Quote of the Day: Michael Kimmelman
 |
| Bruce Goff's design for a never-built Las Vegas hotel |
"[Bruce] Goff worked on some 500 projects before his death, nearly 130 of which were ultimately built, an astonishing total for someone who, during his last years, worked out of a spare room in a borrowed house in Tyler, Tex. that he shared with his cat and mother.
"David G. De Long, Goff’s biographer, writing in the show’s catalog, recalls visiting Goff at that house, watching him sketch and tend to his correspondence from a glass-topped desk adorned with Christmas ornaments and a vase of peacock feathers. Each afternoon at half past four, De Long remembers, Goff quit to watch 'Star Trek' reruns."
—Michael Kimmelman's New York Times review of the Art Institute of Chicago's "Bruce Goff: Material Worlds"
 |
| Bruce Goff's Japanese Pavilion as seen from Peter Zumthor's David Geffen Galleries, 2025 |
Comments
> give Zumthor's
> behemoth a run
> for its money.
Too bad some of the window panes weren't curved as they originally were going to be. Of course, that would have added to the cost.
Pre-2020, the Pereira/Hardy-Holzman-Pfeiffer structures were a mish-mosh and didn't make navigating spaces coherent. They always looked like the museum had run out of money. The first level of the Ahmanson, in particular, with the dark tile floors and lower ceiling height always felt (visually and vibe-wise) uncomfortable.
However, too much gray concrete in the Geffen may be regrettably another version of that. I hope not, but Govan and his staff may not do the right thing.
One artwork already installed and shown in photos, Todd Gray's "Octavia's Gaze," makes the background look like it needs to be a lighter color. Gray's piece is obviously contemporary too (frames stitched together), so it should presumably fit better than older works will. Which means that the tinted concrete walls of other galleries had better work, and what will be draperies had better make more floor space flexible too.
Both have organic forms/elements. Goff's is somewhat campy, tusks for beams and Japanese screens. Zumthor's is more tectonic, having to do with the expression of forces (geology) of the site. The posts (pavilions) of the building are situated where the site is most stable. The story goes that the shape resulted from connecting these points with a string.
The engineering of both is similar, that of a suspension bridge. Goff's cables are exposed. Zumthor's are hidden in the box beams (roof and floor plate). The system eliminates the need for pillars and results in an open floor plan.
Where they differ (and this is quite distinctive) is in their circulation plans. For all its organicism, the museum experience in the Goff building is still very structured, as "roomy" let's say as the experience at the Guggenheim with its winding ramp. In the Zumthor building, there is no prescribed plan, just nodes of activity (free floating rooms and courtyards).
Curiously, I think Frank Lloyd Wright (who was Goff's mentor) would have liked Zumthor's building more: First, because of Zumthor's commitment to horizontality. Second, because of how Zumthor explodes the room of a traditional museum by separating it from the exterior walls, thus letting it float free in space. Zumthor then uses light to dissolve corners and the border between indoor and outdoor spaces (the terrace galleries).
Really, people need to stop disparaging Zumthor's accomplishment. It just serves to show how little most people understand about architecture. You can't understand it if you don't know how the concept of the room has evolved since Palladio.
--- J. Garcin
Christopher Hawthorne, artdaily, Oct 2023:
..Zumthor had told me almost offhandedly that his experience designing a new wing for the Los Angeles County Museum of Art...had been so trying that he’d decided he would never work in the United States again.
...“There have been tough moments, when we had to reduce, reduce, reduce,” he said.... After all that simplifying, which elements of the LACMA building will be recognizable as Zumthor details?
“There are no Zumthor details any more,” he said flatly. [End quote]
If Govan were a more honest or transparent and sensible person, I'd have fewer qualms about where LACMA is headed, post-Geffen included. So it's not just one thing about him - and the museum - that doesn't give me confidence, it's several things.
However, I realize I've been way too complacent about the museum, even though jibes have been aimed at it going back to 1965.
Right now, my biggest issue with Govan (and his staff) is he keeps inserting way too much garden-variety contemporary art into it. Or what's exhibited at AnyCity art museums, certainly ones with limited resources.
If I wanted the Broad Museum, I'd go to the Broad Museum. Or MOCA. Or the Hammer. Or the Marciano further east on Wilshire Blvd. Or Hauser & Wirth east of Little Tokyo. Etc, etc.