Reply
Tue 9 Nov, 2004 01:28 am
Do you have a picture of this new building?
It's a straight building with an evident lack of curvature
I may have some pictures by now on the architectural website I follow; haven't checked it lately. Will post if I find some.
Well, here's today's NYTimes review of it by their new architecture reviewer -
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/15/arts/design/15moma.html?th
There is a slide show that comes with that. I gather you have to register to check into the NYT.
The new MOMA rooftop garden....
hmmmm?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/11/garden/11NATU.html
Again, you probably have to register to see article and photos.
Taniguchi building in Hiroshima
In this case, you can click on the thumbnail photos to enlarge them.
I'm going to go see December 3rd.
Will report back.
Joe
Looks pretty cool. I'm sure I'll check that out too, eventually.
Is it true that, if you can't fork over $20, you can't get in?
Only for the tourists. All museums in New York charge a DONATION. You slide your ten bucks across the counter, smile and say "Two please."
JOE
Yes, I think I read that...
actually, I haven't read the full text in these last few articles... had read the New Yorker one that was the topic article, and some others a few weeks ago.
A friend sent me an email with a pretty neat photo of the complex, but I haven't been able to get the URL to post it here yet.
NYT article on MOMA architect
This article interested me because it highlighted the difference in art museum architectural design motives - some museums have the building itself as an Art structure, and some downplay the building in order to be a backdrop for the art.
This article in the Washington Post on the MOMA remodel has a good slide show - click on MOMA's New Look to the side of the text, and then click on each photo to see the next one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64061-2004Nov19.html?referrer=email
A Dissenting View
This column ran on page 1 in the 11/22/2004 edition of The New York Observer.
Oedipus on 53rd St.
by Hilton Kramer
Of the many criticisms one can make of the new, grossly expanded and grossly expensive Museum of
Modern Art (its reported to have cost more than $850 million), the most unexpectedby this writer, anywayis that almost everything about it has the character of an anachronism. Instead of a forward-looking, truly innovative plan for both the new gallery space and the new installation of the museums permanent collection, were constantly recalled to the many ways in which the new MoMA remains mired in the arguments and conventions of its own past. As a consequence of this reluctance to make a fresh start for a very different period and a very different public, the new MoMA is full of reminders of the successes and blunders of the old MoMA.
The first and gravest of our disappointments is with the ill-conceived architecture. Yoshio Taniguchis redesign has at every turn in its cold and elephantine structure the look and feel of a Japanese parody of the kind of American modernism that has itself long outlived its expiration date. Thus the galleries are essentially an architectural assemblage ofwhat else?bleak, oversized white boxes in which the scale of the interior space and the unrelieved whiteness of the walls conspire to discomfort the viewer while diminishing the aesthetic integrity of works of art marooned in an environment remarkably hostile to the pleasures of the eye.
These unwelcoming exhibition spaces would under any circumstances entail considerable problems for the installation of MoMAs permanent collectionand these problems are compounded by the apparent determination of the curatorial staff to come up with a scheme that would emphatically be seen to resemble as little as possible the classic installations of the late Alfred Barr, MoMAs founding director. This has been achieved by a systematic deconstruction of Barrs pioneering work in establishing a coherent, stylistically oriented history of modernist art. Barr created programs and diagrams that trace a succession of aesthetic influences and intellectual linkages that constitute a history of modernism; his installations were based on this historical scenario, which for generations of artists and critics became the accepted way of comprehending the modern tradition of art.
What does it mean, then, to speak of a modern "tradition," which some artists and writers on art regard as anathema to the fundamental spirit of modernism? The best answer to this question was given to us by John Szarkowski, for many years the curator of photography in the old MoMA. In Looking at Photographs (1973), Mr. Szarkowski wrote:
"Non-artists often misunderstand the nature of artistic tradition, and imagine it to be something similar to a fortress, within which eternal verity is protected from the present. In fact it is something more useful and interesting, and less secure. It exists in the minds of artists, and consists of their collective memory of what has been accomplished so far. Its function is to mark the starting point for each days work. Occasionally it is decided that tradition should also define the works end result. At this point the tradition dies."
Thats the spirit in which Barr labored to codify the history of modernist art, and to this day I daresay that no other writer on the subject has succeeded in improving on his work. Yet, precisely because Barrs conception of the modern tradition acquired a kind of orthodoxy, it was inevitable that it would also in time provoke some categorical dissentand so it has. The new MoMA, in effect, has transformed itself into the principal voice of the anti-Barr opposition. Thus, in a long essay marking the inauguration of the new MoMA, the museums chief curator, John Elderfield, writes with unconcealed glee that "By a happy coincidence <sum> on the fortieth anniversary of Barrs installation, a truly new one could be created from scratch."
In Mr. Elderfields view, what went wrong in the Barr installation was that "The painting and sculpture galleries had become unduly hermetic, prescriptive, and progressive in their linear, spinal arrangementthe viewer needed sanction to slow downwhile the small size of the individual galleries no longer served the requirements of an intimate address to the works of art." Mr. Elderfield is a writer and curator whose endeavors in the past I have, for the most part, greatly admired. But I nonetheless have to say that just about everything in the sentence Ive just quoted strikes me as utter bosh. Ive been a regular visitor of MoMA, following its many changes, for some 50 years, and Mr. Elderfields notion that visitors ever needed a "sanction" to moderate their pace in looking at works of art is tendentious nonsense.
What has categorically changed at MoMA is the way the museum presents works of art to its public. Heretofore, MoMAs presentation was largely based on a formalist-historical model in which the aesthetics of style was given priority over subject matter or thematic motifs. Four years ago, in the series of MoMA 2000 exhibitions, we were put on notice that the formalist-historical model would now be rejected by MoMA in favor of an emphasis on the subject matter of art. One of the consequences of that decision was that the entire history of abstract art was fractured and rendered incoherent as its various phases were assigned to "subjects" which could rarely, if ever, be discernible to the naked eye. On that occasion, anyway, Mr. Elderfield apologizedsort offor failing to do justice to the history of abstraction. Yet the mistakes of 2000 have been repeated in the installations of 2004.
What we encounter in many of the so-called "subject galleries" in the new MoMA are works of art that have been orphaned from historyfrom the aesthetic history from which they derive their ideas and from the history of their influence on later works of art. All aesthetic experience is comparative, and the quality of our experience of individual works of art often depends on the relation that obtains between the object before us and our memories of other works of art. In such comparisons, style rather than subject provides the principal linkage. This is one reason why the quality and character of installations in museum exhibitions is so crucial to our comprehension of art.
In the old MoMA, a masterwork like Picassos Les Demoiselles dAvignon offered an experience that the visitor carried in the mind through an encounter with the entire history of Cubist painting. At the new MoMA, Les Demoiselles is so historically isolated that it looks as if it had been not so much installed as simply abandoned. The same may be said of the sculpture of Wilhelm Lehmbruckand much else. And once again, as in 2000, the history of abstract art is a mess.
Its one of the further curiosities of the new MoMA that while Mr. Elderfield dwells at length on the achievements of Alfred Barr, just about everything Barr stood for in the realm of responsible museology is repudiated in this inaugural installation. Its almost enough to persuade one to believe in Freuds Oedipus complex.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace