 |
| Studio-MLA, The Rain (waterfall fountain) at Lucas Museum of Narrative Art |
The
Instagram account of the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art has posted a photo of its new waterfall feature in operation. Designed by Mia Lehrer/Studio-MLA as a passive cooling system, and replacing standard air conditioning, it connects to 765 geothermal wells running 350 ft beneath the building.
The waterfall is on the north side of the building (lower right in this photo).
Comments
The waterfall: not so much. Compare, for example, the infinitely more stylish water feature designed by Gehry at the Fondation Louis Vuitton in France; or one at the World Trade Center in Manhattan.
As for LACMA, the Geffen will have minimal water features. But a small pond on its northeastern side will again feature Calder's sculpture that has lateral forms moved by jets of water.
Water fountains increase maintenance issues and budgets. The fountain in front of the Met was inoperative for a few decades before finally being rebuilt a few years ago.
In today's age of social media, and even though Facebook is increasingly seen as another Myspace, sites like FB, Instagram or TikTok get all the attention. Google making AI a default part of its search engine has flustered the owners of websites relying on clicks for business. LACMAonfire isn't one of them, but it still deserves as many visitors and users' commentary as a Facebook or Instagram page does.
Transparency. Behind the curved panels are brackets that conceal the boxy structure of the building (its true shape). The building was designed outside-in. This is as phony as architecture gets.
Context. The form is supposed to evoke a cloud. Okay, why park a cloud in Exposition Park? If that were not absurd enough, what about a cloud connotes permanence? This is supposed to be a museum building, not a theme park attraction.
Meaning. For a building that is supposed to be a cloud, it has no atmosphere (no sensual experience). The materials on the inside are as slick and synthetic as the materials on the outside. The cavernous lobby could be the lobby of an office building. For a true cloud effect, where is the manipulation of light and shadow to create the experience of being in a cloud?
In any case, the oculus exposes the con. At inception, the Lucas was never a cloud. That's just marketing. It's a parametric version of Bunshaft's Hirshhorn Museum. The Hirshhorn did not evoke a cloud. It evoked a tree. The pattern on the underside resembles a leaf canopy. The courtyard under the oculus a clearing in middle of trees. The Hirshhorn has more in common with Zumthor's LACMA than whatever the Lucas building thinks it is. Now, the arbor-type is a good model for a museum.
--- J. Garcin
Points taken. I see the truth of it. Great thanks.
> common with Zumthor's
> LACMA
Okay, opinions are like assholes---everyone has one and they all stink. Or you say potato, I say potahto,
However, your jumping through hoops in order to justify design features of Zumthor's Geffen Galleries and doing just the opposite to Yansong's Lucas or, for that matter, Heneghan's-Peng's Grand Egyptian Museum suggests something is off.
I won't deny that I'm biased. Most people are. But if you see yourself as somehow less so, that doesn't reflect too well on you.
Speaking of which (and water too), I realize how subjective I was in judging this far too positively or, at the very least, far less negatively than I'd do now:
https://youtu.be/NxbG8E7M8Yg?si=G__EBMFZLz20LV76
William Pereira's 1965 design had water, water, water! Since I have a soft spot for H20, that feature was a big thing.
4 spigot fountains to the west of the entrance, 4 spigot fountains to the east of it, and a circular fountain in the middle. And large moats all around the buildings. I don't know the history of the sculpture above the circular pool, but I'm assuming it may have been ordered by the architect himself. So it was more purely decorative than artistic.
Alexander Calder was commissioned by the museum to do a sculpture in honor of LA's public art museum finally - finally - separating from its old location in Exposition Park. For a major city to be doing that as late as the 1960s is analogous to a 40-year-old finally learning to tie his shoelaces.
But just as the museum over 50 years ago disappointed various people, I'm sure it will do the same thing in 2026----even more so since its new building was affected by the budget.. But LACMA 2026 in general will be less "whoops!" than it was in 1965.
... The relationship between Pereira's LACMA and water is not as complex as the relationship between Mies's Barcelona Pavilion and form/stone/water. One would expect nothing more from Pereira. One would expect nothing less from Mies.
... Initially, Zumthor's LACMA reminded me of my dorm in college (Saarinen's Ezra Styles College). Truth be told, that's the root of my interest.
As it turns out, the resemblance is superficial, the thick massing and ruined/megalithic appearance. However, the Zumthor building invited further close reading. My arguments about the building are a result of close reading. Do you know what that is? Think of it as an antidote against bias. It rewards intellectual curiosity. Try it.
--- J. Garcin
> antidote against bias.
Okay, you're not so much biased as you have psychic ability. It enabled you to see that Peter Zumthor is unhappy about his LACMA project not so much (or not all) because of the squared-off windows but because of the doors.
As for the Lucas, the LA Times this week ran an article where the writer thinks the new Geffen building will draw in the crowds but didn't want to predict what the Lucas will do.
I've always remembered the Met's galleries for Impressionate-era art being busy, its areas for older periods of European art not so much.
The one-level format of the Geffen will offset some of the "off the beaten path" nature of a museum, particularly LACMA's former 4-level-maze-type layout. But the contents of a museum combined with how much online-influencer feedback it generates also counts too.
The Lucas will be more "middle brow" and pop culture than what a LACMA tends to show---although the gallery that displays LACMA's Studebaker Avanti will be more Lucas than a Met. But after looking at traditional art at the Getty a few days ago, and even though I rag on contemporary art, the Louvre-type nature of a museum (ie, old, old, old) can become in its own way monotonous too.
While the Lucas collection will have plenty of cheesy aspects, it may be an interesting medium between the traditional old-world-old of a Met or National Gallery and the traditional hipster-cool-new of a MOCA or Broad.
Did you even bother to search for "architecture" and "close reading". You might have found a link to a course description at the Yale School of Architecture, a course that was previously taught by Peter Eisenman.
Peter Eisenman is a contemporary of Frank Gehry. Both participated in the landmark 1988 exhibit at MoMa, Deconstructivist Architecture.
I quote from the course description: "But an architect must learn to see beyond the facts of perception. An architect must see as an expert. This expertise implies two things. First, being able to see, as a form of close reading, the not present - the unseen. Second, and more importantly, an architect is a maker, not just a reader. In order to make what contains ‘what cannot be seen,’ one has to know what that is, i.e. in order to make what can be close read, one has to know first how to close read. This is a class about that kind of learning. And its first and most basic form of close reading is formal analysis."
--- J. Garcin
> show you the way.
Just tell me how to do mind readings. If Peter Zumthor thinks the doors of the Geffen Galleries are worse than the building's squared-off windows are, I'd like to know why he feels that way.
Also, please probe the brain of Michael Govan. Does he truly think that drywall makes a worse background for artworks than plain, gray concrete? Maybe he really does. I just need to know if that's genuine sincerity from him, not CYA-back-flip rationalizations.
Blogs often need all the commenters they can attract. However, quips or snark are the opposite extreme of what you accuse me of doing. Not nice to make owners of a blog do all the heavy lifting.
Austere as all hell. When my friend and I rested on one of the massive granite table/altars, at perfect seat-height, we were surrounded by 3 walls, with a sublime opening showing the river and city to the south. We chatted for an hour, with acoustics far purer than any Manhattan coffee house.
We resolved to return every season moving forward.
From the NYT article on the subject, it's clear that the "cuts" did NOT involve the corners. The "cuts" were related to issues which were found during construction. The squared-off corners were part of the final design (a design that was approved BEFORE construction began).
From the same article, here is Zumthor's direct quote: "Govan asked him to streamline the design, he added, “to compensate for all these millions of dollars for all these new [foundation] poles." According to posts at the contractor's own blog, the necessity for these "poles" was discovered during construction.
How did Zumthor streamline the design? He goes on to say this: “We did other things, like I abandoned most of my door details. There are no door details. We have the openings, but they’re just openings.”
That's it. That's the only detail Zumthor mentions.
As to the drywall, you speak like you are some expert on display practices. YOU ARE NOT. The "white cube" aesthetic was introduced by MoMA to display modern art. It is not suited for all kinds of art. It may not even be suited for modern art. Like hanging old masters on velvet, the white cube is a choice made by collectors, NOT the artists themselves. Pollock did not make his paintings against a white backdrop. The walls of Rembrandt's studio were not covered in velvet.
--- J. Garcin.
For example, why is the ceiling of the Yale Art Gallery so intricate? Aside from the functional considerations, the answer is that inside a museum building there isn't any other surface where an architect can truly show off, the ceiling being the only one. At night, when the building is fully lit, the ceilings are so distinctive they can be seen clearly through the windows.
There an architectural channel on YT with a presentation on Kahn's idea of a room. Take a look because what he has to say there provides insight on the rooms/placement of walls at the FDR memorial.
--- J. Garcin
I think the Guggenheim would beg to differ.
> down on your stupidity.
It's not just your bending over backwards to rationalize away the lousy aspects of the Geffen that make it obvious where you're coming from, it's also your doing just the opposite to a Lucas Museum or Grand Egyptian Museum.
You're stupid. Actually, you're a motherfuc*** (I'm lowering myself to your level)