The clunky, amoebalike building cannot seem to decide between the digitally derived expressionism of such architects as Frank Gehry or Zaha Hadid, and Zumthor’s own brand of minimalist modernism. We’re left with a museum that benefits nobody and satisfies none of the needs of the art in its collection, nor of the public that will view it. And yet in April, it was approved... — New Republic
With the recent approval of LACMA's redesign back in April, Peter Zumthor's design for Los Angeles' iconic art museum has received an alarming reaction from the public, specifically those in the architecture community. In Archinect's most recent coverage of the museum, many of our readers shared their concerns and criticisms of the new design. Questioning Zumthor's overall decision many worry the design fails to highlight the most important aspect of the museum itself, the art, and its connectivity to the community.
Museums and museum curators are always searching for new and innovative ways to increase the number of visitors and increase overall interest and engagement. In her recent op-ed piece in The New Republic, architecture critic Kate Wagner shares her thoughts on the new LACMA redesign and highlights why Zumthor fails to create a building that satisfies the art it will house and the public viewing it.
Wagner notes on Zumthor's past works and how it fails as a design because, "Zumthor has never built something of the scale and complexity of a large municipal art museum, and it shows. The clunky, amoebalike building cannot seem to decide between the digitally derived expressionism of such architects as Frank Gehry or Zaha Hadid and Zumthor's own brand of minimalist modernism."
The topic of museums and museum engagement is another discussion all together. However, one point Wagner makes addresses the museum's lack of space. "The museum has been through three contentious redesigns before, but the thing it needed all along was more room. Its collection—which includes pre-Columbian relics, as well as modern showpieces like Chris Burden's Urban Light—was already bursting its four current buildings at the seams. Now, it will be squeezed into a space two-thirds the size."
With these items addressed, it begs me to question, how does this new design really affect Angelenos? Outside of the architecture and design profession do Los Angeles natives actually care about the redesign's failed execution or will it simply turn into another "Instagrammable" building where the overall concept is missed. To Wagner's point, will this new design help turn "ordinary visitors into committed art lovers?"
1) Wagner is not a random lay-person. She has a degree in architectural acoustics, so she's at least somewhat within the professional realm.
2) Non-architects *should* critique architects. We design for the public, not our colleagues.
3) She's not wrong.
All 3 Comments
1) Wagner is not a random lay-person. She has a degree in architectural acoustics, so she's at least somewhat within the professional realm.
2) Non-architects *should* critique architects. We design for the public, not our colleagues.
3) She's not wrong.
Ding, ding, ding. GET THIS PERSON A STUFFED PRIZE!
tduds is right, and kate wagner is right; enough with this cult of semigods that can't be criticized for doing bad shit
You, of course. unless you're not registered ... or haven't designed and built a museum ... or any project of that scale ...
If you are not a published author you have no business writing anything on this or any other forum.
Zumthor is an incredible architect who happened to biff it, big time, with this building.
I'd let Zumthor stay on as a consultant and give the project to someone with more experience in LA and/or with this project type and scale. Gehry would be a good choice but there's already too much Gehry in LA. Mayne could handle it but wouldn't be my personal choice. Maybe Renzo Piano. Or, for a dark horse, have Allied Works take a stab.
As for "she has a degree in architectural acoustics....and is qualified to critique acoustics." See point 2 above. Stop gatekeeping.
I’m really over the criticism of this design. Each one I’ve read seems to believe that not a single LACMA employee, nor the county which is the owner has been engaged with this process and/or has been some blind, deaf, and mute participant in the planning and design. That the building simple fell from the sky and we the architecture/art public must, I repeat, MUST! rush in and save them from this “obvious” disaster! We get it, you don’t like the design but that does not mean that over the last 10 years that this process has been in motion that there was not and continues not to be a thoughtful and thorough consideration of the spatial needs of museum. RANT over.
The number of people involved in a clusterfuck, nor the duration of the clusterfuck, change the fundamental nature of the clusterfuck, that of being fucked-up.
This whole thing reads like a classic failure of client direction, which is pretty typical in big committee-led projects like this. They can't commit to a program that solves their fundamental requirement of increased area seems like a basic inability to balance their own priorities. The entire development premise of the scheme is irrational and wasteful.
I disagree with Wagner that Zumthor fails to navigate large scale - where he is struggling is in how to handle an aimless client with internal conflict. Gehry and a few others aren't successful because their design process is so much better: they just know when to walk away from a fiasco before they get pulled into quicksand.
I mean the idea that LA needs a Bilbao Effect is absurd. Whoever had that idea in the planning process (as noted in the article) clearly understands nothing of positioning, of context, of LA's place in the world or LACMA's place in the world. When the client is an idiot the project will always be a mess.
Good observation - 'failure of client direction'. Museum board members are typically selected for their ability to provide / attract funding, not for any kind of technical or professional prowess.
Case in point, the Parrish Art Museum in Southampton, where the rich housewives of NYC developers selected H&dM for a small project, whose lack of care and professionalism is readily evident in the finish and building. Likewise the local library which doubled in size but ended up with less than their original amount of selfless space courtesy of (Lee Harris Pomeroy).
I'm not going to put all of LACMA's problems on the board because it is the architect's job to guide them. With the understanding of course that it is not easy to convince self-appointed masters of the universe anything.
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.