The £235m mega museum of the tormented Norwegian artist stands as an ominous grey tower on the Oslo waterfront, lurching out at the top like a military lookout post, keeping watch over the fjord. It is a location scout’s dream for the ultimate villain’s headquarters, an almost comically menacing structure, bent over the pristine white iceberg of the city’s beloved opera house with a thuggish hunch. — Oliver Wainwright
The Munch Museum’s opening had been pushed back to this week following years of political holdup swelling from concerns the 11-story museum would, as Wainwright noted in his review, take away from the nearby Oslo Opera House from Snøhetta.
13 Comments
this
I know, midlander. I know.
Hey its Norway, they got the money- its normal over there
Its awful, it blocks views of the fjord from the city. The city sits north of the fjord and faces south, this building blocks the cherished southern sun from the city- which is scare is Oslo of all places. Fail
"scarce in"
The materiality is substantially different from the original renderings ...
I stand by my comment. Form clearly came through - materiality, certainly not.
Henrichsen promises that a brimming programme of events and performances will “make this house lively from 10am to 10pm every day”. They won’t be short of visitors, thanks to global Munch-mania. . . . But the impending crowds seem to have dictated the design: the whole place feels like it has been designed to process the hordes as efficiently as possible.
Really, the criticism should be made against the program itself, along with whatever civic forces were behind it, which has been accommodated. Such a large museum for one artist, not a major figure, designed to bring in the hordes. It looks to be an extraordinary gamble. Will the crowds come, will the interest last? Who knows. It doesn't even hold the version of The Scream we most know.
But given program and intent, it's not a bad design. The museum distinguishes itself from other buildings around it while still acknowledging them. It stands out but doesn't clash.
It's also a statement about what cultural venues have become, tourist magnets to enhance city image and gain worldwide attention. With the tourists, $. Let's see what Wainwright has to say about LACMA when it opens.
And it's hard not to wonder what happens to culture, both if these things succeed in bringing in crowds and if they fall well short of the goal. Much culture does not stand up well to such attention. If these places falter or even fail, museums, etc. get stuck with expensive maintenance. I suspect muddling somewhere in between.
It's a shame we didn't get a small, intimate building more in keeping with Munch's work and his place in art. That would have been a more engaging design.
The picture above is in overcast light. It should be brighter in sunlight. Wainwright's photo shows it even darker.
How fitting that a building dedicated to the life and work of Edvard Munch may make you want to scream.
He's having too much fun with the obvious, too obvious comparison, and it doesn't work.
the museum includes a collection of munch's furniture. i can appreciate celebrating representatives of a national culture, but that's a pretty absurd level of idolization. what do we learn from seeing the ordinary furniture munch kept at home?
they anticipated this car crash of a design by dressing it up in crash barriers...
#blawchitecture
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.