First off I appreciate the comments. I wish I got less comments from the guy named Anonymous but I can't pick and choose who comments here. Actually I can, I have that control.
I am posting this as a full post because I didn't type anything up tonight and part of my new resolutions is to write more on this thing again and also because my response was so long that by the end putting it in the little comment box was driving me batty.
This isn't me yelling at the person who asked the understandable and defendable question:
If Breuer refused to acknowledge the 1916 buliding, why should Viñoly have acknowledged Breuer more than he has?
...this is just my knee jerk, its been a long day and my proofreading skills are at the nocturnal low responsiveness level. I am quite nice in person, I swear it so take any strange aside commentary just as you would an uncle at Thanksgiving who has had a little too much everything interrupting his primary story to tell you about the time his day sailor tipped over in the bay and he lost the pocket knife your aunt gave him when they first met but he was too ashamed to tell her so he saved all his money and bought a new one on his own, pretending its the same one ever since. It's all meant to be a cute allusion. There, just like that.
Anon,
One architect "refused" to acknowledge an existing building during their phase of an addition (if I can utilize your interpretation of Breuer's addition, 60ish years after the original which drastically altered the layout and facing of the museum). The third architect to the mix (Vinoly's office) gave a "tip of the hat" to the addition but failed at all to react sensibly enough to distinguish and or assimilate; the addition is too similar to stand on its own and too dissimilar to be a strong interpretation. Similar to when a really poor addition is done to a public school or when an institution has run out of funds during an expansion and substitutes cheaper, off color materials (can't afford to match the brick) and the whole concoction feels slightly off putting. Sure everyone says that it's all become a cacophony of material and joyous expression but what it ends up feeling like is an unplanned tumor, not strong enough to have an ego of its very own but still slightly sapping the life out of the main body. Jagged boxy edges of the perfect square modern box sitting on a curved retreating wall isn't interplay or even intercourse but indecision as how to react to an urban pedestrian problem. Creating a “slice” or “valley” in order to separate two forms would go over better if the two had some sort of dialogue stronger then just a seemingly coincidental geographic location. Just because you sit next to a pretty girl on the bus doesn't mean she is going to have dinner with you, you need to start a conversation.
It's the whole "finish your business or get off the pot" concept, either make a statement or agree with the person before you, don't mumble your business and hope that no one takes offense.
Cultural institutions are some of the last bastions (or were at least when this was all being planned) of physical built expression. Not everyone likes the ROM but you sure as hell want to react to it and from an urban/placemaking/experience level that is pretty dang interesting. It could all be dismissed as trend/eyecandy but a cultural institution exists quite a bit on making the bold statement of “this is what I am, this is what I do, this is where I am, come and visit, explore, support”.
The shame is that it isn't even that I don't like it. I just can't be bothered to care. That is the real crime. At least make me care, not just yawn and go “I remember when Breuer was reacting to the faux-classicism that Cleveland embraced so wholeheartedly back when it was a booming city with eyes wide open towards the brightest future, where it would last the ages so our buildings, our built representations of how we wanted people to see ourselves, would echo the sentiment of what our interpretations of timeless, classical beauty are. Lo, we are timeless, we are Cleveland! (Spartacus theme) So the idea of creating the insular solid, heavy box seem thin and light, stone alternating as it turns the corner to reveal that it is but a thin veneer, impossibly compressive cantilevers over entry ways, the faux is the celebration. We can recreate the exuberance of the past by celebrating that we acknowledge the lies. Our stone buildings are built by machines, fastened by technology, harnessed by knowledge instead of might.” Breuer knew what he was building onto and used the contemporary style to comment upon it.
If anything I wish Vinoly would have reacted half as cleverly as Breuer did. Then I could have cared or at least not dismiss it.
Of course, who the heck am I? Maybe there are some clever twists in there. Perhaps the poorly met joint work, the sad panel system is meant to convey something. Maybe the way some of the stripes align and others don't quite make it, but aren't off enough to create a sense of deliberance, as if the building is already is a state of slumping decay, like a ruin left to the elements, stripped of frescoes and sculpture and icon by conquering armies and we are to stumble upon it and make it our own secret treasure. Perhaps it is Vinoly's own commentary upon Breuer stating “No Marcel, you have it all wrong, the responsible reaction is that we can build something quite solid and dense and we don't have to comment upon it because we are to be completely apolitical as architects seeking patrons.”
Maybe. I sure as hell hope not, it seems such an easy way out.
No comments:
Post a Comment