Check out this interesting article on the new Stedelijk Museum addition, one in a long line of excessively strangely designed museums going for architectural awe to draw in crowds...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/arts/design/amsterdams-new-stedelijk-museum.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=design
I think this is an interesting article for us here in Milwaukee too. We have our own fairly excessive museum addition that is far more focused on the architecture than the art it houses and, I suppose, I've always been torn. I think unique buildings are interesting...for a while, at least until overly unique buildings became, well, not all that unique or rare. It seems every new museum now has some quirky new design that doesn't really serve any function other than to grab attention and it always bugged me that many museums seemed to go for the $100million POW! for attention rather than the slow burn of quality, while that may be less immediately impactful.
It's not that I don't like or appreciate the Quadracci Pavilion, some of Frank Gehry's work (though not 800 of the same concept), or any of the other high-profile additions that scream for attention, but I wonder what we, or any other cash-strapped community, could have done with the money a more financially practical building could have saved...maybe the Quadracci and similar buildings will end up paying for themselves in tourism, leading to more opportunity to grow collections, but I suppose we will wait and see...what do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment