More NYT Praise for Geffen
Michael Kimmelman reviews Peter Zumthor's David Geffen Galleries in today's New York Times: "I think it's spectacular."
Michael Kimmelman reviews Peter Zumthor's David Geffen Galleries in today's New York Times: "I think it's spectacular."
Comments
Most of all, I'd say they've all been more architecturally acceptable or impressive (or "museum" like) than what LACMA 1965 (and then 1986-2020) was all about.
They all follow the Beaux-arts, enfilade format. By contrast, William Pereira and then Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer followed the tract-house and shopping-center format.
Before that, the modest addition to the north side of the Ahmanson Gallery in the early 1980s always reminded me of the look of a house where the owner tacked on a family room or bedroom on a tight budget.
Seeing videos of the Houston Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, really was a "whoa" moment. I didn't realize a good portion of it was built in the early 1920s, well before LACMA had split from the clay Native-American pots and animal dioramas in Exposition Park. MFAH's European galleries have the big-time look of museums closer to a Met-Boston-Chicago format than a Pereira one.
To duplicate the design of Beaux-Arts/enfilade in 2026 would be too Disneyland-ish. Although I'm guessing most serious museum goers prefer (or expect) that style and look. However, the average person may judge a museum with house-on-the-hill-windows as helping relieve the tedium of the enfilade.
The museum in Houston, for its galleries of older art, has some really bold wall colors. So the setting really pops. By contrast, my hunch is that all plain gray concrete walls (versus the tinted ones) in the Geffen will be visually distracting.
But from a strictly presentation standpoint (forget about even the quality of its collections), LACMA has always been way too compromised. Even if the museum in 2026 in certain ways is still off, its era of 1965-2020 was really bad.
> collection is lower than
> LACMA.
I thumbed through part of its online collection, mainly its older European works (because of how they're presented), and that's the impression I had too. But the look of its galleries at least helps offsets a so-so collection.
When I saw an online review of LACMA from a visitor from Minnesota, who compared it unfavorably with her Minneapolis Institute of Art, I went, yowsa. I don't recall if the BCAM-Rensick area at least had been created around that time, but if a museum can't have a Louvre-caliber collection, it better have a nice presentation.
When relatives from Michigan around 2014-2015 said they were planning to visit LACMA, I didn't grimace the way I'd do now. Not just because the 1965-1986-era buildings were so sub-par, but because I realize the Detroit Institute of Art (circa 1927) wasn't reminiscent of a tract house or shopping center.
William Pereira and Richard Brown in 1965 put the museum in a really tottering position and for decades forced it in the wrong direction.
"In Europe, his Swiss crews can make concrete resemble silk. He worked with American crews on LACMA, with different skills and “designed to their craft,” is how Eric Long, a structural engineer at SOM, put it to me."
The article also mentioned Zumthor's previous work where they covered wood in concrete and burned the wood leaving only the concrete impression. I cannot imagine American construction would be able to do something like that. And I think it explains why The Orange County Museum, The 6th Street Bridge, The Broad and LACMA look so value-engineered and have almost an amateurish quality to them. Star-chitects need to take into account the skill level of American construction. We don't have the talent to pull off these magnificent designs.
With that said, I'm glad the harshness and splotches with mellow with time. seeing the interior spaces, I think the public will be pleasantly surprised with how beautiful the interiors actually are. I'm warming to the building more and more. And I agree with this blog that ultimately, I think LA is going to be happy with this building. Even if certain areas are harder to find in Zumthor's building, it's not as if the older buildings weren't a confusing mess to navigate. The design of the interior spaces here are an improvement in that respect, even if areas will be less intuitive.
"...but if a museum can't have a Louvre-caliber collection, it better have a nice presentation.":
First, dude says Louvre's venue and collection are way too extra. Then dude says if a museum's collection isn't Louvre-grade, they get points deducted if the presentation is off.
Inane argumentation. He visits Louvre once and says it's lousy and lovely. Next!
> and says it's lousy
> and lovely. Next!
Wut? Huh? lol. Parlez-vous anglais? Usted habla ingles?
If anything, the Louvre is very strong in both its collection and presentation.
However, yea, a little can also go a long way. And it's not necessarily ideal being in a space where someone is wearing way too much perfume. But that's much better than great artworks displayed in a tract house or dead mall or a Thomas Kincaide gallery located in Versailles' Hall of Mirrors.
https://youtu.be/9pR_G2I1TqA?si=xI9id1r5XbQGo93F
As it is, the NYT has captured many, former subscribers of the LA Times. I cancelled my LA Times subscription primarily because of the awful coverage of the LACMA expansion. Been a subscriber of the NYT ever since.
Hence, not surprised that the NYT (Michael Kimmelman) would see things my way. As I have been saying all along, it is a remarkable building.
--- J. Garcin
> it is a remarkable building.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but most readers' comments to the NY Times article (today's and the one from the other day) are apprehensive to negative, similar to the one posted at the end below.
In turn, I now find myself hoping most people will be optimistic to positive. I don't know how much of that is due to better realizing that Pereira/Brown in 1965 really got LACMA off to the wrong start, or sensing the Beaux-Art/enfilade format as a paradigm for an art museum on Wilshire Blvd may not be suitable.
Although the look of the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston was what I would have preferred for LACMA 1965-2020, visiting a museum that's a re-hash of a place in Paris, NYC, Boston, Chicago, Washington DC - or St Louis, Detroit, Minneapolis or Houston (etc) - does seem too much same 'ol, same 'ol.
However, photos of one gallery in the Geffen shows small sculptures sitting on an open table reminiscent of what's sold at Idea. That makes the display look too much like it's in the lobby of a funky-new-style bank lobby or hipster coffee hangout. Or items in a used-clothing-furnishings store that tempts dishonest customers to reach out and pocket them,'
Govan and his staff in the upcoming months had better do some adjusting and fine-tuning.
NY Times, April 14:
Raoul Wise, California: This review is exceedingly and gushingly positive, and that makes me suspicious...I mean, it doesn't look so superlatively spectacular in the photos.
What Zumthor did here --- "designing to their craft," he's done with every one of his buildings. Go read the story of how he sourced the stone bricks for Vals. Designing for Zumthor is as much about form/atmosphere as it is about learning the local trades.
--- J. Garcin
Why should we care what Raoul Wise thinks.
What are his credentials?
Michael Kimmelman is the NYT architectural critic.
Kimmelman went to Yale (BA in History/Classics) and Harvard (PhD Art History)
Kimmelman knows his stuff.
What does Raoul know?
What do you know?
--- J. Garcin
> what Raoul Wise
> thinks.
Because his opinion is shared by what I'd describe as that of a majority of readers of Michael Kimmelman's review of the Zumthor building.
Don't be such a snob, J Garcin. We rubes have a right to our opinions too.
Even though the NY Times writer may have credentials up the wazoo, I've noticed so-called experts in any field can sometimes misjudge or mis-characterize obvious flaws or weaknesses. People guilty of: "And other than THAT, Mrs Lincoln (or Mrs Kennedy), how was the play (or Dallas)?"
LACMA's Youtube account is quite bad, and I had to dig through all its posted videos to find one that shows at least a few glimpses of its former galleries. One segment of this video shows a large canvas of a sill life of animals presumably in a larder of centuries ago:
https://youtu.be/dqyjeEFNWlE?si=f5GTDqyL-adQomoh
The Geffen had better have (or make) space for such artworks. Certainly when a lot of open floor space seems to exist in front of the windows (so sculptures don't have to be sitting right up against walls) and various walls look like there are gaps where objects can be attached to them.
LACMA's 1965-1986 galleries apparently were so uninspiring to visitors, few of them bothered to take videos of them.
Some have said all the concrete floors of the Geffen will tire out (at least psychologically?) visitor's feet, which the brown tile floors of the ground level of the Ahmanson Gallery sure did---where that painting photographed by Vera Lutter was temporarily located.
I responded:
"Appropriate here would be for the museum to commission a light installation beneath its undercarriage to enliven its underpass."
LACMA has had years to think about this. What have they been doing all day, in the midst of such a dynamic artist community?
This comment made me go "hmm." It also made me think of the other major civic building in the US named for its leading benefactor, David Geffen. Unlike the Gehry building in LA, the building in NYC was poorly handled, both technically and aesthetically. One reviewer described its lobby areas as looking like that of a Marriott Hotel, or something along those lines.
It was also merely the renovation of an existing structure, yet cost $550 million. That's why *both* money and technical/artistic know-how influence the outcome.
However, I've seen projects on a modest budget supervised by people with a lot of talent that turn out a wow-ser. I've also seen projects on a big budget overseen by people who are technically-creatively mediocre that turn out a big dud.
NY Times, April 14:
Eddy, Highland Park
The current controversy over the architecture of the Geffen Galleries, laid out in these comments and elsewhere, cannot help but make me recall the similar uproar over Walt Disney Concert Hall during construction and when it first opened.
In 2001, shortly after moving to Los Angeles from NYC, I began working in Downtown, in a building sort of kitty corner from the WDCH construction. Daily, we would gather at the office windows and remark on the building's progress. About 70% of our office thought it was ugly! An abomination! The other 30% thought it looked "pretty cool." Community sentiment was similar when it finally opened.
However, within one year of opening, WDCH was one of the hottest tickets in town. Millions of ads, films, photo shoots and selfies later, it's considered a huge success.
I have a hunch this controversy will play out in similar fashion. Was there in February to visit the Tar Pits Museum (closing soon for renovation) and it took my breathe away. [End quote]
^ The difference is the technical aspects of the Geffen may be a problem for connoisseurs and aficionados of art. So unlike Disney Hall, which pleased the ears of its visitors, the Geffen may be less pleasing to the eyes of its visitors, people into the finer details of the visual arts and not just a so-called experience.
If so, Govan and his staff can adjust certain features or formats, including the tinting of more of the concrete walls.
> Tint !!!
I don't trust Michael Govan, if only because he recently implied that not only is plain gray concrete okay for artworks, once people see that material as a background, they'll totally get it.
It's like he's managing the PR department of The Emperor and his new clothes. Govan is supervising both the looks and cost of the "clothes" too. I hope not, but a redux in 2026 of Richard Brown/William Pereira will be LA taking a trip back to the future.
NY/California Post, April 14:
Today, LACMA revealed it will partner with ultra-luxe grocery chain Erewhon to open a cafe inside its new David Geffen Galleries expansion, and not everyone is sipping the Kool-Aid. Instead of applause, the announcement has triggered a wave of backlash across social media, where critics argue the partnership clashes with the museum’s public mission.
.... “...overpriced mediocre food for a museum that abandoned the concept that it belongs to the residents of Los Angeles,” another wrote on Instagram. “Seems appropriate.”
“Museum’s are supposed to be accessible, Erewhon is the antithesis of accessible,” added a disgruntled user.
“This is not the place for an Erewhon! I hope this isn’t true!” one person commented, while another fumed: “What a horrible decision. Get EREWHON out of this public space immediately.”
[However] The collaboration is a savvy move. By bringing in a brand that is effectively a tourist attraction in its own right, LACMA ensures foot traffic even from those who couldn’t tell a Monet from a Manet.
Black,
Chrome,
Olive,
Fern Green,
Wintergreen,
White,
Yellow,
Pink.
LACMA's new gallery could not have crossed Wilshire, and taken out the surface parking lot purchased as a future tower development site to provide income to the museum, without the support of County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who has been convicted on unrelated public corruption charges. The other Supervisors might not have voted for the project without the promise to provide a satellite gallery in South Los Angeles (Council District 9). But when LACMA came before the Supes to ask for money, the museum had already decided internally to abandon the Wetlands Park satellite plan, and were in violation of their sweetheart City lease.
The City did nothing to hold them accountable, nor did the Supervisors. The Councilmember in CD9 is Curren Price, whose trial on public corruption charges will begin soon.
I think city owned car barn in Wetlands Park would make an incredible art space, and would be more willing to cut Govan a break for his backroom deals had some of the museum's resources actually flowed into that community.
> found two of
> them.
> Forget it, K.C.
> It's Chinatown.
Yep, lol.
I totally get Kim C,, Ted G., J. Garcin, W. Poundstone, M. Govan, P. Zumthor, R. Brown, W. Pereira. I feel schizophrenic, both accepting and rejecting everyone's opinions. I see bits of legitimacy in all of them.
"She's my daughter, she's my sister, she's my daughter, she's my sister."
Lots of images of the Geffen:
https://archinect.com/news/gallery/150537228/1/a-first-look-inside-lacma-s-completed-david-geffen-galleries-by-peter-zumthor
Govan (and his lack of ethics or honesty, lack of good judgment), his staffers and Peter Zumthor can best be summed up by the wall brackets holding up this frieze:
https://archinect.gumlet.io/uploads/61/614cce6223daaaca9837cb1ea4d28d89.jpeg?fit=crop&auto=compress%2Cformat&enlarge=true&w=650
^ So no one bothered to make sure the color of the steel frame better matched the sculpture?
At the same time, years ago I recall walking towards the main entrance of the former Ahmanson Gallery. A guy with his kids was nearby. His young son was making a ruckus and yelling something like, "I don't wanna go in. I hate art, I don't want to be here."
The Geffen Galleries and all its windows and spartan format (I notice plenty of open floor and wall space) will be perhaps better for the visitor who isn't a serious or connoisseur-type observer of the visual arts.
Michael Govan and many of his staffers are sort of latte-drinking rubes. As such, they've been a big part of the history of LA, of West LA versus East LA, the West Coast vs the East Coast, America versus Europe, the first world versus the third world, etc.
When you come right down to it, we're all rubes---corrupt ones included (per Kim Cooper). And admit it, J Garcin, you're a rube too.
NY Times, 4-14-26:
Rosanna Zonni, Santa Monica
Having had the privilege to be invited to view the galleries myself, I have very, very serious concerns and issues with this building and its galleries. The main concern is that many, many fragile pieces from the collection are exposed and just ripe for touching, knocking over, sitting on, running into, etc. If the artworks will not be properly protected in the very near future (I give the director full responsibility on this issue; let's face it: it is his vision for having constructed this building and its new display concepts)...
While admiring the lovely views and vistas from the curvaceous windows, I couldn't help feeling such anxiety knowing there was yet another exposed table, pedestal, etc. with priceless artwork that probably wouldn't last the first throng of eager visitors. Displaying works on austere, cold, grey, mostly uniform walls did not seem to do the wonderful collection justice.
...This new building fulfills the ego of a few while doing a huge disservice to the artworks themselves. I seriously question the responsibility of safely maintaining these works, displaying them in a coherent and educative way to the general public for years to come. [End quote]
Michael Govan appears to have done a 21st-century variation of what Richard Brown did in 1965.
I think adjustments can still be done to fine-tune the Geffen Galleries and remove some of the "oops," However, Govan may be too much of a so-called rube (a flaky rube?) to give a damn.
Rosanna Zonni decorates her walls with posters of Monet paintings. Yet, like the I-HATE-LACMA-GUY, she pretends to be a professional preparator and conservator in comment sections. It's laughable.
It's scary how many rubes there are in LA.
--- J. Garcin
> many rubes
> there are in LA.
LOL. Why are you surprised? Don't forget it wasn't that long ago when LA was described as a "cultural wasteland." Or "Double Dubuque." Or "100 suburbs in search of a city."
I notice one of the replies to the NY Times review of the Geffen referred to the history of LA versus San Francisco. The writer mentioned things like how lowly rated LAX has long been compared with SF International. Or what-evah. lol.
And even Houston, Texas had a free-standing public art museum - in an attractive Beaux-Arts, enfilade format too - well before LA did---the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston also now has the 2nd largest amount of gallery square footage in the US too. However, LA in 1965 did get a tract house, although not as expansive as it should have been. Oh, well.
Latte-sipping rubes like Michael Govan want to re-create LA's nostalgia-rose-colored past. lol.
Los Angeles Magazine:
Ming dynasty pottery and Grecian urns are presented bare on open tables that feel a bit like the world’s most elegant flea market.
https://lamag.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/IMG_1845-1200x900.jpeg
^ That to me is more reminiscent of a Goodwill Thrift store.
https://lamag.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/IMG_1850-1200x900.jpeg
LACMA has such a small collection, the Matisse work from Frances Brody is displayed on a rather large wall all by itself. Nothing of value to exhibit on either side of it.
"La Gerbe" is nice and all, but it ain't no Mona Lisa deserving to be in singular splendor in the Louvre.
... Not sure why you are gloating over the fact that LACMA does not have a first-rate Matisse or the equivalent of a Mona Lisa. It is NOT the flex you think it is. What is means is that the cultural capital in the city has not been sufficient historically to acquire any of these works for the museum.
Who possesses that cultural capital in a city? Largely very wealthy people, but also ALL OF US. If you are such an expert on Matisse and singular masterpieces like the Mona Lisa, why was your knowledge of art and your money NOT sufficient enough to put you in a position to acquire a Matisse masterpiece or even a contemporary equivalent (i.e., Jonas Wood)? In short, the lack of a first-rate Matisse is more a reflection on YOU than it is of LACMA.
--- J. Garcin
> has posters of dogs playing
> cards on his walls.
LOL. This blog deserves to have all the readers' comments that's possible, such as what the NY Times article on the Geffen has generated. So, J. Garcin, please don't change or go away.
I've long been supportive of LACMA, so I like seeing other people reacting the same way. But your reactions do come off like, methinks he doth protest too much.
Sometimes parents root so much for their kids, they become overbearing--and give little Johnny or Susie a mental breakdown. Other parents are so permissive towards their children, it's like they don't care. A happy medium is the way to go.