The axe is set to fall on the American Folk Art Museum -- after months of controversy and protest, MoMA initiated its expansion and began preparing the FAM for demolition this past Monday. As per prior concessions by MoMA, the museum's distinctive façade will be preserved, but it's unlikely to abate the sour feelings of those who oppose both the loss of the FAM, and Diller Scofidio + Renfro's expansion designs.
When MoMA first announced it would raze the FAM in April of 2013, the news resonated not only as a blow to preservationism and sustainability, but as an issue of architectural ethics and institutional monopolies. #folkmoma became a rallying post for protest and alternative proposals, and the widespread news coverage brought architectural drama to the front page.
But pro-con feuding aside, the Folk/MoMA issue implicates difficult questions of architecture's responsibilities -- to preservation, sustainability, other architects, and the public’s opinion. Architects and Archinect contributors Ken Koense and Donna Sink, inspired by fervent online discussions, proposed that Archinect host a discussion to tease out the precedents this decision sets. Joining Ken and Donna in the panel are Quilian Riano, co-founder (along with Ana María León) of the #folkMoMA movement, and Lee Rosenbaum, who writes about art museums for the Wall Street Journal.
The following is a selected portion of our panel discussion, moderated by myself and Paul Petrunia, Archinect's founder and director. The recording starts with Quilian talking about the conception of the #folkMoMA movement...
Panel credits (in speaking order):
Quilian Riano is the founder and principal of DSGN AGNC, a collaborative design/research studio exploring political engagement through architecture, urbanism, art & activism. Quilian is also a design studio professor at parsons the new school of design and Pratt institute.
Lee Rosenbaum writes on art museums and architecture for the Wall Street Journal and blogs as CultureGrrl on ArtsJournal.com.
Ken R. Koense is a Jersey born, registered architect.
Donna Sink is a registered architect and works on staff at the Indianapolis Museum of Art.
23 Comments
Lee Rosenbaum's criticism of the Folk Art building could apply to just about every building in New York.... it's not about function, it's about experience (which includes function). It was different from everything else... kind of like the funky dive bars in the East Village that I'd rather spend time in than a ritzy, bland Midtown restaurant.
At its core, The Folk Art Museum is a manifestation of the 99% debate. The people speak via Twitter, but what did it result in the end? The MoMA (a hand piece of billionaire donors) will get their way, will develop their condos and show off their real estate. Architects and designers only have the "responsibility" and power to shape and humanize business.
Ken Koense, should've responded to the question regarding architects responsibility, that the architects should observe the same philosophy as physicians; do no harm.
The other thing I noticed about this debate is how the people that have never actually been in the building will claim that it was an unsuccessful, bad for art, building "with an interesting facade." Not the case. Even a lot of the FolkMoma people were making those silly renderings with the facade probably had never been inside. It was a great space.
So conflicted. It was really fun to have that conversation and I love talking about - and doing! - architecture more than pretty much anything. But that is exactly why this is so heartbreaking to watch the building finally come down. As much as I loved doing the podcast, though, I wish it could have been around a better topic. #FolkMoMA
Lots of what Quilian raised is so important. The article on Salon this morning (Let Them Eat McMansions!) about how we as a society have sacrificed so much quality of life as we chase McMansions and conspicuous consumption and excessive convenience really resonates with the entire question of how willing we are to fight for the "freedom" of everyone around us to destroy things that we will regret losing. Yes MoMA is a private institution - but not really. It's required through the democratic process to provide public space within its walls, and it's required by public charge - it calls itself a museum, after all - to be sensitive and conservative of material culture. That a "museum" can willfully destroy a revered piece of culture, all in an ongoing battle to sanitize the very messiness that makes NYC interesting AND accessible to regular people, is just baffling to me. Baffling.
Donna, I've been thinking about this lately. I liken what America is going through, to what most middle aged people go through, regretting the things they didn't do when they were younger, or too afraid to do, or not listen to those adults with life experience to share. Now, where here, adults and we're not gonna listen to anyone tell us about responsibility, fuck that, we're not gonna take it! Forgetting of course that we only have one life, one planet, and we should live a Dionysian Life; live life to the fullest, and do no harm.
it's the new guilded age. grow a handlebar mustache and call yourself Stanford White.
Somehow I'm reminded of the Punk show at the Met. The wealthy absorb and appropriate only the facade of culture, but not its substance. The preservation of the facade here perfectly reflects that.
Darkman, remember though, one of the reasons for the sketchy ideas around the facade, was Lowry's assertion that facade prevented MoMA from integrating the building into their complex. I think all of those "ideas" were a sardonic response to his complaint.
Would we have the same outrage say if a hospital were the ones tearing down the FAM. It seems that since we all thought the MoMa had some sort of true interest in perserving and promoting architecture and art. Our response of outrage is as if we were vegetarians and found out the cute vegetarian we just started dating had a dayjob at the slaughterhouse. you do not want to see the sausage being made, archinect.
Were they sardonic? I think a lack of sincere proposals made FOLKMOMA look a bit silly. I made a few design sketches and sent them around but nobody there was listening. Though Barry Bergdoll looks much better in retrospect, for leaving. But I get the point, since it's not like any sincere effort was made on their part to save it. But still....
What they should have done was make a greater commitment to architecture somehow, perhaps a new branch like the PS1. They have to atone for their sins or risk the wrath of the art and architecture community. I don't see this going away--Liz Diller said that the conversation has changed to "heroes and villains and martyrs".... but what will happen when everyone sees the wrecking ball in action, videotaped and posted to youtube?
"O'Doyle Rules!" MoMA's new slogan.
As I listen to this again I have to question: Lee noted that part of what made the interior of FAM dark is the sliver site. To use a crude but appropriate term: how much of this whole debacle is essentially due to dick-swinging? I think Ken said there are certainly conversations that we as architects, and we as the public, are not privy to when decisions about projects are made. How much of the original FAM building was a scrappy alternative institution saying eff you to the enormous wallet and influence of MoMA, and how much of the decision to demolish is then MoMA getting in the last laugh? (I commented before that IMO displaying the panels in some other setting is basically putting your defeated enemies' heads on pikes.)
And to move the conversation forward: how much of our current built environment is the result of developers pitted against one another to figure out who can claim the biggest erection? Relevant to San Francisco's current crisis, how do we get the city we actually want, not the city developers and marketers can make the most profit from/
Darkman, there were no serious proposals, because MoMA wasn't interested in a serious discussion. All you have to do is read Tod's comments to see the complete lack of respect that Lowry had for inclusiveness.
Noooooooooo. I will never visit or but anything form MoMa again. Intellectualise the action as much as you want; it was a unique building and rare in its consideration and approach. For a Museum of Modern art to destroy a piece of modern art in its own interests of expanding only serves to show how much it's become a business of commodity rather than a curator of the socially valuable.
Yes, the MoMA wasn't interested in serious convo, but I would have liked to see more serious proposals.
What is interesting going forward is the damage done to the MoMA brand. I've heard some say that this is good for Williams and Tsien--that may be too cynical, but I hope people document the destruction and post it everywhere. No institution lives forever; ask the Romans... haha. FolkArt Museum = Jesus.... anyone?
I was reminded again today of this required reading for all architects and engineers: The Fifty-Nine Story Crisis. It's a fantastically-written, edge-of-your-seat read about an engineering mistake and the process of fixing it, and it ends with these words:
"You have a social obligation," LeMessurier reminds his students. "In return for getting a license and being regarded with respect, you're supposed to be self-sacrificing and look beyond the interests of yourself and your client to society as a whole. And the most wonderful part of my story is that when I did it nothing bad happened."
Any evidence of that self-evidence, Quondam?
I'm not blaming MoMA for the FAM failing. I'm blaming MoMA and their architects for the demolition of the building, and saying that that demolition is a mistake.
We are certainly saddened to see that the Museum is to be demolished without any consideration alternative proposals to the act or type demolition itself.
One could have seen the systematic dismantling of the building into component which could have been share with folk artist to create hundreds of art pieces. The building would be a memory but it would have taken part in the very act of artistry it showcased.
We can hold out hope that the facade may find itself a new home, but what of the rest of the building? It is certainly a missed opportunity to explore a new idea of demolition and re-purposing.
- StudioTJOA -
See Brooklyn Rail's Critic's Page (March issue) for 10 more voices on this important discussion.
http://www.brooklynrail.org/2014/3/criticspage
I think next time I go to the MOMA, I will just drop trow in the Lobby and take a big nasty dump.. in protest of their thick skulled solution. Most likely no one will even notice until someone steps in it.
I'm sure I will become known as the " Shitting Terrorist"
It's my opinion, and the opinion of many others, that the demolition is a mistake. Many people disagree. Despite anyone's opinion on the demolition, I still see no evidence the the construction of the FAM building was a mistake, though you've claimed that it's "self-evident". Does that phrase mean opinion?
Yay just enjoyed listening to Sarah and Orhan speak about the Biennial, trying to bump this up!
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.