has resigned.

Two: Students were so indifferent to their surroundings they utilised flammable material with impunity. It was not the first case to occur. Flouting the rules was endemic.

Three: The GSA is a self-governing authority; it makes its own decisions on needs, hence it’s hard to blame government meanness for indirectly causing the fire by delayed grant aid. Nevertheless, why did it take so long for a sprinkler system to be approved?


The talk is of turning the Mackintosh into a museum, or at the most, allowing access to students with laptops, which is the same thing, the antithesis of what Charles Rennie Mackintosh created for its use. After destroying his legacy we abuse his memory.

Mackintosh’s masterpiece cannot be ‘restored.’ It can only be imprecisely recreated. Unique items, fitments, interiors and windows, designed by and made under the artistic eye of Mackintosh, will be bogus, mere copies.

The original is all but gone. No one has apologised, no one has resigned, and nobody has been charged with negligence. Why? And where is the guarantee no other disaster will befall this great national asset while under the ‘guardianship’ of the present Board of Governors? Dare we contemplate privatisation, vandalism, or another fire?


What a disaster! Now we have a second fire as if somebody is determined to level the building once and for all. Poor storage of construction materials? Blatant disregard for health and safety regulations? Arson? Will the GSA authorities stand down this time, or wring their hands and say yet again “We have learned from the mistakes”. Bit late to have learned anything when the bloody building is all but lost.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Art School Vandalism

  1. Dek says:

    This essay had to be written. The lack of main stream media interest in this scandalous and shameful state of affairs is impossible to understand. Hand wringing and ” why o why” does not cut it. Where are the pack of baying hounds when you need them ?

  2. Hugh Wallace says:

    But it is not as if MacKintosh did any real art, he was Scottish after all. What is the fuss?

  3. Tinto Chiel says:

    Well said, you hit all the targets. The loss of GSA is incalculable and your picture of the library, “lost completely”, really hit home as a complete sickener for someone who loved that magical space.

    As you say, the Reid building is quite monstrous and its brutalism is deeply depressing, the antithesis of CRM’s art.

    Am I being too cynical to suggest that criticism has been subdued because of Muriel Gray’s position as prominent Britnat spokesman?

    I would love to see any answers to your acute questions. Sadly, they will probably remain rhetorical.

  4. Iain More says:

    I would be careful about accusing a Clerk of Works there. The ones I know can be right sticklers even if it means tearing something down and starting a job again. I have seen them do it.

  5. Grouse Beater says:

    Now and then it’s worth leaving a patently silly comment for all to see, and not daubing it the work of an inebriated troll.

  6. diabloandco says:

    My thought at the time it was carelessness with all that flammable stuff around – wouldn’t get away with that in the theatre , the fire chief would see to that.
    However , I came to the conclusion that “carelessness” with regard to a beautiful , working building just doesn’t hack it – where were the alarms , the sprinklers the jannies? How come it took so long to realise the place was on fire and a huge legacy was about to be lost?
    Tears didn’t stop the blaze but sprinklers might have.

  7. Grouse Beater says:

    There’s no doubt in my mind, and in others employed by the GSA, that there was gross dereliction of duty. I think the authorities know it, are profoundly embarrassed, but to admit it means all hell breaks loose. They know they’re deeply in the wrong.

  8. Andrew McLean says:

    Iain, I agree, not sure what the relevance of the C.O.W, where was the “responsible person” ? whether they were called the Fire officer or H&S officer / manager as defined in the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 as Duty Holders?
    The fire risk assessment should make interesting reading, or was that lost in the fire?

  9. Susan Allen says:

    Why were the sprinklers turned off?

  10. Grouse Beater says:

    As I understand it, the system agreed upon was not installed, delayed while the new building took precedence.

  11. diabloandco says:

    ‘Tears don’t put out a fire’ again!
    This time let’s hope that rage can get some answers and accountability.

  12. Oooh you mentioned the Philistines. They attacked the Israelites and stole the Ark of the Covenant. They were clearly anti-Semitic and thus so are you, again.

  13. Pingback: Talking-up Scotland’s Disclosure Team exposes earlier anti-semitism by Cybernat blogger Grouse Beater – Talking-up Scotland

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s