We're going to an art museum that just reopened at a new location, and there has been a lot of talk surrounding this change about whether an art museum should be a work of art architecturally or the building that houses the art need not be an object d'art in and of itself. At first there was a grand design, but monetary concerns downscaled the plan and incorporated an existing building. Now the talk will be of what's inside and I find that appropriate. When we visited Bilbao, the building was a grand art piece, but what was inside was disappointing. Some old buildings are uninspired and uninteresting, but what they protect is exquisite. The building does not have to speak for the level of art found therein.
I love exciting architecture, don't get me wrong, and as I grow older I love walking the streets of a city and looking up and around as much as going inside an structure. The Frick is a delight inside and out, as is the Guggenheim and the de Young and Menil. But are they my favorite? No, I adore the Prado in Madrid, and the Met in NY and the Louve and the Marmottan in Paris. It's the treasures inside and maybe the grounds, part of the city its in and other intangibles that make for a great museum experience. But in the end, the art speaks for itself. It needs no translation by the edifice which houses it.
No comments:
Post a Comment