 |
| Installation of Henri Matisse's La Gerbe |
Last night Julia Latané, assistant director of art preparation at LACMA, hosted an online discussion of the Geffen Galleries' ongoing installation. It included photos of the installation of three large artworks. Above, Matisse's ceramic mural
La Gerbe weighs a literal ton. If I understood Latané correctly, it is the only work of the Modern Art Department that will reside permanently in the Geffen Galleries, in view of its weight. That implies that the museum will be keeping the installation of Modern art in BCAM.
 |
| Henri Matisse, La Gerbe, 1953, as installed |
 |
| Installation of John Deare's Judgment of Jupiter |
John Deare's marble relief
Judgment of Jupiter weighs 1.82 tons. Asked whether the installation of such massive works was "permanent," the preparators said that they were unlikely to be moved anytime soon. Otherwise, the Geffen's installations are expected to change regularly.
The Neoclassical precision of Deare's relief provides a particularly stark contrast to Peter Zumthor's raw concrete.
 |
| John Deare's Judgment of Jupiter, 1786–87, as installed |
 |
| Installation of Todd Gray's Octavia's Gaze |
Todd Gray's
Octavia's Gaze is a collage of framed inkjet prints that are reputed to be resistant to light. The work faces windows near one entrance.
 |
| Todd Gray's Octavia's Gaze, 2025, as installed |
There were audience questions about the logistics and aesthetics of hanging artwork on concrete. Latané mentioned that they had consulted with preparators at the Pérez Art Museum Miami, which also hangs its artwork on bare concrete (albeit lighter and smoother than Zumthor's, going by photos).
 |
| Herzon & de Meuron, gallery interior of Pérez Art Museum Miami |
Comments
> will be keeping the installation
> of Modern art in BCAM.
Whereas contemporary art can be found in BCAM, the Resnick, the Geffen, outside on the plaza and grounds, and even on occasion in the Goff-Price-Japanese building. Good thing too because LA doesn't have that many places where contemporary art is on display. Whew!
> Otherwise, the Geffen's installations
> are expected to change regularly.
I imagine that will make all the concrete walls versus drywall even more difficult to work with. Unfortunately, BCAM and the Resnick may end up being more visually hospitable in the display of artworks. But the Geffen will have more selfie moments: Windows, lots of windows.
> The Perez walls....look
> lighter and smoother in
> photos.
I'm hoping that Ted's description awhile ago of the Geffen's walls being gray-streaked eyesores is too harsh, but they very well may be. But the TikTok and Instagram social influencers won't care. Although even they may feel subtly unimpressed. Which will continue a decades-long trend of various people yawning at the quality of certain museums in LA.
Of course, that means LACMA during the Pereira-Hardy-Pffifer era didn't cut it either. But next year, history in certain ways regrettably may be repeating itself.
As the saying goes, Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
For example, the exceptional La Gerbe is now positioned on a corner that in reality is only visible outside from a very particular vantage point beneath the museum. Imagine instead if they had built a to-scale space recreating its location in the Brody home with greenery and Haines furnishings. Now its impact, while still great, is so much less than it should be.
And oh look, Adjaye's recently completed park in Detroit bears some striking similarities, but its appearance feels much more at home in its function.
https://divisare.com/projects/546642-adjaye-associates-john-d-angelo-ryan-southen-ralph-c-wilson-jr-centennial-park
Precisely.
> of Deare's relief provides a
> particularly stark contrast
> to Peter Zumthor's raw
> concrete.
Even more noticeable, the format (or look) of the black clips holding up the frieze had better be temporary. Right now, they look like sh-iet.
In the past, that would have been a given. But the aesthetics of "hip and trendy" in the 2020s have a way of treating crappola as looking nice, so nothing is certain until it is.
One of Geffen's galleries will apparently have a bit of Petersen-museum-type display, which I won't mind.
The bad thing about the Pereira buildings (and the 1980's modifications) was everything was chopped up and not easy to browse through. So - too many windows and too much concrete notwithstanding - the one-floor format of the Geffen will be an improvement.
lacma .org: The Avanti was cherished by its designer, who owned two: one that he kept in France, and this one, which he kept at his home in Palm Springs... It will be displayed in a gallery about how car culture and the landscape of the automobile has shaped California art and design.
> ...had consulted with
> preparators at the Pérez
> Art Museum Miami
Videos of that museum (I haven't been there in person) show plenty of drywall mixed in with a few concrete surfaces. In the case of the Geffen, it's concrete, concrete, concrete.
I get why the roof and floor had to be concrete, but why did all the interior walls have to be presumably immovable concrete too? For vertical strength? For structural integrity during quakes?
As for the vast concrete roof of the Geffen, that sure doesn't look too green-Earth friendly. The top of the Lucas at least will have plantings.
Also, the Broad Museum's or Lucas's facade is one material, while the interior walls aren't just monolithic concrete.
*
Since the museum officials intend to do frequent, periodic swaps of art throughout, installers will necessarily encounter old holes needing to be plugged. Given the fine texture of the cement, attempting smooth, color-matched patches could be tricky. I'm thinking the walls could eventually look like they suffer from acne.
> the people who know
> more about these
> things than you.
Technical/mechanical skill doesn't necessarily line up with visual/aesthetic skill. And visa versa.
How have a Louvre, National Gallery (London, Washington DC), Metropolitan, etc, etc, for generations been able to display a wide variety of objects - some as heavy as an granite obelisk - without evoking the setting of a Public Storage building?
Okay, it takes money to do things right, and LACMA's budget is full of red ink. Their employees recently joining a union and demanding better compensation won't help. But Govan and his staff have been wasting money for years on hosting way too many shows of garden-variety, rinky-dink-municipal-gallery-type contemporary art.
Whatever the case, heavy works requiring special structural support rarely change places. It's too much trouble. In LA, it's even more trouble because of earthquakes. Yes, the concrete walls make things easier, but in most cases you can't reuse the same mounting brackets.
Moreover, it is so often the case that the artwork is a/the focal point of the presentation. At MoMA, after two expansions, Demoiselles d'Avignon is more or less in the same place it has been since the Pelli expansion of the 80's. In pursuit of its own thematic agenda, MoMA swaps works around it, but Demoiselles retains its same place of prominence.
The Zumthor building for LACMA would be a better setting for the Met's Temple of Dendur than the hangar space designed by Roche/Dinkeloo.
Also take a look at the Fra Angelico exhibit at the San Marcos Monastery (Florence). Renaissance works look great (too) in spare, shadowy, monastic spaces. In fact, many of them were originally created for those spaces.
As I said, you should defer to people who know more about these things than you.
But many museums suspend their pictures, at least, with wires originating at the join of the wall and ceiling...No need to adulterate the walls. LACMA has foreclosed that option with its NJ-Turnpike-concrete-median esthetic. Just sayin'.
> The Zumthor building for
> LACMA would be a better
> setting for the Met's Temple
> of Dendur
Now you're sounding sarcastic. You next might just as well say that LACMA's collections rival the Met's. Or that LACMA's never-ending special exhibits of contemporary art both rival Hauser & Wirth & are also the envy of the art world.
You better defer to someone who's way less provincial. Sorry.
Two other considerations: Cables are not advisable for heavy objects. Cables are obtrusive. In Zumthor buildings, the mechanicals are hidden.
Ah, yes. Great thanks.
Perhaps, it is no coincidence. In the New Yorker article on the LACMA building, Zumthor took the writer to visit the Mariastein monastery and claimed that monasteries should be the model for civic monuments.
In the article, the writer described the progression of space/light in the monastery: "We passed through the nave, where sun streamed through the windows, striking fat-faced cherubs and their golden trumpets, and descended into the underbelly of the church. The walls grew rough and turned to rock. A window framed a view of a forested limestone cliff, where, in the miracle that put the site on the pilgrim map, a child falling to his death is said to have been saved by the Virgin Mary. We kept walking, until the natural light was snuffed. Zumthor’s favorite spaces are whorled, with a hidden inner core. Finally, we entered a shadow-soaked cave that smelled of candle smoke, where petitioners were praying to a statue of Mary."
It appears that Zumthor has brought the same spiritual/architectural experience to LACMA.
--- J. Garcin