As reported last week by Archinectors Ayesha Ghosh and Alex Stewart, a discussion regarding MoMA's expansion plan and the intended demolition of the American Folk Art Museum took place at the New York Society for Ethical Culture, an appropriate venue for a conversation rife with implications for the ethics of preservation, real estate development and the architectural profession. The aim was to create an opportunity for public discussion of what has been criticized as a unilateral move by MoMA, and investigate the supposed necessity of the Folk Museum's demolition.
The conversation was presented by The Architectural League, in partnership with the Municipal Art Society and the AIA, New York Chapter. Watch the entire discussion below, featuring:
Glenn Lowry (Director of the Museum of Modern Art), Ann Temkin (The Marie-Josée and Henry Kravis Chief Curator of Painting and Sculpture), Elizabeth Diller (principal of Diller Scofidio + Renfro), Reed Kroloff (director of the Cranbrook Academy), Cathleen McGuigan (Editor of Architectural Record), Jorge Otero-Pailos (architect and preservation theorist), Nicolai Ouroussoff (critic and writer), Stephen Rustow (principal of design firm Museoplan), and Karen Stein (architectural consultant and writer).
5 Comments
Oh that photo is so beautiful it's heartbreaking.
Listened to the whole thing. I dislike MoMA and DS+R even more now.
They should have given the project to SHoP. DS+R is so 2006....
What a virtuoso display. A must see for anyone interested in how to succeed in our profession. I don't think anyone should hate DS+R for playing the game, but it's fun to pick out where some of these folks give up the game inadvertently. My favorite quote by far is from Ms. Diller herself.
"While everyone in this room must maintain a vigilance about the fate of our cities and our modernist buildings that face such few advocates, except architects, we also have to look at the circumstances of each situation."
Both conflating cities with modernist buildings while admitting that the only advocates of "our modernist buildings" are architects. It's clear who she's speaking to, regardless of the lip service the moderator gives to "the public". Despite everyone's vigilance, the circumstances in this situation make advocacy all but impossible. But fear not, the Moma is introspective and auto-critical when "constructing modernist history". The need to include contemporary work in no way conflicts with their institutionalizing modernism's place in our culture, much like Renaissance Florence.
"Moma needs to be perpetually contemporary and ... to continually reflect on it's past"
Read, we would like to be all things to all people. Maintain it's cultural credentials while inhaling it's share of the "mass-tourism" centered in mid-town. I can't say it's a dumb strategy, but certainly not the stuff of ground breaking thought. At one point she throws out the suggestion that the Moma ought to be a 24/7 art museum. Has a nice ring to it, kind of like 7/11. How about the actual design she's proposing? Perish the thought.
"Some notional thoughts about the design"
Nothing to see here except some realistic computer generated illustrations, but "this hasn't been designed", so you can't criticize what isn't designed. Then Jorge Ortero-Pailos chimes in with this gem.
"Very few people take an architectural appreciation class so very few people understand architectural quality, or have the language to discuss it."
Never mind that "the public has a right to talk about quality". Then again we know who the actual public is, those who've taken the requisite appreciation courses. God I want in on this club! After all, "cities are shared objects" so long as you understand quality.
"Is modernism finished"?
Ms. Diller askes...Of course, there are no direct answers just like there was no design presented. That wouldn't be auto-critical enough, assuming the public had the language skills necessary to discuss it. It's all about the public after all.
Despite the word salad, it is a beautiful photo. A definite feminine quality about it. The whole discussion about facadism that all card carrying modernists seemed to bypass was the point about Carlo Scarpa's works that almost always engaged historic facades, not to mention all the Parisian examples sited. Yet when it's done here, somehow there's a vulgarity as if one of the sacred commandments of modernism was being violated. Too bad they won't even consider it. The tyranny of historicism strikes again.
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.