Lindsay Clare + Kerry Clare
This paper seeks to redress and correct the inaccuracies and fundamental research deficiencies that underpin and plague the paper by Dr Naomi Stead, “The Brisbane Effect: GOMA and the Architectural Competition for a New Institutional Building” published in “Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand” (SAHANZ) in 2015 (1). The conclusions reached in that paper are not – as the author contends – “self evident” but rather appear to be self-serving. Stead admits to exclusive reliance on secondary sources, despite the availability of primary sources. This may indicate lack of rigour and curiosity or reluctance to engage with ideas and facts that would disturb an a priori proposition.
Our response might seem heavily weighted with quotes, however this is intentional, in order to demonstrate the differing and readily available views in print.
The range of inaccuracies in “The Brisbane Effect” also raises questions about SAHANZ’s approach to refereeing the papers it publishes.
In 2000 the Queensland Government announced an “architect selection competition” (run by Project Services) to identify a team of architects that demonstrated the capability and adaptability to work with the QAG – the end-user. This process is different from a design competition. The judging involved assessment of the design concepts and protracted interview sessions with the short-listed architects – the very purpose of which was to identify the architects best able and best suited to work with the Gallery as a cooperative and effective team on the project’s realisation. The competition was won by Architectus (design directorate: Kerry Clare, Lindsay Clare and James Jones) with Davenport Campbell.
The Queensland Gallery of Modern Art Architect Competition assessment panel members were:
Gary May, Deputy Director-General, Department of Public Works (Chairman)
Professor Michael Keniger, Queensland Government Architect
Professor Tom Heneghan, Professor of Architecture, Tokyo Kogakuin University
Doug Hall, Director, Queensland Art Gallery
Elizabeth Smith, James W Aldsdorf Chief Curator, Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago
Advisers to QAG:
Peter Wilson, Director of Projects and Estates, Tate Modern, London 1972-2005
William Fleming, Coordinator, Building and Strategic Development, QAG
Michael Barnett, Project Officer, Building and Strategic Development, QAG
David Watson, Cinematheque consultant
Glenn Bourner, State Library of Queensland
Alan Wilson, Assistant Director, Management and Operations, QAG
Andrew Clark, Assistant Director, Curatorial and Collection Development, QAG
Andrew Dudley, Registrar, QAG
This paper has been reviewed by:
Haig Beck and Jackie Cooper
As a trigger or catalyst for her examination into “The Brisbane Effect”, Stead cites a local newspaper columnist and refers to the building’s “architectural gestures”, before setting out to “explore whether:
“the place-specificity of the GOMA building was an article of rhetoric on the part of the architects themselves;
“an artefact of reception and media construction;
“or evidence of a more thoroughgoing state approach to cultural policy, as set out in the briefing and design philosophy in the architectural competition documents.”
A conversation with the architects would have clearly and factually answered these questions. However, the author avoided such a direct method of research. Instead, Stead jumps straight to the third enquiry – whether or not the state consciously sought a local solution – declaring in her introduction: “GOMA offers a fascinating example of converging discourses of art and architecture, state policy, identity, and the role of ‘place’ in constituting the museum as institution”(2); and from this it must apparently follow that state policy predisposed the procurement of regional architecture. Yet, given that the architects worked closely with Project Services, Arts Queensland and QAG, and corresponded with the then premier, over the six years it took to design and construct GOMA, we can categorically confirm that there was no “thoroughgoing state approach” or procurement of regional architecture driving the design. The State’s international and anonymous Architect Selection Competition was in fact devised for the opposite reason than Stead infers.
It should be noted that the short-listed teams were led by architects from Italy, UK, Sydney and Melbourne: none of the other schemes could be described as supporting the “regionalist” argument framed by Stead.
In the first stage of the architect selection competition the entries were anonymous, and all of the short-listed architects were interstate or international practices. Architectus was in Sydney. All five short-listed proponents were asked to collaborate with a Queensland-based practice to aid with delivery of the project should they be successful. We were later informed that the Architectus entry was thought to be from Japan. This confirms there was no local bias. The architects also learnt that when Architectus was short-listed, it was not known that the Clares were involved with that practice. Further, Kerry Clare started her architectural training in Sydney, and James Jones trained in Tasmania and Victoria. In our opinion Stead’s assertion that Architectus was a “decidedly local choice” is an egregious throwaway line she might easily have checked. Throughout the competition period, the architects at no time encountered any bias from government in favour of any particular “design style”. Stead’s conclusion that there was a state policy is more akin to conspiracy theory than evidence drawn from conscientious research. The Architectus design concepts of connection and place came from the design architects alone and were a natural extension of our combined (Clare and Jones) philosophy and previous works created over a sustained period.
Tom Heneghan, a juror, later wrote: “In the first stage of the architectural competition for GoMA, this was certainly the least provocatively, and possibly the most minimally, illustrated submission – comprising some small sketches and sketch plans, and a short block of text. Together, however, these conveyed a proposal of originality and astonishing sureness. One was left in no doubt that the architect’s apparently effortless resolution of this very complex and demanding brief was the result of a lifetime’s experience of designing such buildings.”(3)
Stead states that the Gallery Director, Doug Hall, favoured the Fuksas proposal but was “obliged to capitulate” to the other jurors and selection criteria. This depiction – indeed, any isolated singling out of preliminary jury discussions or opinions – misrepresents the role and function of a jury. Doug Hall has recounted that he was initially drawn to the Fuksas scheme but came to understand that it would not meet their functional needs, and so did not prefer the scheme. Hall has confirmed to us that he was not “obliged to capitulate”, and he takes exception to this description. The jury recommendation was unanimous. It was considered that “Architectus [+Davenport Campbell] offered the most robust and flexible schematic design, one which was capable of evolving and being refined in close consultation with the Gallery as client.”(4) Hall wrote, “in the case of GOMA, there has been an overwhelming national and international endorsement of the building: that it signifies a major cultural shift for Australia. It is not only the architecture and what it represents that is celebrated, but also the way in which it responds to the collections and programs that will shape the Gallery’s future. The building is elegant and grand without being pompous or threatening to visitors. Its physical and visual connections mark its relationship to a unique site. It is in every respect a public building – never to be confused as corporate, bureaucratic or residential.”(5)
Hall lobbied State government for a new gallery in the 1980s – this is technically when “the suggestion first emerged”. Various discussion and strategy papers were presented to Trustees about such a project, particularly from 1993 onwards after the conspicuous success of the first APT. A dedicated Project Unit was established within the Gallery in 1996. Hall continued fighting for the project that would become the GOMA through three successive premiers and changes of government. There was an earlier public announcement for a gallery competition made by the Queensland government in 1997. GOMA’s inception was well before the Guggenheim in Bilbao opened in 1997. These facts do not sit well with Stead’s version of history: “When the suggestion first emerged for a new gallery of modern art in Brisbane, the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao was the precedent on everyone’s mind, given that it had opened only three years previously.”(6)
In our 2010 AS Hook address, we outlined our position about authenticity in relation to our work. “The connection between public buildings and community identity is strong. Public image is the common mental picture carried by the majority; our view is that public buildings have a responsibility to be essential to place and of enduring significance. The interconnection of public buildings with the fabric of a town has historically been the product of design commissions undertaken by architects. For example (as documented in the study by Don Watson and Judith Mackay) many architects in Queensland country towns who were involved with the design of houses were also commissioned to produce public buildings during the progression of their careers. This provided continuity and the essential link with the culture of the town.”(7)
Richard Serra emphasises how important it is for a cultural building to connect to place. Speaking of museums, he observed that “in response to the tendency for architects to treat their buildings as if they were autonomous works of art … museums, rather than just being containers for historical artefacts, or showpieces of architectural acrobatics … [should] try to foster dialogue and allow for an exchange of ideas and views …and further … relate architecture to its locality, to the larger framework of a city”.(8) This is a notable plea from an internationally recognised artist.
In 2013, in a symposium paper, Lindsay Clare stated: “The opportunity to enrich the cultural life of Brisbane was provided through the creation of an open, inviting, generous and democratic ‘urban pavilion’. The siting of this pavilion was both a logical and intuitive response to the curve of the river that is in dialogue with the city and stands at the threshold of the cultural precinct, and further, “A stated objective of the design brief was to create ‘a unique cultural experience’. It is always possible to import ideas borrowed from other places but they may not be relevant or appropriate to a place, or authentic to culture. This understanding is critical and important over time if the concepts are to be sustainable.”(9)
Stead also broaches issues of budget. While it is difficult to gain a sound understanding of the shifts that have occurred in building procurement over the last two or three decades in Australia, again, this matter could easily have been clarified in discussion. The building budget was published as $71.858 million in the Gallery’s publication dated 2002(10); and “$100 million plus (including fees), or just over $4000 per square metre” in the Gallery’s publication, “GOMA Story of a Building” dated 2006(11). The full budget figures were never expressly given to the architects, and were subject to a contract between Lend Lease and Project Services. There is often confusion between total project budget and the building budget. The State government stated that the project did not go over budget. The winning scheme met the government’s budget. Quantity surveyors verified the costings through the competition stages. After the competition, the government called for tenders to select a managing contractor to work with the architects through Design Development to ensure budgets were met. DD was undertaken with the selected tenderer and during that stage, costings were met. When completed in 2006, GOMA’s cost per square metre, as built, was reportedly 49 per cent less expensive than Federation Square, completed four years earlier, and 28 per cent less expensive than the New Asia Wing at the AGNSW which was completed three years earlier. GOMA was delivered at a time when construction cost escalation was reported as between 11-15 per cent per annum in Queensland. There was no allowance for escalation in the agreement struck by the government with the managing contractor, therefore the building’s budget was effectively reduced during the procurement and construction stages, affecting areas, materials and detail.
In Stead’s second enquiry – the building’s reception in the popular and architectural press – she selected articles that serve her purpose. But since the completion of the project some ten years ago, there have been a number of articles (not cited in her paper) that do not fit her construct. Since her enquiry is about rhetoric and the part it plays in the consciousness of a community, it would seem not unreasonable to explore a wider, balanced selection of published material. While the popular press often prints a simplified version of a more broad discussion, there are other publications – products of substantial and detailed research – that have demonstrated the progression through history of residential and public architecture within the region. For example, Michael Keniger wrote in 1990, “putting aside the form and formula of the Queensland house, its qualities of simplicity, rational construction, economy and elaborate enrichment by light and line may also be found in the public buildings and towns throughout the state.”(12) Alison Smithson six years earlier wrote in Architecture Australia of the distinct character of early Queensland public buildings.(13)
Now, to visit Stead’s first enquiry: that “the place-specificity of the GOMA building was an article of rhetoric on the part of the architects themselves”. The most obvious omission, or perhaps leap, in Stead’s argument here is her contention that the architects support the idea of the building as a scaled-up vernacular house. Stead unashamedly misrepresents our position, and has overlooked or not understood our own writings. For example, the notion that a large roof should slope downwards in emulation of traditional buildings – “to create a low shaded edge, in the way that every Queenslander verandah does”(14) – is, in our opinion naive and simplistic, lacking in a grasp of climate responsiveness one might otherwise expect from architectural academia. GOMA’s roof forms respond to many issues of site, environment, space and indeed the shortcomings of traditional Queensland buildings – such as dark interiors and poor balance of light (partly ameliorated by screens). These comments also, by way of association, are dismissive of the many significant, varied and liberating works produced by contemporary Queensland architects.
The QAG, designed by Robin Gibson in 1973, continues to serve as an excellent gallery. However GOMA’s architects observed, as others did, that this white modernist building had no edges offering shelter from Brisbane’s subtropical glare, heat or rain, and the surrounding public space could not be comfortably occupied. The potential for connection is a key role for a contemporary gallery. This has to be balanced with the need to protect the art to achieve international gallery standards. GOMA’s openness sets out both to engage with the public and locate it within its context. Heneghan wrote, “GoMA’s unusual architectural porosity and openness provide a powerful and physical connection between the gallery and the city it is part of. The ease with which the public can just wander into their gallery helps bridge any gap between them and the collection … This sense of connection to, rather than separation from, the exterior is a very considerable achievement.”(15)
Stead then condescendingly associates the roof with a European example, asserting “in fact it is closest of all to a particular thread of contemporary buildings, including Jean Nouvel’s Lucerne Cultural [sic] and Congress Centre”(16) – an erroneous notion one might forgive in the popular press. Stead’s observation appears to mirror a quote from an article by John Macarthur; “The screw of this little paradox turns more tightly for architects who know that the form of the building and particularly the flying roof and the box-like irregular protrusions are greatly inspired by Jean Nouvel’s Lucerne Cultural [sic] and Congress Centre.”(17)
The resolution of the Gallery’s roof answers QAG’s brief and site conditions. This resolution also corresponds with the architects’ desire for the public to connect with the building, made easy through its sheltered edges, and as stated earlier is consistent with our and Jones’s philosophy since the late 1970s.
During the competition phases, initial designs incorporated columns to support some roof edges – in other words, quite unlike the Nouvel building. However in discussion with the Gallery, we developed the design to provide unencumbered views to walls in order to increase the potential uses of those walls for artists and curators. (Images of the model showing columns are readily available in the QAG 2002 publication, Queensland Gallery of Modern Art Architect Competition.)
The box like protrusions came from the conceptual idea of a chest of drawers to allow planning flexibility: “The three dimensional planning method that has been employed in the schematic and design development phase is analogous with a ‘chest of drawers’. Major spatial changes have been made, across the briefed range of accommodation requirements, in response to the rigorous client brief, budget restrictions and design development process, without diluting the architectural idea.”(18)
Heneghan, a UK-trained architect and academic (now at Tokyo Geijutsu Daigaku), understands the building, its roof and its place more readily than some local academics.“Seen in these terms, the commitment of the Government of Queensland, which nick-names itself ‘The Smart State’, to the construction of the Queensland Gallery of Modern Art (or GoMA) – the largest gallery of contemporary art in Australia – is perceptive. It also means that GoMA must be assessed not only for its achievement of its core function, but also for its achievement of iconic status – which was a pre-requisite of the client’s brief – as a symbol of the cultural and social ambitions of its region. But, while GoMA is certainly an icon for or of its region, it is wrong to think of it as a ‘regional’ icon. The too-often-repeated alleged-witticism that GoMA is ‘a Noosa weekender on steroids’ is, at best, feeble – based, very tenuously, on some supposed up-scaling of the idea of ‘the veranda’. But, this notion of the ‘inhabited edge’ does draw attention to a very crucial way in which GoMA re-defines its own building-type. ‘Icon’ buildings tend to be, almost by definition, self-centred. But, GoMA reaches out to, responds to, and sometimes even defers to the very differently-nuanced open spaces which surround it. By this, it side-steps the quasi-sanctity and incongruity which are the usual characteristics of iconic architecture, and it becomes, instead, iconoclastic – a characteristic which is central to the gallery’s mission”.(19)
Some six years later, Giles Nolan echoes Heneghan’s observation: “Seemingly out of nowhere Brisbane had stepped into the international arts arena – and thanks to Goma it was packing a mighty punch. A key reason that Queensland’s state government established Goma was to create a larger home to accommodate and expand the APT, the world’s only major contemporary Asia-Pacific region art series. The buildings’s purpose, however, has extended well beyond this brief; the space has redefined Brisbane as a cultural destination.”(20)
Stead also refers to an article by Andrew Leach to support her position regarding a “disjunction between rhetoric and reality”(21). Leach’s dislike of the building appears to cloud his understanding of a number of the operating architectural elements. His pejorative descriptors such as “homely”, “domestic” and “decorative”, then “gigantist”, and glib reference to an Italian newspaper’s forgivably sensational or amusing title “Una splendid ‘Beach House’” are, in our opinion signs of a muddled point of view. Leach disparages the “widespread decorative and functional use of hardwood batons [sic]”(22): these hardworking timber screens purposefully filter glare; reduce heat load; create transparency/surveillance in and out of the offices; provide horizontal views from within and achieve some uninterrupted views of the river and city where the screens angle out to the north; and provide a counterpoint to the protective walls of the galleries. The screen stops below the roof allowing the upper uses (art conservation) to moderate light from within, as required by the brief. Timber elements throughout the building are consciously used for their tactility, the worked surface of timber having universal appeal without limiting or overpowering the needs of the artists and curators.
While Leach also bases some of his assumptions on articles in popular media, his opinions differ from other critiques (including but not limited to those of Beck and Cooper, Heneghan, Hall, Jackson, Frampton, Xu, Hyatt, Price, Stapleton, Thomson, Noble, Giles, Kirkland) on matters of scale, materiality and civic role. In our opinion Leach betrays no understanding of the brief’s spatial requirements for a truly flexible and responsive gallery of modern art that meets international exhibition standards. He seems unaware of the vast differences in gallery types. GOMA is not a portrait gallery, museum for a fixed collection, or private collection. Simon Wright, Assistant Director noted, “Goma has a magnificent exterior but the interior is its real magic because the space and volume that we get to play with here is unparalleled in the southern hemisphere”.(23) Photographer Douglas Kirkland in speaking to local press said that although he has had big shows all over, from Moscow to Paris and across the United States, he has never had the opportunity that the spaces of Queensland Art Gallery’s Gallery of Modern Art are now offering. “The city of Brisbane has something amazing here … I hope people know what a high level of sophistication this gallery is. It makes me feel like I’m in a cathedral, enveloping me in the most exciting way.”(24) Beck and Cooper describe the building’s disposition as “(Extra)ordinary: The form of the building projects an image of GoMA as friendly, welcoming and extrovert. With its large overhanging roof, open verandahs and timber batten screening, the building conveys a typical, familiar and regional expression of subtropical informality at a civic scale.”(25)
Stead also notes “But the architects’ original intention that the glass cladding which encases much of the museum would provide a space for digital interactive artworks was never realised – leaving a largely blank, opaque glass wall on the southern façade, facing the main approach”(26) whereas the translucent glass facade is designed and constructed as series of light boxes with accessible cavities and each including power and data. This facade has already been used for temporary art works and is currently being prepared for a more permanent piece. On the same page Stead says, “Likewise the first-floor outdoor walkway running the length of this wall is never used, its access doors kept permanently closed”, however the doors are predominantly open, and closed only during certain exhibitions or occasions – as confirmed by the Gallery. The Level 2 balcony is used as part of the Gallery’s fund-raising activities.
Through the integrated approach to the design of GOMA, environmentally sustainable design underpins the architects’ proposals for siting, plan form, construction, detailing and operation of the building and its services. The benefits that flow from this approach include significant reductions in energy use, running costs and carbon emissions for the gallery type – something the Gallery actively sought from the final design solution; improved comfort for visitors and staff; and the porosity and connection to site noted by Heneghan. Ché Wall of Advanced Environmental Concepts, and world leading environmental engineer, headed the services design team. The climate responsiveness of the building can be numerically quantified – and in the case of staff and public comfort, anecdotally substantiated – unlike the unverified opinions offered by Stead. Beck and Cooper wrote, “Possibly the most overt intention in their designs is the impulse to incorporate climatically responsive, low-impact environmental control systems … [A]n historical perspective shows that the Clares always approached design from this position, years before climate change entered public consciousness. For them it has been a Modernist act of architectural determinism.”(27)
In a demonstration of circular logic, begging the question by positing the preconceived outcome within the enquiry, Stead confidently concludes: “So as we have seen, the rhetoric of the architects themselves, as well as accounts from both the popular and architectural media, served to frame the building as a kind of scaled up vernacular house”(28). She digs herself in deeper: “In the end, the apparent climate-responsiveness of the building itself is really only an image”(29) – that is, it is rhetoric. However the Gallery’s clear environmental initiatives are published in “Art House Gallery of Modern Art Queensland”.(30) They include: Daylight to galleries, reflected and direct daylight to deep internal spaces, shading – roof overhang and fixed elements, river heat rejection – use of EPA approved chemical, eliminated cooling towers, creates all chilled water requirements, saves water, reduces risk of legionella, floor based displacement air conditioning – increased indoor air quality, reduced energy, materials – use of sustainable timbers, T5 lighting for offices, glazing selections driven by thermal comfort/mechanical load reduction, construction practices – reuse of concrete and bitumen from demolition, on site use of remediated landfill, steel reinforcement from demolition separated and recycled, porphyry stone from site donated to council, silt barriers from unwanted site vegetation (wood chipped).
80% of the building waste generated was recycled. This is noted in the Arts Queensland 05/06 Queensland Art Gallery Annual Report.
Stead’s conclusion is without basis in fact. It cannot be substantiated. As the author admits, she has relied exclusively on secondary sources, and her paper makes painfully plain the pitfalls of failing to interrogate primary sources, the key protagonists involved in the project’s design and realisation.
The architects do not and have never framed the building as a scaled-up vernacular house, nor have we “served to frame the building” as a scaled-up vernacular house. Our commentaries on the building, if interrogated, do not lead to this conclusion. Stead’s conclusions would appear to be drawn exclusively from observations made by the popular media, unleavened by a single primary source and certainly not by any comments from the architects or the client. She states, “As we have seen, there is indeed evidence that the architects’ own account of the building played into popular media descriptions”.(31) However she provides no evidence to substantiate this statement. Stead’s use of the term architects’ “rhetoric” is problematic: rhetoric means false, insincere argument; or “[it] is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers to inform, most likely to persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations” (Wikipedia). There is no evidence in her paper to support her proposition that we have used “rhetoric” such as stylistic falsity of design references to the Queenslander, or endeavoured to persuade or inform an audience of this premise. Similarly, she provides no evidence of a State cultural policy (ie, favouring references to a local vernacular style). As noted above the State’s international and anonymous Architect Selection Competition was devised for the opposite reason to the one Stead infers.
Stead’s paper, in our opinion demonstrates a disturbing lack of rigour on the part of an academic. Her extensive use of secondary sources has led to incorrect statements and suppositions, and to conclusions drawn from false premises. Had she looked at the written and built works of the design architects, or communicated with them, or with the Gallery director or any member of the assessment panel, she would have arrived at a more accurate historiographic account. It’s like writing a biography without bothering with the messy impressions of those who are still alive and kicking and who knew the subject in detail. But a different approach, investigating primary sources, might have disturbed Stead’s idée fixe.
1. Stead N, “The Brisbane Effect: GOMA and the Architectural Competition of a New Institutional Building”, in Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand: 32 Architecture, Institutions and Change, edited by Paul Hogben and Judith O’Callaghan, pp 627-39, Sydney, SAHANZ, 2015
2. Stead N, op cit, p 627 ! ! 5 of 6 19 20 21 22 23 24
3. Heneghan T, “Gallery of Modern Art”, in H Beck and J Cooper (eds), Architectus— Between Order and Opportunity, ORO Editions, California, 2009, p 187
4. Queensland Art Gallery, Queensland Gallery of Modern Art Architect Competition, 2002, p 19
5. Hall D, Director, QAG/GOMA, letter to Lindsay + Kerry Clare, 5 March 2007
6. Stead N, op cit, p 636
7. Clare L, Clare K, AS Hook Address, Architecture Australia, Vol 100, No 1, January 2011
8. Serra, R in conversation with Alan Colquhoun, Lynne Cooke and Mark Francis, in Kunsthaus Bregenz. Edelbert Köb (ed), Museum Architecture/Texts and Projects by artists (pp 85-97, English; pp 89-103, German). Bregenz: Kunsthaus Bregenz, Archiv Kunst Architektur, 2000
9. Clare L, Clare K, “The Cultural Connection, Studies in Material Thinking”, paper delivered at UNSW Museum Symposium, 2013, https://www.materialthinking.org/papers/188, 0130_SMT_Vol12_P06_Clare_- FA2.pdf
10. “Queensland Gallery of Modern Art Architect Competition”, Queensland Art Gallery Publishing, 2002, p 33
11. “GoMA Story of a Building”, Queensland Art Gallery Publishing, 2006, p 39
12. Keniger M, Rex Addison, Lindsay Clare and Russell Hall, Australian Architects 5, RAIA, 1990, p 4
13. Smithson A, Architecture Australia, Vol 73, No 1, 1984, p 60
14. Stead N, op cit, p 633
15. Heneghan T, op cit, p 187
16. Stead N, op cit, p 633
17. Architecture Australia, March/April 2007, “State of the Arts”, p 52
18. QGMA Schematic Design Report Volume 1, section 5A.1.1 architectural design, p 2
19. Heneghan T, op cit, p 186
20. Nolan G, “Art Smarts Brisbane”, Monocle, Issue 75, 2014, pp 151-55
21. Stead N, op cit, p 634
22. Leach A, Architecture New Zealand 2, “Too Bold to be Faithful?”, 2007, pp 54-61
23. Wright S, Nolan G (author), “Art Smarts Brisbane”, Monocle, Issue 75, 2014, p 155
24. Sorensen R, “Douglas Kirkland: his camera doesn’t lie”, The Australian, July 10, 2010 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/douglas-kirkland-his-camera-doesnt-lie/story-e6frg8n6-1225888373398
25. Beck H, Cooper J, Fleming W, GoMA: Story of a Building, Queensland Art Gallery, Australia, 2006, p 17
26. Stead N, op cit, p 633
27. Beck H, Cooper J, UME Clare Design Works 1980-2015, ORO Editions, California, 2015, p 19
28. Stead N, op cit, p 637
29. Stead N, op cit, p 637
30. Hyatt P, “Art House Gallery of Modern Art Queensland”, Thames and Hudson Australia, 2008, p 33
31. Stead N, op cit, p 637