MoMA officials said the building’s design did not fit their plans because the opaque facade is not in keeping with the glass aesthetic of the rest of the museum. — NYT
Robin Pogrebin reported that MoMA expects to have the building demolished by the end of this year.
h/t Donna Sink over at TC, who commented "It's tragic. We need to start a thread on it and call for a boycott of the new project by all architects. If MOMA moves ahead with this I will never step foot in their museum again"...
100 Comments
i say if they ain't cool to drink a beer with then the fucking building should be taken down. its just a principal thing you know. gotta have principals. or is it principles? anyway you gotta have one of those two things.
jean nouvel's design preserves the folk moma. no idea what is going on, but the nouvel building is great. hopefully it doesn't get built at the expense of the follkmoma
this image from apurimac's link show's that the FAM and the tower could actually work very nicely together from a facade view. the floors may not align exactly, but so what?
I have a feeling that the older renderings of Nouvel's tower may predate the closing of the FAM. It seems the presence of the FAM was scaled up in earlier renderings, but its downplayed in the later rednerings
http://www.vulture.com/2013/04/saltz-on-moma-plan-to-raze-folk-art-museum.html
Jerry Saltz has weighed in on the argument (above).
I'm somewhat surprised that he is all for demolishing the building. His main complaint is that it's a tough place to be viewing artwork in general - that's fine, and I believe his opinion is a valid criticism due to his stature and knowledge of the subject. But it seems wildly disproportionate to insinuate that the only solution is a complete rebuild - the importance of the building should certainly lend a great reason to redesigning the interiors if the function truly calls for that.
I've always looked positively towards Saltz's opinions, but I have to think hes wrong on this one.
I haven't read Saltz's commentary yet but he doesn't have a lot of credibility anymore, ever since he decided to become a reality TV star.
LOL I read Saltz's review and sorry but it just cements my opinion: the cry that "all artists" want a big clean white box to show art is a fallacy and frankly a really Luddite view.
All interesting art happening right now is outside of the Clean White Box. Art as social action is on the rise and it is happening pointedly *not* in museums. Performance, installation, graffiti, music-hybrid, digital: none of this work is dependent on the sanction of a Clean White Box Institution. In fact, when a lot of this kind of work moves into the box it gets ruined. MOMA's continued clinging to the Clean White Box shows what a dinosaur of an institution they are and underlines what a mistake homogenizing their display space is.
This rebuttal to Saltz''s review is also worth a read:
http://www.vulture.com/2011/05/davidson_jerry_saltz_has_it_al.html
as is this:
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2013/04/130412-Editorial-MoMA-Inc-Plans-to-Crush-Williams-and-Tsien8217s-Gem.asp
which points out that Mr. Speyer, chairman of MoMA's board, lives in a townhouse designed by Mr. Williams and Mrs. Tsien.
Ooh, this tidbit from the archrecord article:
And MoMA had felt the burden of stewardship of a work of modern architecture at least once before: after the widow of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill partner Gordon Bunshaft bequeathed his East Hampton beach house (1962) to MoMA, the museum sold it to Martha Stewart, who gutted it and then sold it as an unfinished shell. It was demolished in 2005.
MoMA really doesn't like architecture, does it?
Donna, I was quite aware of Saltz's reality show stint. I think most people are revolted simply by the fact that a well-known art critic had the gal to join a reality show, since it portrays something decidedly un-bohemian. That being said, his commentary in the show (even edited to bite-sized bits) was still quite intelligent and clever the majority of the time (this certainly cannot be said for any of the other judges). I actually didn't lose any respect for him over the matter - I simply saw it as bringing a small glimmer of credibility to a show that was doomed from the start. But thats another argument all together...
The rebuttal is a fantastic commentary though. Seems like JS really needs to just stick to the art world criticism.
The last sentence of the second article is a an excellent commentary surrounding the adaptive re-use or non-use of current buildings:
"Not every significant building can or should remain standing in perpetuity—but decisions to destroy or alter key works of architecture should be made transparently and openly. And the voices of the public should be heard."
Meh, I thought his commentary on Work of Art was self-serving, as was his appearing on it in the first place. He wanted to be pals with SJP, obviously.
And all of his responses to comments to his article are the same: "NO artists think it's a good place to show art". Zero, none, nada, not a single living artist, for all of whom he speaks, apparently. It's obvious he's been in the elite part of the art world so long he has no idea what's actually happening outside.
The Museum of Museums
Interesting enough, the times that I visited the FAM and the MoMA, I was more inclined to study the intricacies and thoughtful craftsmanship put into the pieces of folk art exhibited at the FAM. The building itself, to me at least, embodied the craftsmanship and textures that were inherent to the arts displayed at the FAM. There is a sense of intimacy to the spaces that invite close-up review of the works that were exhibited there.
Not so with the art exhibited at the MoMA where the essence of the "Art world" as embodied by the MoMA the NY art scene and their sycophantic cheer-leading critics like Jerry that cry about how awful the spaces are at MoMA let alone the FAM. "Why I can't bear to look at a Rothko hung on a concrete wall. It MUST be put into a white vitrine box in a room by itself with only me to see it's real beauty".
The FAM was never designed or intended to view large format pieces of art & sculpture because the very site was so tight to begin with. So to complain that the FAM can't support the large "art" exhibitions and sculptures is specious and disingenuous at best.
The FAM could be repurposed for special events and special collections. In fact the design collection would work great there. Far better than it's sad location in the MoMA.
MoMA has transformed itself from a cultural institution that prided itself on curating and exhibiting contemporary works of art and design. But over the last 20+ years, it has acted more as the leviathan in the "art market" commoditization of the art world.
Well, this isn't particularly good:
http://www.archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6601
Barry Bergdoll supports MoMA's decision.
Discussion of Bergdoll's comments over in the News.
Here is my #FolkMoMA.
What I will say is that when my brilliant curator bosom buddy Jennifer and I toured the new AFAM for the first time, I was moved beyond words. What Williams and Tsien had created was, simply, a brave building—an iconoclastic vessel for outsider dreams that stood apart from both its subject and its time and yet somehow managed to incorporate the spirit of the moment. It was strange, and wonderful, and exuberantly modern (no, MoMA, you do not own that word), and like no museum we had yet experienced.
A lovely description, and a solid point on how MoMA no longer has an imagination. http://licoricehill.com/2013/04/16/the-untimely-end-of-folk-art/
Sorry, I sort of agree with Vulture's Jerry Saltz on this.
Its layout is about as awkward as the MAXXI — which only years after opening is already facing bankruptcy — a forty-foot wide lot is not an optimal with for showcasing art competitively with New York's much grander museum institutions.
AFAM spent a stately $29,744,991 on its West 53rd location. However, they borrowed $31,865,000 to build this. I'm assuming the $2,000,000 gap went to architectural and professional fees. Given that and with the assumption of thirty-year mortgage at five percent, their monthly mortgage payment would have been around $170,000 a month.
Let's look at occupancy first— the museum is 30,000 square feet. If we look at exhibition space alone, it's probably closer to 15,000 square feet; that means its maximum peak load is around 1,250 patrons an hour. It's open an average of 49 hours a week [210 hours a month] giving us a grand total of 262,500 monthly or 3,150,000 annually theoretical peak load.
In practice, they only generated $305,857 from admissions in 2004 — according to their filed 990s, this was a good year. At $9.00 per patron for admissions, they only attracted about 34,000 visits a year. To have met just their mortgage obligations of $170,000 a month, they would have had to have 18,800 visitors a month.
So, what could have AFAM afforded? Considering that admissions only makes up about 1/4th to 1/5th of a museum's operating budget and a business should only spend about 1/4th to 1/5th of their revenue on property, their admissions revenue is almost identical to the size of the building they can afford.
In AFAM's case, their maximum monthly payment would have been approximately $26,000 giving them a maximum loan amount of give-or-take-a-few-hundred-thousand $4,500,000. At around $300-per-square-foot of bare-bones construction costs, they could have built a sensible (read: cheap) space around 8,000 to 10,000 square-feet.
How could they have known this? It would take some basic market research. They could have went to other metropolitan niche museums and asked about their average admissions figures or paid someone to survey a few thousand people arriving into JFK if they would visit a folk art museum.
Should MoMA demolish the building? Probably.
It's far too expensive to operate a museum that only attracts 0.0001% of New York's 50,000,000 annual visitors.
I don't think Jerry's bit is a cry for white boxes. It just re-hashes how the building's plan and circulation are awkward - a point on which Justin Davidson agrees. Its just that one digs it and the other doesn't. I found it awkward myself the few times I went there. but I still liked it.
Does anyone else see the irony in circumstance of MoMA, commissioning two side-by-side buildings by architects who have no regard whatsoever for designing to "fit into the neighborhood", complaining that one of the buildings doesn't play well aesthetically with the other? You reap what you sew.
It is naive to believe or even calculate whole page, thinking museums survive on visitor tickets.
Every new article with yet-more-beautiful photographs just breaks my heart a little more.
This is a cultural tragedy. Not a human tragedy (we've had far too many of those lately), but a cultural one.
It is naive to believe or even calculate whole page, thinking museums survive on visitor tickets.
You clearly didn't read what I wrote:
"Considering that admissions only makes up about 1/4th to 1/5th of a museum's operating budget and a business should only spend about 1/4th to 1/5th of their revenue on property, their admissions revenue is almost identical to the size of the building they can afford."
Museums, as in their actual physical institutions, should survive solely on their day-to-day operations to keep their doors open. MoMA's yearly expense on property is far below what their admissions, gift shop and rentals bring them in income.
That's why MoMA can afford to buy, demolish and redevelop the AFAM.
"Does anyone else see the irony in circumstance of MoMA, commissioning two side-by-side buildings by architects who have no regard whatsoever for designing to "fit into the neighborhood", complaining that one of the buildings doesn't play well aesthetically with the other?"
Ironic indeed. Modernists took pleasure in tearing out the old and now they are tearing down one of their own. Not playing well aesthetically is how they roll...over the past.
unicorn,
you did make the same sq ft argument two years ago here. so what happened? you improved it by 1/4 ballpark? some museums might be depend on tickets while others have negligible benefit from it. there are complex accountings underneath any art business.
http://archinect.com/forum/thread/6334903/the-former-american-folk-art-museum-and-designing-for-obsolesence
"Does anyone else see the irony in circumstance of MoMA, commissioning two side-by-side buildings by architects who have no regard whatsoever for designing to "fit into the neighborhood", complaining that one of the buildings doesn't play well aesthetically with the other?" Ironic indeed. Modernists took pleasure in tearing out the old and now they are tearing down one of their own. Not playing well aesthetically is how they roll...over the past. - EKE & TD
the modernist moderinsm was trying to modernize the modern modernist, thats bad! back is good! (foaming at mouth) modernism modernism modernism modernism (more foam, maybe the modernists caused it?) modernism bad modernism bad (foam) going back is good/safe (end foam)
This is midtown and a non "modernist" structure. Retards.
This weekend I went to Zaha's CAC in CIncy, for about the eight time in eight years. It is similar in scale to the FAM, I think: six stories, on a tight urban lot - it might even be smaller. But it deals with similar program issues: small footprint, need to bring in light from above, emphasizing the vertical circulation as a way to organize space and provide a spatial experience of movement through and up.
The CAC is one of my favorite buildings. It's raw and simple, with an extremely limited palette. The detailing is so raw that it's almost sloppy, but an intentional sloppiness. It's dynamic in that you feel the entire building around you as you go up the stairs. And every single exhibit I've seen there has used the oddly-shaped gallery spaces to enhance the installation of the work. The exhibits themselves are more interesting because the arrangement of the objects in them *has* to be non-rectilinear or predictable.
It's simply ridiculous to say that the FAM isn't suitable for showing art. It's an argument that can't hold up *if* one is actually looking at how art is exhibited these days.
"This is midtown and a non "modernist" structure. Retards."
You're the best!
So I guess what I'm saying with my comparison is: New York, Cincinnati has you beat. It's a city that is embracing experimentalism and grassroots; MoMA is afraid to go there.
Did you just call me a "retard"? Really? How old are you?
"Every new article with yet-more-beautiful photographs just breaks my heart a little more."
"This is a cultural tragedy. Not a human tragedy (we've had far too many of those lately), but a cultural one."
A great photo, Donna. Thanks for posting. The materiality of the building is certainly very beautiful. This kind of human-scaled detail is sadly missing in so many modern buildings. They should tear down MoMA and keep the Folk Art Museum. The city would be better for it.
Attaboy, see,
the spambot logic of "modernism modernism/fit into the neighborhood" is stagnant.
This isn't amishtown bro, LOL!
I actually didn't use the word "modernism" in my post at all, and I think the other guy used it once, so I'm not really sure what got your dander up enough to start calling people names.
Birds of a faux-old feather, it is doubtful that you were raising a dissimilar opinion.
Centering this event along the lines of neighborhoods and modernism is...lost.
I'm always amused at the antipathy that boils up when you dare to challenge the orthodoxy.
it's called fear.
Hardly,
the real amusement comes from watching Neanderthals practicing hocus pocus progress.
If you where really amused, you wouln't resort to calling people retard, that's an angry reaction, not an amused one. Plus, I'm only 3.5% Neandrethal.
@Thayer-D heh!
This has all been explained to you multiple times TD, if you are choosing to ignore the distinctions between these buildings and modernism, it is out of desire to spread dumbness. Your faux-old (and now faux-"good") spam-like categorizations based upon "human emotions" never hold up. It's amusing.
I'm only 3.5% Neandrethal.
Admire junk DNA from the bygone much? LOL.
There are ways to grow out of such things, but admiring the Flintstones would distract one from reading up on such matters.
Apparently spell-check is another useful "modernist" invention which the faux-old chooses to ignore.
If this building isn't modernist, why don't you tell us what style it is?
pay me, no, go read
pay me, no, go read
shall i write a check?
so faux-old am i!
CHRIST DOTCOM HOW MANY TIMES YOU GONNA CHANGE YER POST!>!??!?!! *phew! 5 minutes up we have the definitive answer! i count 4, right up to my newly-evolved opposable thumb!*
via post? via horse and buggy!
I didn't think you knew. Thanks for playing!
You've actually been told before, yet the thick skull persists...
There is a strange modern device called a computer which people can ask questions to via search engines. Even moving pictures are provided to lectures on all kinds of topics. You don't need me bro, there is no excuse to continue a dumbness campaign.
Without using such a device, I'll attempt to explain to you (again), why contemporary architecture doesn't fall into the faux-old definition of "Modernism" "modernist" "Modern" etc.....or .....their archaic classification system of "style."
"Style" is used in faux-old stone age parables to lump the post-1910 together, and then use such a doomed logic as an incentive for backwardness.
Tod Williams and Billie Tsien are part of a subsidiary collective. Dedicated to, among other things, craft. They've come a long way since architecture's Corb days. They did not bury their heads in the sand and worship the bygone to the extent of others.
Note that these are the facts and are in no way a personal opinion.
For more information, there is another "modernist" thing architects use called "websites."
:eyeroll:
pain from thinking?
" I'll attempt to explain to you (again), why contemporary architecture doesn't fall into the faux-old definition of "Modernism" "modernist" "Modern" etc.....or .....their archaic classification system of "style." - Awsome!
"Note that these are the facts and are in no way a personal opinion." - duly noted.
I just wanted to make sure the 100th post on this topic was actually relevant to the building and not sniping about stylistic terminology.
Several new articles posted on the #folkmoma twitter.
Also this image (source) cracks me up:
Though it might be more appropriate to swap out those guys' faces with the faces of those who started the #folkmoma site.
Look what I posted a year ago on Orhan's article on the demolition of Lautner's Concannon residence.
Adjustments to daily routines to accommodate a masterpiece is part of living with art, and why we like to have art in our lives.
I stand by this. If you value something, you accommodate.
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.