Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Disposable Gardner
I'm glad it looks like a crappy plastic box so nobody will protest when they demolish it.
She'd be Mad as Hell
Because they had to break her will and ignore her specific instructions to build the crappy glass box.
Ask anyone who's worked there for a long time and cared about the museum: if they dared to point out the facts of her will, they risked getting fired.
No kidding
I used to be a member and supporter of the museum because it was not only a repository for an exceptional collection, but a completely unique window into the world Mrs. Gardner represented. No more. Starting this year my cash goes to museums who don't flout their own missions.
Also, that building is an ugly affront to the beautiful architecture of the original museum. Blech.
What part of her will was violated?
I've heard much about the part of the will that prevents the Gardner from rearranging or removing any of the paintings, or adding to the collection displayed in the main house. But what provisions does the addition violate?
Harvard's long wait is nearly over
as they make plans for the coming windfall.
The carriage house clearly
The carriage house clearly should not have been torn down. Renzo Piano's megalomania would not allow it to be left so that his GRAND vision could be realized.
Were you in the design meetings?
I seriously doubt he would care much either way whether it stayed or went. This is a relatively minor commission for him, and if the museum administrators had adamantly wanted it to stay he could surely find a solution that dealt with it.
You are correct that they
You are correct that they were not very adamant about keeping it and Piano got his way easily. They didn't understand the importance of the carriage house any more than he did. I was not at the meeting. This is third hand information.
Ambivalence
Personally I am ambivalent. Removing the carriage house was a loss. Had it been better highlighted it could have further contributed to the pleasures of the museum.
Moving the entrance to the new structure is dubious as well. The Fenway entrance gave the same sense of released compression that Frank Lloyd Wright so wonderfully utilized. To sacrifice that experience does remove some of the fun of walking into the structure.
On the other hand the tapestry room can now be more than merely a walkthrough that contains a couple of interesting pieces. It can now show off some of the most intriguing art work in the museum including the Archangel Michael painting.
Increasing the space that can be used for the special exhibitions can provide access to more great art that otherwise would not be seen in Boston. The exhibition of earthenware sculptures was a fine exhibit but more more pieces (needing more space) would have supported a deeper appreciation of the art form.
The concert hall will be unique in this city. I do wonder whether this was inspired by Unity Temple by Frank Lloyd Wright?
I am suspect of any occasion when older structures are removed. As Americans, especially at popular and political levels, our respect for the past is poor. But of this addition I see the possibility of strengthening Boston's to support a strong art loving culture that respects the artifacts and art of the past. Once the Harvard museums are finally finished the Boston metro area will again be a fantastically rich area for enjoying great art.
As for the new structure I am intrigued. It is light and does not overwhelm the palace. It adds another contemporary structure which is also inviting rather than resembling a fortress.
That two (and eventually three) of the area's premier museums have been refreshed is a great boon to the Boston metro area.
Thanks for this thoughtful
Thanks for this thoughtful response.... I can't help but think that overall the new entrance is a huge help. Tthe old one was such a bottleneck-- it was really underscaled for such a civic attraction-- and any charm or architectural dynamic was always dominated (for me anyway) by tense self-preparation for a hectic confluence of faces, elbows, coats, umbrellas, strollers and so on.
Also you could add the ICA to your last sentence to make 4 local museums that have been greatly invigorated by major architectural projects.
Is there
a pedestrian entrance? Funny, because the whole building is pedestrian, from an architectural standpoint.
Mrs. Gardner, I think, would not be pleased that her will was violated by such a bland architectural statement which cheapens the overall museum. Had this been a modern building of some architectural significance - a tiny gem - then I think Mrs. Gardner would have approved. However, what we're left with is a generic glass building that is crying out for a big "Citizen's Bank" sign which one might see on Boylston Street at Copley Square, or on Beacon Street in Brookline.
Mrs. Gardner is probably rolling in her grave, not so much from the violation of her will, but from the blandness of the result.