Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) announced on May 19 that it was laying off Brooke Hodge, its curator of architecture and design, and cancelling its long-awaited Morphosis exhibition, among other moves to help balance its budget. ArchPaper
In similar news the Downtown Los Angeles Library is shutting down its gallery after the Richard Neutra Drawing Exhibit closes. Also due to lack of funding.
moca is really cash strapped to just get the art museum going. that is understandable. outside the architectural community, architectural shows don't generate that much revenue. plus, this could be positive as to changing the guard and start a new when the opportunity comes back again.
what's shakin'? and 'skin and bones' were not substantial shows in the long run. they were put together with "hmmm, what can i do with the talent i see in the parties and in the shelter, architecture and fashion magazines?", "what is selling these days?" mentality, and add to that, couple of connected but never heard before names for the discovery effect. mostly celebrating the creative people who created for specific width.
unfortunately that is the prevalent set for many architecture and art shows these days. great for the participants but not enough for serious discourse due to their limited innovation and message other than the ear catching 'theme.'
even though i would have liked it for some of the participants, neither show had a lasting effect and didn't generate a strong bench mark for further work.
she had her chips but she spent them on the usual suspects and usual subjects leaving not much for the discourse and thought provocation and a wider social landscape shaped by architecture and design that spoke to a larger audience.
skin and bones pretty much spoke to industry, sales and luxury market. it would be a good show for fashion institute school of design, perhaps...
morphosis show sounded like, "when in doubt go with the sure thing."
i heard morphosis show was stunning in paris a couple of years ago from an artist friend who was in the 100 california artist exhibition same time at the pompidou center.
i wonder if it was the same show now canceled here?
and, that sums up my point...
having said all this, los angeles could really use an alternative space for architecture and design shows. light on the cost but hi on the agenda and more frequent. shows curated free of culture & tourism industry influence.
people in the museum business are more concerned that said department let go the registrar and the librarian as well.
I think is preposterous that an editor / blogger of archinect thinks that not having an architecture curator at MOCA is fine. That’s the problem with blogging. It took multiple years of work to get those shows together and seconds to form a bullshit blog opinion. It involves boards, money, and countless other exterior influences. Brooke Hodges had an interesting voice at SCIArc and is very connected to what you would consider “alternative architecture”. Working on shows like that in a ART MUSEUM is surely not as easy as the blogger would like you to believe. He sounds like a shitty Christopher Hawthorne. Who coincidentally wrote a horrible review of Skin and Bones after throwing a fit because he was not allowed to see some of the fashion articles before the show for insurance purposes.
A couple of things-
Those usual suspects he’s talking about are usually architects who have spent considerable time investigating and creating “alternative architecture.” Referring to Morphosis as a sure thing was kind of funny. Skin and Bones featured Office DA, Preston Scott Cohen, and by god Future Systems to name a few.
In all curated shows you have to get past the theme. That’s your job as an engaged active viewer.
I really hope this blogger doesn’t try to define what alternative is.
I have to try my best not to read this guys blogs anymore.
a'cita be my guest (no pun)
you sound a bit campy... i don't know brooke hodges in person. is she so holy and beyond criticism? i never said that moca does not need architecture department. curators come and go.
are you the spokesperson for sci arc? and where and how do they come into this conversation?
i know very well what goes behind the scenes in putting together a major museum show and how long it might take.
but that is not what i am anchoring what i said.
alternative means, for me, less impacted by corporate and institutional influences and sponsorship in terms of museum shows. sort of independent, if you will.
I speak for myself and am entitled to my opinion on a public form. Lets not start on that tone. I’ll chalk that up to you being a bit crampy. I like arguing with people I think are wrong. Especially editors.
So your saying commercial shows shouldn’t exist. I’m saying they can and should. I think there there should be room for multiple outlets. It’s pretty simple. I pay membership to MOCA and sometimes I don’t want to see the same artists I see over and over again. As a young architect sometimes I want to see design shows with architects who run interesting established offices. The Morphosis show was amazing and their architecture is rooted in Los Angeles culture. It was a great show. I would love to see it here. It’s wasn’t the same old shit.
SCIArc has always been on the cutting edge of architecture and I believe that by teaching the you are showing some form of commintent to your term “alternative architecture.” You don’t agree? People can exist on multiple intellectual levels. A curator needs to wear many hats. Your critique was “she had her chips...” I’m saying –these shows have to reach the general public. I think the Skin and Bones show had some interesting components. You are making the easy critique. The same one Chris Hawthorne made. I could go into this further but I don’t think it worth it.
The problem is not that curators come and go – The problem is MOCA separating itself from design shows. It sounds like you agree.
Your critique on museum shows in general is fine with me. Fine – I don’t want to see Prada shows on display at MOCA. There needs to be a line. All major museums have sponsors. They need them.
I want to see architecture shows in Los Angeles. I want to see them put on by our museums. Simple as that. You are critiquing shows that happened years apart. You forgot the Gehry show. 3 shows in what 6 years. That’s not enough to create a dialouge with the public or architects. Wouldn’t you agree?
Architectonicita, you know what, we probably agree on a lot of things. even in these couple of posts.
i think moca has bigger issues right now to just stay alive. if you think laying-off the architecture director is big, think about closing the whole museum.
also, thanks for the comment on canstellations feature. i appreciate.
It seems like one of the problems with our profession is how far removed it is from everyone who is not an architect which I think, amongst many things, really devalues the esteem, respect and creditability that we have to fight so hard for. Especially in a time when the architecture industry is facing insurmountable unemployment and offices are barely scraping by, we could use all the public exposure we can get. We need people of "tourism and culture" to see the value of architecture and the architect behind it.
While I think that an independent museum or gallery for more frequent exhibitions of architecture and design would probably be more rewarding for us architects, I am afraid that it would only serve to make the divide between architects and the general populace that much more problematic. While the shows at the MOCA might have been for us architects on the "trendy" side of architecture I think we need to constantly realize that not everything we do, in fact very little of it, is for us. So while they may not have "engaged in any discourse..." they succeed on the level of giving a broad audience an Arch 101 course and perhaps making them realize there is more out there then things like The Grove.
Understandably MOCA, like many places, is facing problems of economy and they must make difficult decisions. I can't help but think how similar this is to public schools that sacrifice music and art classes to make sure they can field a football team and cheerleaders because they are more "profitable." Where is architectures' VH1? Who will save the buildings?
11 Comments
wow rather lame indeed...
Horrible idea
In similar news the Downtown Los Angeles Library is shutting down its gallery after the Richard Neutra Drawing Exhibit closes. Also due to lack of funding.
moca is really cash strapped to just get the art museum going. that is understandable. outside the architectural community, architectural shows don't generate that much revenue. plus, this could be positive as to changing the guard and start a new when the opportunity comes back again.
what's shakin'? and 'skin and bones' were not substantial shows in the long run. they were put together with "hmmm, what can i do with the talent i see in the parties and in the shelter, architecture and fashion magazines?", "what is selling these days?" mentality, and add to that, couple of connected but never heard before names for the discovery effect. mostly celebrating the creative people who created for specific width.
unfortunately that is the prevalent set for many architecture and art shows these days. great for the participants but not enough for serious discourse due to their limited innovation and message other than the ear catching 'theme.'
even though i would have liked it for some of the participants, neither show had a lasting effect and didn't generate a strong bench mark for further work.
she had her chips but she spent them on the usual suspects and usual subjects leaving not much for the discourse and thought provocation and a wider social landscape shaped by architecture and design that spoke to a larger audience.
skin and bones pretty much spoke to industry, sales and luxury market. it would be a good show for fashion institute school of design, perhaps...
morphosis show sounded like, "when in doubt go with the sure thing."
i heard morphosis show was stunning in paris a couple of years ago from an artist friend who was in the 100 california artist exhibition same time at the pompidou center.
i wonder if it was the same show now canceled here?
and, that sums up my point...
having said all this, los angeles could really use an alternative space for architecture and design shows. light on the cost but hi on the agenda and more frequent. shows curated free of culture & tourism industry influence.
people in the museum business are more concerned that said department let go the registrar and the librarian as well.
That's too bad about the Morphosis show. Sad.
I think is preposterous that an editor / blogger of archinect thinks that not having an architecture curator at MOCA is fine. That’s the problem with blogging. It took multiple years of work to get those shows together and seconds to form a bullshit blog opinion. It involves boards, money, and countless other exterior influences. Brooke Hodges had an interesting voice at SCIArc and is very connected to what you would consider “alternative architecture”. Working on shows like that in a ART MUSEUM is surely not as easy as the blogger would like you to believe. He sounds like a shitty Christopher Hawthorne. Who coincidentally wrote a horrible review of Skin and Bones after throwing a fit because he was not allowed to see some of the fashion articles before the show for insurance purposes.
A couple of things-
Those usual suspects he’s talking about are usually architects who have spent considerable time investigating and creating “alternative architecture.” Referring to Morphosis as a sure thing was kind of funny. Skin and Bones featured Office DA, Preston Scott Cohen, and by god Future Systems to name a few.
In all curated shows you have to get past the theme. That’s your job as an engaged active viewer.
I really hope this blogger doesn’t try to define what alternative is.
I have to try my best not to read this guys blogs anymore.
a'cita be my guest (no pun)
you sound a bit campy... i don't know brooke hodges in person. is she so holy and beyond criticism? i never said that moca does not need architecture department. curators come and go.
are you the spokesperson for sci arc? and where and how do they come into this conversation?
i know very well what goes behind the scenes in putting together a major museum show and how long it might take.
but that is not what i am anchoring what i said.
alternative means, for me, less impacted by corporate and institutional influences and sponsorship in terms of museum shows. sort of independent, if you will.
I speak for myself and am entitled to my opinion on a public form. Lets not start on that tone. I’ll chalk that up to you being a bit crampy. I like arguing with people I think are wrong. Especially editors.
So your saying commercial shows shouldn’t exist. I’m saying they can and should. I think there there should be room for multiple outlets. It’s pretty simple. I pay membership to MOCA and sometimes I don’t want to see the same artists I see over and over again. As a young architect sometimes I want to see design shows with architects who run interesting established offices. The Morphosis show was amazing and their architecture is rooted in Los Angeles culture. It was a great show. I would love to see it here. It’s wasn’t the same old shit.
SCIArc has always been on the cutting edge of architecture and I believe that by teaching the you are showing some form of commintent to your term “alternative architecture.” You don’t agree? People can exist on multiple intellectual levels. A curator needs to wear many hats. Your critique was “she had her chips...” I’m saying –these shows have to reach the general public. I think the Skin and Bones show had some interesting components. You are making the easy critique. The same one Chris Hawthorne made. I could go into this further but I don’t think it worth it.
The problem is not that curators come and go – The problem is MOCA separating itself from design shows. It sounds like you agree.
Your critique on museum shows in general is fine with me. Fine – I don’t want to see Prada shows on display at MOCA. There needs to be a line. All major museums have sponsors. They need them.
I want to see architecture shows in Los Angeles. I want to see them put on by our museums. Simple as that. You are critiquing shows that happened years apart. You forgot the Gehry show. 3 shows in what 6 years. That’s not enough to create a dialouge with the public or architects. Wouldn’t you agree?
Architectonicita, you know what, we probably agree on a lot of things. even in these couple of posts.
i think moca has bigger issues right now to just stay alive. if you think laying-off the architecture director is big, think about closing the whole museum.
also, thanks for the comment on canstellations feature. i appreciate.
lets not be not friends even if we don't agree...
It seems like one of the problems with our profession is how far removed it is from everyone who is not an architect which I think, amongst many things, really devalues the esteem, respect and creditability that we have to fight so hard for. Especially in a time when the architecture industry is facing insurmountable unemployment and offices are barely scraping by, we could use all the public exposure we can get. We need people of "tourism and culture" to see the value of architecture and the architect behind it.
While I think that an independent museum or gallery for more frequent exhibitions of architecture and design would probably be more rewarding for us architects, I am afraid that it would only serve to make the divide between architects and the general populace that much more problematic. While the shows at the MOCA might have been for us architects on the "trendy" side of architecture I think we need to constantly realize that not everything we do, in fact very little of it, is for us. So while they may not have "engaged in any discourse..." they succeed on the level of giving a broad audience an Arch 101 course and perhaps making them realize there is more out there then things like The Grove.
Understandably MOCA, like many places, is facing problems of economy and they must make difficult decisions. I can't help but think how similar this is to public schools that sacrifice music and art classes to make sure they can field a football team and cheerleaders because they are more "profitable." Where is architectures' VH1? Who will save the buildings?
The A+D needs "stimulation" - that venue should be THE environment for exhibiting architecture.
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.