Broad Expansion Tops Out

That was fast. Two years after announcing an expansion and a year after breaking ground, the Broad has topped out with placement of its new wing's final steel beam. 

Designed by Diller Scofidio + Renfro, like the original structure, the expansion is expected to open in time for the 2028 Olympics. The original Broad remains open during construction.

Comments

Anonymous said…
If only every museum could be like the Broad…
Anonymous said…
Why?
The collection and curation are banal.

--- J. Garcin
Anonymous said…
For anyone interested, Dior had their cruise show at LACMA a few days ago. The staging of the building was spectacular, really highlighting the noir qualities of the building. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQF8m1RSFXM
Spacially, I wish MoMA were half as good.
Anonymous said…
> The collection and
> curation are banal.

J Garcin, the problem with the Broad is it's managed by a bunch of rubes. Speaking of which...

Google/AI (question of Museum of Fine Arts Houston vs LACMA):
MFAH's Edge: It is praised for its comprehensive 70,000-piece collection...making it a stronger, more cohesive experience for many, recently ranked as the #6 art museum in the U.S..

LACMA's Edge: As the largest museum in the western U.S., it boasts 140,000+ objects. While its curation is sometimes considered less focused, it is unparalleled...for its diverse, encyclopedia collections.... [End quote]

> highlighting the noir
> qualities of the
> building.

After decades of a series of poor choices or a lack of professionalism (that at least a MFA-Houston, etc, etc,, hasn't fumbled as much, much less [insert name of top-tier art museum here]), I wish I could be more confident in today's LACMA.

I still find the place more interesting than what a business-as-usual (yet very skillfully managed) museum in Houston is all about, but my opinion and that of others very easily may diverge.

Having to second guess over 60 years of the professionalism of a Richard Brown, Richard Donahue, Earl Powell and, now, Michael Govan is a real head scratcher. But something about LACMA's "DNA" is similar to the "genetics" of an LA Zoo versus a San Diego Zoo.
Anonymous said…
The Broad and the most recent MoMA renovation were designed by the same architect (DS+R).

In any case, that's a silly comparison. Who would trade MoMA's collection for the Broad building? It's the singular collection of modern art in world history.

You could house the MoMA collection in a shed and it would still look better than the Broad collection.

--- J. Garcin
Anonymous said…
Kenneth Donahue, not Richard. But LACMA-caliber professionalism was symbolized by his supervising a major exhibit that had drapery (as a theme) hanging in the corners of galleries.

Decades later, Michael Govan had draperies (via an artist he commissioned) strung along the top of a gallery. Now there are draperies hanging in the Geffen Galleries.

What's with LACMA and draperies? lol.

However, Donahue at least didn't' alienate the Ahmanson Foundation.

Google/AI:
Kenneth Donahue's weaknesses in running...(LACMA) were due to his deep dislike for administrative tasks and the prevalent internal infighting among the museum’s management and board of trustees.

The specific factors that limited his effectiveness as director from 1966 to 1979 include: Aversion to Bureaucracy: Donahue openly admitted that he objected to the constant meetings, public relations duties, and ceremonial functions...explicitly stating he preferred working directly with art objects over managing institutional growth.

Board Misalignment: He inherited an unorganized, intrusive board of trustees that frequently undermined directorial authority, a systemic issue that also forced out his predecessor, Richard F. Brown.

Administrative Infighting: Ongoing internal disputes and structural dysfunction between the professional staff and the museum's governance crippled operational efficiency, eventually resulting in Donahue's forced retirement in 1979.

Despite these leadership struggles, Donahue excelled as a Baroque scholar, successfully addressing major collection gaps by securing masterpiece acquisitions like Georges de La Tour's The Magdalene with the Smoking Flame through partnerships with The Ahmanson Foundation.
Anonymous said…
For those who have not seen the building in person, there is a recent YT video by LA Art Documents that accurately represents the spatial qualities of the exterior of the building. Worth seeing.

--- J. Garcin
Anonymous said…
Google/AI:
While LACMA director Earl "Rusty" Powell III successfully expanded the museum's footprint, the project executed by Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates...became one of the most polarizing campus designs in Los Angeles history.

Prominent Time critic Robert Hughes famously wrote that HHPA's design "obliterated the old museum like the giant foot in Monty Python".

HHPA’s original master plan was not meant to leave the campus looking like a hodgepodge. They proposed recladding all of Pereira's original buildings in matching green terracotta and porcelain panels to create a unified architectural language.

When Earl Powell left LACMA in 1992...the momentum for the master plan evaporated. The campus was left as an unresolved, jarring mix of styles.

This ultimately motivated current director Michael Govan to completely demolish both the Pereira buildings and the HHPA addition to make way for the new Peter Zumthor-designed David Geffen Galleries. [End quote]


Meanwhile, during the past 26 years, a museum like the MFA Houston has managed to add buildings that aren't reminiscent of Monty Python's "giant foot" or depend on draperies for technical or, even worse, presumably aesthetic/creative (ie, in an Art of Americas' gallery) reasons.

I thought the gray concrete walls (or black-metal wall brackets) of the Geffen would be my main gripe about it. But I now just want it to not look like a museum that doesn't have enough stuff in its collections to fill it out.

What's next? Hoping the Geffen at least has running water in its restrooms?

Michael Govan, meet Earl Powell. Rusty Powell, meet Michael Govan.

Re your "Who would trade MoMA's collection for the Broad building?": Is that what you took from my comment?
The _____space______ at Broad is what any New Yorker would crave for MoMA's singular art. There's no trading to it.
Anonymous said…
Why would a New Yorker crave the Broad space?
It's a failure on many levels:

The temporary exhibition gallery on the first floor looks/feels like a warehouse or backroom space.

The main exhibition gallery feels clinical and oppressive. When you come up the escalator you are surrounded by white sheetrock walls.

The back of the main gallery is a dead zone (no glass, just a solid wall). If the museum were a department store, this is where you would place the restrooms and backrooms.

I got to believe that the architect was shooting for something like the top gallery at the New National Gallery Berlin (van der Rohe). But in materials, concept, and execution, the Broad does not come close.

--- J. Garcin