i'm more likely to trust williams/tsien than n.o., and some of his projections are a little sillly. a building - almost always a hugely optimistic endeavor - does not communicate guilt, no matter how much n.o. would like to inject the spirit of a contentious social/political situation into the stone and glass.
this will be a beautiful facility, consistent with the 21st century mission of the foundation and bringing the collection into a place of greater accessibility, in an environment that is already a destination for such experiences.
the discussion of moving the barnes from its existing facility has been going on for almost two decades. while there are ethical ramifications because of the original founding criteria, if the place is going to survive and be relevant to as broad an audience as possible, this is an important move.
some of n.o.'s commentary is uncharacteristically nostalgic. i love old dusty private places too. makes me think of the public library next door to my house when i was growing up (replaced), and the many musty old bookstores i've loved (replaced or closed). these places have magic, possibly, because they ooze a sense of their own rarity. it's an integral part of the experience. the problem being that this rarity is directly related to the fact they they aren't a sustainable model.
sure, leave the barnes where it is. it will fade away and disappear....
. The public unveiling of the design is this morning.
I don't know what I think of this whole controversy. I love Willaims/Tsien, and feel confident a building by them will be sensitive and lovely. I also understand the difficulties of the original location that have led to such financial problems for the institution.
But: I've seen traveling collections, and I've seen the Barnes. Seeing those pieces in their original setting gave a sense of the intensity that Barnes put into his collection. I don't think that personal a relationship, not only with the art but with the collector, can be replicated in a traveling exhibit, which is what the Barnes collection now permanently becomes.
Steven, those places aren't sustainable because people aren't willing to put in the effort to frequent them. Now the Barnes will be laid out on the Parkway where it's easily accessed along with the other buffet of cultural choices. Some days, though, I don't want a buffet; I want to go through the work of making my own meal and enjoying the fruits of my efforts. Yes, the original Barnes has real functional problems, but the move feels a bit like capitulating to American laziness. Can't I just Tivo it?
I mean, for godssake: in the first image in the NYT slide show, do you know what that quiet little building directly behind the museum is? Whole Foods. And their parking lot.
N.O.: Part of the beauty of the Barnes Foundation is that it is so far removed from the tourist economy that drives major cities today. To get to it, visitors have to make an appointment, then take a train or a car to Merion, a half-hour from Philadelphia. These steps put you in a certain frame of mind by the time you arrive: they build anticipation and demand a certain commitment.
Well thank goodness, now I'll just be able to pop in and see some art before I run over to pick up my kombucha and tomatoes!
isn't it odd that he describes the sequence - appt, train/car, and the anticipation that builds as a good thing and then criticizes the williams/tsien design this way?:
Visitors arriving from the parkway will follow a drawn-out path that begins on one side of the museum and then will turn to run along the front of the building before arriving at the main entry.
From there they will be able to peer across the court through a big floor-to-ceiling window at the building that houses the galleries.
It’s a perverse tease. Instead of heading directly to the art, they will turn into another room to pick up their tickets, and then turn back before entering the courtyard. From there they will make their way to the gallery building and another lobby. By then I’d be surprised if they had any energy left for the art. What they’ll need is a drink.
The desire to draw out the experience — which is meant to intensify it, but paradoxically ends up sapping it of life — continues inside the gallery building...
Valid question, but there's quite a difference between walking 100 feet vs. making an appointment to go to the next city.
One of the unique things about the original location is it feels distinctly residential. It takes a commitment to get there, but once there the art experience is immediate - like walking into a friend's house. NO is saying the drawn-out entry sequence in the new design feels like any other contemporary museum entry sequence.
Again, I have absolute faith that TWBT have designed a lovely, sensitive building, one totally appropriate for its location both physically and culturally. But there's absolutely no argument that this experience will be the same as, or even reminiscent of, as the existing one, the one Alfred Barnes intended.
<i>isn't it odd that he describes the sequence - appt, train/car, and the anticipation that builds as a good thing and then criticizes the williams/tsien design this way?: </i>
It is different sequence - the first you are already mentally and physically prepared for the trip, the second you aren't.
I don't know if I buy N.O.'s argument about the circulation sequence through the new building, but looking at the renderings I think this building really lacks the funky character and richness of the original - it's kind of boring. it seems too "clean."
yeah - williams/tsien are all about the quality of material, but their work still ends up being a bit antiseptic because the materials often cover large swaths of un-interrupted space - somewhat losing their quality in a field of texture and color.
those musty old bookstores (just like the original barnes) all have the haptic intensity of controlled clutter. What makes the original barnes so nice is the play between this intensity and the pastoral landscape. this proposal is just more of the same relentless clean space next to clean space.
The thing that seems so strange to me here (without having first-hand knowledge of Philadelphia) is that you've got this collection of museums in the city, and then this interesting, quirky outlier, literally lying out in the suburbs, far-flung in an old building with integral grounds and funky operating rules. So what is the urgency in making it just another museum in the already burgeoning collection of museums. It sounds to me like what makes this place special is all the things that make it not another museum done by a big name architect with the typical, if well executed entry sequence in a collection of other, similar museums.
Perhaps the comparison isn't fair, because the Gardner Museum in Boston is located within the city, and in fact within sight of the much larger, more typical Museum of Fine Arts, but having gone to school near these two Boston museums the Barnes sounds familiar to me. Despite free access to the MFA with a student ID and a much larger collection, the draw of the Gardner was always stronger, its collection, and its arrangement in building housing it infinitely more interesting. In many ways, it's sad to see the Gardner receiving an addition even from a reputable architect, because it means that something unchanging, timeless and very special about the Gardner is going to be lost. Even there, where most of the building and its collection is to be preserved, the loss of the much less integral grounds to accommodate a previously eschewed clean, modern addition seems a huge loss of essence. The loss with the Barnes sounds much more profound.
13 Comments
Review by the venerable Dr. O and images of proposed building here...
Sometimes you can't beat the man, no matter how lame his worldview is. Nicolai and Venturi are spot on.
i'm more likely to trust williams/tsien than n.o., and some of his projections are a little sillly. a building - almost always a hugely optimistic endeavor - does not communicate guilt, no matter how much n.o. would like to inject the spirit of a contentious social/political situation into the stone and glass.
this will be a beautiful facility, consistent with the 21st century mission of the foundation and bringing the collection into a place of greater accessibility, in an environment that is already a destination for such experiences.
the discussion of moving the barnes from its existing facility has been going on for almost two decades. while there are ethical ramifications because of the original founding criteria, if the place is going to survive and be relevant to as broad an audience as possible, this is an important move.
some of n.o.'s commentary is uncharacteristically nostalgic. i love old dusty private places too. makes me think of the public library next door to my house when i was growing up (replaced), and the many musty old bookstores i've loved (replaced or closed). these places have magic, possibly, because they ooze a sense of their own rarity. it's an integral part of the experience. the problem being that this rarity is directly related to the fact they they aren't a sustainable model.
sure, leave the barnes where it is. it will fade away and disappear....
. The public unveiling of the design is this morning.
I don't know what I think of this whole controversy. I love Willaims/Tsien, and feel confident a building by them will be sensitive and lovely. I also understand the difficulties of the original location that have led to such financial problems for the institution.
But: I've seen traveling collections, and I've seen the Barnes. Seeing those pieces in their original setting gave a sense of the intensity that Barnes put into his collection. I don't think that personal a relationship, not only with the art but with the collector, can be replicated in a traveling exhibit, which is what the Barnes collection now permanently becomes.
Steven, those places aren't sustainable because people aren't willing to put in the effort to frequent them. Now the Barnes will be laid out on the Parkway where it's easily accessed along with the other buffet of cultural choices. Some days, though, I don't want a buffet; I want to go through the work of making my own meal and enjoying the fruits of my efforts. Yes, the original Barnes has real functional problems, but the move feels a bit like capitulating to American laziness. Can't I just Tivo it?
I mean, for godssake: in the first image in the NYT slide show, do you know what that quiet little building directly behind the museum is? Whole Foods. And their parking lot.
N.O.: Part of the beauty of the Barnes Foundation is that it is so far removed from the tourist economy that drives major cities today. To get to it, visitors have to make an appointment, then take a train or a car to Merion, a half-hour from Philadelphia. These steps put you in a certain frame of mind by the time you arrive: they build anticipation and demand a certain commitment.
Well thank goodness, now I'll just be able to pop in and see some art before I run over to pick up my kombucha and tomatoes!
isn't it odd that he describes the sequence - appt, train/car, and the anticipation that builds as a good thing and then criticizes the williams/tsien design this way?:
Visitors arriving from the parkway will follow a drawn-out path that begins on one side of the museum and then will turn to run along the front of the building before arriving at the main entry.
From there they will be able to peer across the court through a big floor-to-ceiling window at the building that houses the galleries.
It’s a perverse tease. Instead of heading directly to the art, they will turn into another room to pick up their tickets, and then turn back before entering the courtyard. From there they will make their way to the gallery building and another lobby. By then I’d be surprised if they had any energy left for the art. What they’ll need is a drink.
The desire to draw out the experience — which is meant to intensify it, but paradoxically ends up sapping it of life — continues inside the gallery building...
?!
Valid question, but there's quite a difference between walking 100 feet vs. making an appointment to go to the next city.
One of the unique things about the original location is it feels distinctly residential. It takes a commitment to get there, but once there the art experience is immediate - like walking into a friend's house. NO is saying the drawn-out entry sequence in the new design feels like any other contemporary museum entry sequence.
Again, I have absolute faith that TWBT have designed a lovely, sensitive building, one totally appropriate for its location both physically and culturally. But there's absolutely no argument that this experience will be the same as, or even reminiscent of, as the existing one, the one Alfred Barnes intended.
Isn't there an Acropolis in Atlanta?
somethings should be just left alone.
there's a concrete parthenon in nashville....
<i>isn't it odd that he describes the sequence - appt, train/car, and the anticipation that builds as a good thing and then criticizes the williams/tsien design this way?: </i>
It is different sequence - the first you are already mentally and physically prepared for the trip, the second you aren't.
I don't know if I buy N.O.'s argument about the circulation sequence through the new building, but looking at the renderings I think this building really lacks the funky character and richness of the original - it's kind of boring. it seems too "clean."
yeah - williams/tsien are all about the quality of material, but their work still ends up being a bit antiseptic because the materials often cover large swaths of un-interrupted space - somewhat losing their quality in a field of texture and color.
those musty old bookstores (just like the original barnes) all have the haptic intensity of controlled clutter. What makes the original barnes so nice is the play between this intensity and the pastoral landscape. this proposal is just more of the same relentless clean space next to clean space.
oooh it will have a green roof.
But seriously, old location seems quirky and interesting. The new building will be pretty and bigger I am sure but is that reason enough to move it?
The thing that seems so strange to me here (without having first-hand knowledge of Philadelphia) is that you've got this collection of museums in the city, and then this interesting, quirky outlier, literally lying out in the suburbs, far-flung in an old building with integral grounds and funky operating rules. So what is the urgency in making it just another museum in the already burgeoning collection of museums. It sounds to me like what makes this place special is all the things that make it not another museum done by a big name architect with the typical, if well executed entry sequence in a collection of other, similar museums.
Perhaps the comparison isn't fair, because the Gardner Museum in Boston is located within the city, and in fact within sight of the much larger, more typical Museum of Fine Arts, but having gone to school near these two Boston museums the Barnes sounds familiar to me. Despite free access to the MFA with a student ID and a much larger collection, the draw of the Gardner was always stronger, its collection, and its arrangement in building housing it infinitely more interesting. In many ways, it's sad to see the Gardner receiving an addition even from a reputable architect, because it means that something unchanging, timeless and very special about the Gardner is going to be lost. Even there, where most of the building and its collection is to be preserved, the loss of the much less integral grounds to accommodate a previously eschewed clean, modern addition seems a huge loss of essence. The loss with the Barnes sounds much more profound.
also, it looks like their website is in more dire need of a re-design than their museum.
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.