"At the Nelson-Atkins, a project in many ways comparable to the National Gallery, Holl has produced as striking and inventive a piece of architectural form as anything by Gehry, Herzog & de Meuron, or Jean Nouvel, and yet it is a serene and exhilarating place in which to view art." Paul Goldberger | Slideshow | previously
6 Comments
This is typical Goldberger - heaping oodles of praise on a star architect without offering an ounce of critical insight. What gives? How can he pass as a legit "critic" without producing any concrete criticism? Isn't a critic's role to offer some sort of resistance or opposition to the status quo? And why does the New Yorker publish such drivel, while its other writers so often offer sharp criticism in other disciplines?
This guys a hack. He actually bashed the world trade center back when it was completed but was the first to praise it after 911.
all of that may be a given, but the museum is rather good, and seemingly one of the better done ones in the US in a long, long time...
Resistance to the status quo begins here:
letter to the editor
yeah, i might have thought the atkins was innovative, too...
if i hadn't already seen or worked on 100 other interesting projects using profilit...
whoa there. just because those materials have been used in the past doesn't make the nelson atkins less good. and it's certainly not a conservative building.
maybe architects should let it live out in the world for a bit before tearing it apart - see what the public thinks of it. "status quo" is a little strong when you look around at what's being built on a daily basis, don'tcha think?
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.