Any architecture I can imagine in the city tends toward beautifully perverse high-modernism (Meier, herzog, etc.) or terrible ill-considered commercial non-sense (too obvious to cite). These tendencies are obviously indicative our (post?) late-capitalist era where nothing, even supposedly authentic "art" culture escapes its grasp. This is the only building I have seen in ny that accomplished what I thought to be an insurmountable task: transcending what Ouroussoff calls "money-driven cynicism" (which usually results in the aforementioned options). It is beautiful without being ostentatious, ornamental without being superfluous and impressive without being pretentious.
Every other piece of "architecture" in ny, be it a small quasi-posh restaurant interior by LTL (I believe they only actually have built 1 free standing structure in the middle of the country somewhere) or fosters trussed-up office tower, are never really comfortable due to their hyperbolic and exaggerated accentuation of the image they are after.
The new museum is nothing more than a place to show art. This authenticity is refreshing and welcome to someone who is tired of everyone trying so hard and failing so obviously.
Maybe its better than showing it under dim 10,000 dollar track lighting. Not showing art in bright light to protect it is equivalent to covering your couch with plastic. Is it a museum or an archive? You'll develop disdain for white-glove wearing squares who know little about the inherent value of the collection if you've ever done research in the later.
hey jonny...whatcha doin? ya gonna meet us down on da river ta watch da boys race da destroyer against dose white-glove wearing squares and their prissy european jalopies?
nah...my ol' man got me a job at da archives...totally square! but, like, i gotta do it!
blow it off! screw yer ol' man!
nah...he said he'd buy me a t-bird if i play it straight for a while...you gotta light?
What a gracious response, Mr. Knox, to my very pissy response above. Sorry.
Yes, fluorescent lighting makes objects look ugly. As an architetural choice, however, I like the tubes on the ceiling, very raw-ish.
I would guess that most of the work being shown at New Museum is of non-traditional archival quality - i.e., made of things like steel (easy), newspaper (hard), neon (easy), aspirin (hard) - and thus the lighting during its time of display will hardly matter in terms of its archival life.
And, your top post is excellent; I agree that the building seems to be less market-driven than it could have taken the opportunity to be - and thus seems more relevant in the long term.
8 Comments
Any architecture I can imagine in the city tends toward beautifully perverse high-modernism (Meier, herzog, etc.) or terrible ill-considered commercial non-sense (too obvious to cite). These tendencies are obviously indicative our (post?) late-capitalist era where nothing, even supposedly authentic "art" culture escapes its grasp. This is the only building I have seen in ny that accomplished what I thought to be an insurmountable task: transcending what Ouroussoff calls "money-driven cynicism" (which usually results in the aforementioned options). It is beautiful without being ostentatious, ornamental without being superfluous and impressive without being pretentious.
Every other piece of "architecture" in ny, be it a small quasi-posh restaurant interior by LTL (I believe they only actually have built 1 free standing structure in the middle of the country somewhere) or fosters trussed-up office tower, are never really comfortable due to their hyperbolic and exaggerated accentuation of the image they are after.
The new museum is nothing more than a place to show art. This authenticity is refreshing and welcome to someone who is tired of everyone trying so hard and failing so obviously.
Judging only from photographs, I'm tending toward liking it in the way one likes a scruffy, scrappy, happy dog.
But: is it really good practice to show art under fluorescent tubes?
Maybe its better than showing it under dim 10,000 dollar track lighting. Not showing art in bright light to protect it is equivalent to covering your couch with plastic. Is it a museum or an archive? You'll develop disdain for white-glove wearing squares who know little about the inherent value of the collection if you've ever done research in the later.
I know quite a bit about art, art lighting, and archives, Mr. Knox.
Things look ugly under fluorescents, that's my only point.
hey jonny...whatcha doin? ya gonna meet us down on da river ta watch da boys race da destroyer against dose white-glove wearing squares and their prissy european jalopies?
nah...my ol' man got me a job at da archives...totally square! but, like, i gotta do it!
blow it off! screw yer ol' man!
nah...he said he'd buy me a t-bird if i play it straight for a while...you gotta light?
yeah...well, see ya in the funnies, jonny...
yeah...see ya...
I actually know quite little about art, art lighting or archives. I also totally concur that fluorescent lighting is appalling.
What a gracious response, Mr. Knox, to my very pissy response above. Sorry.
Yes, fluorescent lighting makes objects look ugly. As an architetural choice, however, I like the tubes on the ceiling, very raw-ish.
I would guess that most of the work being shown at New Museum is of non-traditional archival quality - i.e., made of things like steel (easy), newspaper (hard), neon (easy), aspirin (hard) - and thus the lighting during its time of display will hardly matter in terms of its archival life.
And, your top post is excellent; I agree that the building seems to be less market-driven than it could have taken the opportunity to be - and thus seems more relevant in the long term.
for a second i thought this was the paul knox that b*tch slapped a certain prof. @ my uni.
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.