I was talking about the ROM with my girlfriend yesterday (we live about 40 minutes away, and use to live on its doorstep, practically).
This article doesn't surprise me. However, I'll call attention to the second-last paragraph:
"In another while, I imagine something very different for the ROM: the anodized aluminum and drywall ripped clean from its steel structure, the public blissfully liberated with every whack at the tin pinata. Decades from now, with 100,000 people annually migrating to the Toronto region, I suspect public space will finally be valued as a precious commodity. Desperate to reclaim that perfect quadrangle between the original east and west wings of the museum, the ROM will have expanded several storeys underground. It won't be that difficult to take down the Libeskind addition; its foundation is completely separate from the historic one and its walls barely touch the originals. What I see are hanging gardens draped over the raw steel beams. Natural light flooding the underground galleries. A Babylon for the 21st century."
Now THAT sounds a million times better than what I've seen at the new ROM.... and yes, I've seen it with my own eyes.
i like a smackdown as much as the next person but something about the way that was written made my teeth hurt.
i did like this bit though:
"None of this was fully appreciated when Libeskind submitted 11 drawings on ROM napkins of a glass, crystalline addition for the invited design competition"
submitted on rom napkins? what a twat, allthough sending an intern out to steal napkins for presentations drawings would be funny, kind of like the architects version of a left handed screwdriver.
The architectural critic from one of the other major daily papers (Toronto Star write Christopher Hume) seems to like the thing quite a bit. Normally I like Hume, but I don't know what he's smoking these days, though he does bring up a good point in the second article, pointing our fickle tastes in design. Meh.
maybe its just me but the last thing i want to notice at an art museum is the building. museums need their tourist photo op building because most people don't want or have time to actually experience the art that the buildings house. im(notso)ho the museum as spectacle does nothing for the art that it contains. experiencing art is about contemplation, meditation and an attempt to get to the nature of things. not to be poked in the eye.
And I think that's what was forgotten in all of this.
But to clarify, this isn't an art gallery, it's basically an anthropological museum.
Still, I agree with you just the same. A great building is going to bring in some tourists, but ultimately, if the building overshadows the contents, what good is that?
It's the building as object, rather than a container for objects.
I think the best museums do more than simply act as neutral backgrounds, but engage and augment the art without actually overshadoing it. The American Folk Art Museum in NYC i think is a perfect example of this. It is way more meditative than the MoMA next door.
Jun 6, 07 1:23 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Review of Libeskind's ROM (Toronto)
Brilliant review:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070601.wcrystal-rom/BNStory/Entertainment/columnists
OUCH!
sounds pretty acurate.
it's funny but that review makes me want to go there... is that wrong?
nope, bad architecture is as much a spectical as good architecture. i'm actually going next weekend. =)
the chairs fuckin' ROTATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was talking about the ROM with my girlfriend yesterday (we live about 40 minutes away, and use to live on its doorstep, practically).
This article doesn't surprise me. However, I'll call attention to the second-last paragraph:
"In another while, I imagine something very different for the ROM: the anodized aluminum and drywall ripped clean from its steel structure, the public blissfully liberated with every whack at the tin pinata. Decades from now, with 100,000 people annually migrating to the Toronto region, I suspect public space will finally be valued as a precious commodity. Desperate to reclaim that perfect quadrangle between the original east and west wings of the museum, the ROM will have expanded several storeys underground. It won't be that difficult to take down the Libeskind addition; its foundation is completely separate from the historic one and its walls barely touch the originals. What I see are hanging gardens draped over the raw steel beams. Natural light flooding the underground galleries. A Babylon for the 21st century."
Now THAT sounds a million times better than what I've seen at the new ROM.... and yes, I've seen it with my own eyes.
i like a smackdown as much as the next person but something about the way that was written made my teeth hurt.
i did like this bit though:
"None of this was fully appreciated when Libeskind submitted 11 drawings on ROM napkins of a glass, crystalline addition for the invited design competition"
submitted on rom napkins? what a twat, allthough sending an intern out to steal napkins for presentations drawings would be funny, kind of like the architects version of a left handed screwdriver.
The architectural critic from one of the other major daily papers (Toronto Star write Christopher Hume) seems to like the thing quite a bit. Normally I like Hume, but I don't know what he's smoking these days, though he does bring up a good point in the second article, pointing our fickle tastes in design. Meh.
http://www.thestar.com/article/217880
http://www.thestar.com/article/218073
i agree, I think libeskind is a mad genius as well.
I think he's raging at the world frankly. Someone should buy him a beer.
upside...the napkin presentation motif seems to come from the same marketing mind that came up with the "1776"ft high freedom tower...
we should be aware that he won the ROM competition, and the only thing remaining from his design for the freedom tower, is his 1776ft. datum...
he is probably aware of which kitch idea his audience/decisionmakers will respond to...
he wears black, has designer frames, draws in napkins, is raging at the world, and needs a beer...the new marketable poetic architect;
I like to rage and drink beer, though not at the same time.
Maybe my eyes are too good. Think I should get some fake archtect glasses??
maybe its just me but the last thing i want to notice at an art museum is the building. museums need their tourist photo op building because most people don't want or have time to actually experience the art that the buildings house. im(notso)ho the museum as spectacle does nothing for the art that it contains. experiencing art is about contemplation, meditation and an attempt to get to the nature of things. not to be poked in the eye.
And I think that's what was forgotten in all of this.
But to clarify, this isn't an art gallery, it's basically an anthropological museum.
Still, I agree with you just the same. A great building is going to bring in some tourists, but ultimately, if the building overshadows the contents, what good is that?
It's the building as object, rather than a container for objects.
I think the best museums do more than simply act as neutral backgrounds, but engage and augment the art without actually overshadoing it. The American Folk Art Museum in NYC i think is a perfect example of this. It is way more meditative than the MoMA next door.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.