The Planning Exchange commissioned this article in 1995 for a comprehensive CD on the history of the post WW2 new towns in the UK. The CD covers every aspect of the planning and building of the new towns.

It is not surprising that the new town development corporations were to the fore in using art as part of the structural design of the towns they were commissioned to build. As in so many other ways the creation of the new towns in post WW2 Britain offered, for good or ill, the opportunity to implement radical ideas and policies. Why not in the use of art? As Colin Ward states in his book, "New Town, Home Town" (1) '... if anyone wanted to see contemporary public sculpture in Britain, it would be necessary to tour, not our historic old towns, but our New Towns.' Different patterns of this use of art emerge and I will describe these by examining in detail the experience of relatively few new towns which I regard as significant since a detailed examination of the art produced by all the new towns is beyond the scope of this paper. By so doing it recognises that some towns made an early and major commitment to using art as part of their development and others did not. I must also confess that the description of one of the towns I have selected, Glenrothes, will be autobiographical.

I will refer only to art that has been used as part of the external environment, as part of the built form and readily visible urbanity of the towns and not with the many and varied art works which are to be found in the interiors of buildings. When external murals, whether cast-relief or painted, or wall surfaces and textures, are included, then the term 'public sculpture' is not sufficient. 'Public art' is the more embracing term and I use it, in its loosest sense, to mean art that is to be found in unregulated, external public spaces.

In 1969 while in the process of organising a tour of new towns to look at examples of public art, Peterlee and Harlow were the towns I was most recommended to visit. Without a full knowledge of every single new town it would be safe to suggest that most, if not all, have commissioned some public art. What is striking about Peterlee and Harlow is that very early in their development both had made a very serious commitment to the role that art could play. They also exemplify two fundamentally different approaches to that role. Put at its simplest one could say that Peterlee invested in the artist and Harlow invested in the artwork. In neither case did these approaches derive from a considered policy of the respective development corporations but rather as the result of the convictions of one or two strong-minded individuals with vision who held positions of power. (the cycle paths at Stevenage came about in similar circumstances) In Peterlee A.V. Williams, the General Manager, was responsible for the employment of the artist Victor Pasmore. In Harlow Frederick Gibberd, as Master Planner, pushed through the aims of the Harlow Arts Trust to purchase sculptures for the town. There could not be a clearer distinction than that posed by these two towns in setting the different patterns in which artists and artworks could be used in the planning, design and building processes of towns. It would be well, at this point, to dwell on the differing experiences of Peterlee and Harlow.

In the wake of Berthold Lubetkin's resignation from his brief with Peterlee, A.V. Williams, with his commitment to challenging architecture made, in 1955, the still astonishing decision, to employ one of Britain's foremost abstract artists as a consultant to lead a team of architects in the design of a new housing development in the south west area of the town. As Richard Cork writes in the book, "Architect's Choice - Art In Architecture In Great Britain Since 1945," (2) 'Although the Ministry and the RIBA were horrified by his appointment and tried to get rid of him, Williams remained firm and gave Pasmore his head.' Here was the long-awaited opportunity for an artist to be involved with planners and architects from the very inception of a building project. In reviewing Pasmore's contribution in the "Architectural Review." (3), J.M.Richards wrote, 'The first results were illustrated in AR in 1961 and have aroused widespread interest, not only for what they are, but for the possibilities they show for architect- artist collaboration over fundamentals - not simply over the decoration of wall surfaces.' Pasmore involved himself totally in the overall design of layouts, house-types, facades, landscape and all the details related to the design of a residential area. Deanna Petherbridge observes, 'Pasmore's influence, in terms of his own constructivist idiom - in balancing of voids, masses and linear emphases, the choice of contrasting materials and the use of black and white - was highly praised at the time, but has subsequently, and perhaps unjustly, been severely criticised.' (4) It was said, at the time that he objected to tenants' gardens and the their choice of curtains where it affected the purity of his formal concept. Pasmore's links with Peterlee lasted twenty or more years and his contribution to the town requires further detailed appraisal and examination. My own view is that the deterministic modernism of Pasmore, (as much a fault of architects of the period as well) does not lend itself to what is essentially suburban housing design. Pasmore allowed himself a sculptural flourish in the "Apollo Pavilion" (1963) at Sunny Blunts, a massive structure in concrete straddling a stream flowing from a small lake. 'It stands today,' says Richard Cork, 'as a fascinating example of how contemporary artists can translate their concerns into wholly architectural terms, and how even the restricted budget of a new town is able, given the necessary degree of commitment, to yield funding for a purely imaginative feat.' (5)