"I think that the press has been too fast to reduce the conversation to heroes and villains and martyrs, and to suggest that what MoMA is doing is necessarily bad. We want to get more information out. We want to share the problem with others and invite them to really take a hard look" - Elizabeth Diller — LA Times
They discuss the almost uniformly negative reaction to the announcement as well as the details of DS+R’s proposal for MoMA, which is still in an early design phase.
In response Michael Kimmelman tweeted "Her answers are deeply unsatisfying".
31 Comments
So basically she said that she tried but it was too hard. lol
ok, fair enough, now let someone else try!
It seems like a no brainer. Why should we have to accept DSR's conclusion that demolition was the only solution? MOMA should have held an open competition so that they could have seen a variety of solutions and visions...but they put all their eggs in one basket...
"We would be on the same side if we didn’t know all the details that we know." Yep, those are the words of a sold-out elitist whore.
Truth is that most starchitects work on a level of design at about that of the above average top 10% m-arch student. They have much more experience in making it all go together and dealing with the day to day stuff, but as far as design and innovation goes, I really don't see much of a difference.
Since job of the DSR PR department to put Liz Diller at the front of it. Women and architecture, y'all! So Williams and Tsien are "martyrs" who make idiosyncratic buildings. Yes, and DSR buildings are oh so flexible... hahahaha. I like how Hawthorne proposed the demolition of the ICA in ten years and backed her into a corner that leads to quotes like this: "We don’t imagine that we are building for history."
As per the deal, she is tying DSR to the decision and saying MoMA would have accepted a more expensive FAM saving operation. So DSR is the bad guy here, as per the 'agreement."
Her comments are PR filtered, for sure - but this should have always been expected. The boards and trustees that oversee MoMA get to call the shots, really - they have the money. As marxist as it sounds, thats the true terrain that establishes the site, and DSR is well versed in how to build there.
HCMY - ever have anything at all insightful to contribute? ever?
What I think we are seeing play out here is a conflict between the insider perspective and the outsider perspective. It seems that most of us chattering here on Archinect are outsiders and are not truly recognizing the compromises, positioning and client managing that goes on with this sort of extremely high-profile project. The interview was very helpful in reminding us again of how conflicted the process of decision-making in architecture can be. Theres a lot of truth to what Diller says about history-proofing and idiosyncrasy and I think the acknowledgment of that reality is part of why firms like DSR, BIG and OMA are doing more of these high-profile projects than firms like TWBTA who put more emphasis on a kind of precious materiality.
MOMA's earlier decision to demolish prior to DS+R's scheme had already provoked tremendous press and public fall-out. Should DS+R be calculated and populist in its PR interests, would total demolition of the Tsien/Williams design still stand as is?
@bluesidd, ask him about the illuminati.
DS+R's interest is to get the commission. MoMA's interest is to expand.
Talk about insiders and outsiders may be an attempt to say that the people have no power. Then again, the critical reaction caused MoMA to at least reroute their plan. Unfortunately, they hired the worst possible architects --the opposite of what the FAM represented. DS+R's art bay and subsequent renderings are not about art, but film-flam subtractitecture.
But if you go back, the MoMA was an "outsider" organization run by rich-intellectuals. if you want to know the type who who runs the MoMA now, watch the Wolf of Wall Street. It's all more, bigger, faster, more, more, more. No taste.
Poor Dilsco, they really have no choice but to jump through whatever hoops the elite cultural satanists ask of them. They've made their career on this shit and it's not like they can revert back to doing strip mall renovations in Illinois. They either dance to the tune or they're finished.
Sad but true.
I think its more about insight than power. Diller's comments are astute and reflect her understanding of her industry. Idiosyncrasy is exactly what FAM represented to me and many others. It placed a lot of stock in the power of standout art-architecture to attract an audience. 17 years after the Bilbao-effect there has clearly been a shift away from Starchitecture. And the way I see it is that the Art Bay is about actual art (made by artists) and not about art-architecture. Look to the signals coming from the Whitney Museum.
"“This is a space that is about art, it’s not about architecture per se,” Weinberg further explained of the Whitney’s new site, which is slated to open to the public in 2015. The museum wants a building, says the director, “that does not dominate art, but houses art, that is respectful to art and is deferential to art.”
http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/926530/the-new-downtown-whitney-building-is-not-about-architecture
This may be the anti-starchitect sentiment coming home to roost.
Wait, so DSR has rebranded themselves as modest, anti-starchitect, anti-idiosyncratic?
HAHAHAHAH
I'm not sure its rebranding exactly because they may receive a commission tomorrow for a project that demands a splashy icon. I think its more about responding to the specific demands of a project. I don't see a whole lot of what is typically labeled "starchitect ego" in the renderings that were released. Do you? I don't even think the High Line or Lincoln Center projects are all that bold and splashy in the typical "Starchitect" way.
Also, see the very subdued work by Andrew Berman at MoMA PS1.
I see the point, but there is a difference between between a strong building, whether it is splashy or subdued and "making the architecture disappear" which Taniguchi said (though his architecture is actually very strong). Maybe its the weightless, tasteless computer renderings, or the conceptual terms they are using like "flow" and "art bay." Jerry Saltz said he never heard "art, painting or sculpture" mentioned.
It is interesting how programmed spaces, like old churches, find new lives as something else. People like to have meanings attached to buildings, even if those meanings are no longer in current use. Diller isn't thinking enough about the lasting aura of buildings, manifested in their structure, materials and meaning. The modern idea of open program usually ends up looking cheap, like Home Depot or Lowes. If that is the look the MoMa is going for.
It's actually odd that the FAM facade is iconic because it is the least interesting thing about that building to me. The FAM is in many ways like a church.
Its a bit like a Bruno moment there, talking architecture instead of fashion. Honestly, I never understood why DS+R were seen as anti-establishment (and in fact, i believe installation art (DS+R's roots)- as subversive as they pretend to be are the ultimate capitalist aesthetization distancing human experience from its origin and subconscious, packaging them for aesthetic consumption of a narcassistic intellect ) when, in fact, they are or were, more simply, an advanced symptom of the established condition. I think this article is quite insightful, though preceding the MOMA controversy :
"One would expect that in the career of an architect, the conceptual problems that motivate the practice would be brought into sharper relief and greater focus with age. It is indicative of how inadequately DS+R has formulated their own architectural problematic that the older they get, and the more they are allowed to build, they are losing conceptual clarity." -http://howmoving.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/compulsive-subversion-diller-scofidio-renfro/
I wonder if we are seeing that DS+R's "y" -per the article linked- is ultimately being revealed as the genuine bankrupcy of a false subversion, or, in other terms, the genuine acquisence (Handsum calls it whoredom) to a 'false consciousnesss'.
Most MoMA employees, with long histories at the museum, know all about the problems with the FoMA space (including the facade being and icey death-trap out of indiana jones in winter's past) - people who's roles involve the use and need of flexible, served but ultimately unprogrammed space. They would all be glad to see the demo since it would serve the programs and events they run - which in the end, and related to why Paola Antonelli will never have anything to say about it, relates to the fundamental enterprise.
@davvid i would argue it is not exactly about anti-starchitect sentiment coming home to roost.
DSR isn't exactly a small-potatoes firm. much more to do with MoMA's expansionists plans. While FAM might have been idiosyncratic don't think it is an example of Bilbao-effect architecture... If anything the new plans for MoMA are all about architecture reflecting logic of crowd/money.
Henceforth, I will refer to them as "Dildo & Asshole". How's that for a rebranding?
Although to be honest I rather like the idea of the "art bay". They may descibe it as venue for street performance today yet I can't help but imagine a future when it's used of a traditional "garage sale". As if at some point they'll wake up & realize that some splashes of paint on a canvas are not worth $100M but more like 20 bucks.
As for the loss of conceptual clarity? Isn't that almost inevitable with any practice that attempts to reach a level of sustained creature comforts? Couldn't the same be said for the likes of SOM, Gehry, Foster or any of the other type popular with the corporate elite?
There's also a kind of concept vs. craft angle here, wrapped up in that word "idiosyncrasy" that keeps showing up.
Its clear that MOMA never had a second thought about saving the FAM as Diller implied. Diller was never tasked with trying to incorporate it. I don't buy it. Rather, MOMA needed a big name "expert" to step in and confirm that the FAM was indeed unsavable to take the architecture communities suspicions away...They thought that architects would bow and accept the word of the archigods, however their own egos as well as the egos of DSR failed to recognize that most architects are architectural athiests. They also failed to recognize that their own success/status is not rooted in some higher intelligence, or extraordinary design ability, but rather in the very reasons why MOMA sought them out in the first place. People in these positions are too used to having their asses kissed. They actually believe that the unquestioning nature of the underlings is authentic when in reality it is often nothing more than bullshit to ward off the looming possibility of losing a job.
DSR's nothing is precious mentality really reflects the zeitgeist of the contemporary art/architecture world. What a perfect philosophical backdrop to justify the decedent elitist lifestyle.
Well, MoMA isn't a public institution, just a public venue - and ownership is what this all comes down too. For all the sturm-un-drang here on the design-terwebz, the most disappointing thing about all of this is the jibber jabber from all channels.
@bluesidd: I can understand why Barry Bergdoll is leaving and Paola Antonelli is silent. It's a power play. The so called "future" of the MoMA is not physical objects but "digital platforms" and "group discussions." Conceptual, digital, conversations, and whatchumacallit. A growing digital brand over physical authenticity. Conversations over things. Amusement over reality. Lowry is gushing about digital-blah blah in this article just like Tina Brown was when she was busy killing Newsweek. Don't these clowns ever learn?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303936904579180150121601282
Some interesting quotes:
"Glenn Lowry, said he expects digital platforms to change the experience of the physical museum
The objects will include the first 3-D-printed gun, a self-guided bullet and "Vice/Virtue," a series of glassware using hypodermic needles as stems, designed by the architectural team Diller + Scofidio.
Although online visitors won't be able to get a whiff (one of the digital platform's drawbacks), the scent of violence was created from sweat samples that Ms. Tolaas and Mr. Knight collected at cage-fighting matches.
It is rank, but rank like musk, and held at a distance it summons images of stags or musk oxen or elk fighting—horns locking, hoofs pawing, the raw pushing of strength against strength. The violence of sex.
This is truly the new aspect, the fact that it's a two-way conversation," Ms. Antonelli said. "It's a departure point."
Additionally, the curators hope that others are inspired to organize spinoff projects—conferences, symposiums or physical exhibitions built around one or more of the objects."
The reason why things like Art Bay exists is to fill with this super-conceptual, borderline absurd crazy person digital art to amuse god knows who. I can imagine that Lowry, Antonelli, and DS+R are all behind this move. It represents something dark, a move from real art and design into amusement art.
The future of the MoMA: BULLSHIT
I'm sorry that the FAM building caused a bit of ice for MoMA workers... :( _ _
I can guarantee they are sitting behind closed doors laughing at all of the "backwards thinking" of architecture people. But the further from the physical authenticity the MoMA goes, the more they will be writing their own death certificate. History is paved with failed brand names who died when they forgot what they were about.
I think that DSR is trying to sabotage their own project. It is pretty obvious, looking at the sketchup-esque renderings...
It's all about the "paradigm-shifting concept/event for architecture", the holy grail of architecture. Who will be the next American Idol winner? Stay tuned.
But have you ever wondered why so little of the future promised in TED talks actually happens? So much potential and enthusiasm, and so little actual change. Are the ideas wrong? Or is the idea about what ideas can do all by themselves wrong?
-Benjaman Bratton on TED
TED = MoMA
For a very smart critic, Mr. Hawthorne sure let Liz get out of this one easy. He bought her elitist bullshit, "well if you just understood the project as well as we did, you're recognize the brilliance behind what we're doing!" instead of asking more pointed questions about her proposed replacement. THAT is the interview we need to happen.
This isn't just a loss of the FAM, but about the invasion of 53rd Street with a massive, banal, shopping-mall scale building with the curb appeal of a parking garage and a absolute lack of programmatic and circulatory clarity. Haven't we, as architects, learned that "flexible" white boxes (ha, ask any curator how "flexible" these actually are), endless amount of shiny white lacquer and glass, pipe dream "performance venues" clogging up the facade (that will be activated what? an hour a day?), free public sculpture gardens (boy I can't wait for that beloved sanctuary to turn into Times Square-level chaos), etc., do not a great museum make? These are the ingredients of a naive first semester studio project. It's one thing for Liz to buy the bullshit spewing from her mouth - it's another thing entirely for Mr. Hawthorne to accept it too.
Whoever leads the next interview with Liz: do not buy her ridiculous, patronizing rationale for tearing down a gem of a building. Hold her accountable for the monstrosity going in its place.
How could Chris Hawthorne really criticize the design in detail when the renderings only represent a early sketch?
And why would any serious critic approach an interview with the mindset "I'm going call out this architect's elitist bullshit"? That style is fine for anonymous comments on Archinect but it doesn't really fly in a world where people are accountable.
"Haven't we, as architects, learned that "flexible" white boxes (ha, ask any curator how "flexible" these actually are) .... do not a great museum make?"
NY galleries really do seem to be choosing white boxes. Architects are not imposing this on to curators. Clients ask for it and architects are listening because ultimately the space is about viewing art.
See the David Zwirner Gallery by Selldorf Architects.
As someone who's contributed to the Moma collection, I can say this art bay will never hold a candle to the treasures inside.
Thayer-D,
Thats a very broad statement. I'm not so sure since Art Bay only exists as an idea and an early rendering. Also its Architecture, not art. Also, the treasures keep changing...
My comment was a reaction to your brilliant image, but I agree, we don't know what will happen in that art bay. Maybe if it's really good, they could have a net that falls down to sweep it up into their permanent exhibit, assuming I know what the Art Bay is about...
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.