Time Magazine's Most Anticipated Building of 2007 - Page 7

brickell · #**121** Posted **Mar 27, 2007, 2:11 PM**

I was wondering that myself. If not damage it, I would think that varying natural light wouldn't be the best condidtions to view the art either.

MayDay · #**122** Posted **Mar 27, 2007, 5:18 PM**

^^It depends on how much the glass diffuses the light. Works on paper are rather susceptible, as are works on canvas.

I would imagine they would have some sort of system in place if they plan to display such works in the newer areas.

pico44 · #**123** Posted **Mar 28, 2007, 9:02 PM**

While I might disagree with Time Magazine, I think this building is nothing short of brilliant. I love it. Of course, I am very much one of those pseudo intelectual", "pretentious", "elitist", "nerds"; who is often encouraged to like something more when it elicits anger in people. One can create good art without ruffling feathers, but great art will always be elusive to those trying to please everyone.

woodrow · #**124** Posted **Apr 1, 2007, 4:26 PM**

I received this short video of interior of the lobby. From the N-A e-newsletter. They say this is the first of a series of interior previews.

http://www.nelson-atkins.org/bmw/video1/

CGII · #**125** Posted **Apr 1, 2007, 4:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raraavis

It is hideous. The hill was much more interesting before these giant ugly geometric lamps were imbedded in it. They should have put the entire extension underground, but that wouldn't have met the number one goal of this project, feeding the architects ego.

What you pretentious architect nerds don't understand is that it was exactly your type that 50 years ago were building 12 lane freeways through the middle of cities while the nimbys were trying to save their neighborhoods. You made fun of them then for not understanding progress, just as you do now for resisting your desecration of public spaces with this kind of monstrosity.

Don't you think it's a bit rash to consider anyone who appreciates more abstract forms of architecture 'pretentious' and destructive? So anyone who likes the Eiffel Tower would be the same kind of person who would encourage the destruction of neighbourhoods for 12 lane freeways? Everyone hated the Eiffel when it was built, and many Parisians still do. Would anyone who appreciated the revolutonary work of Louis Sullivan later become a Robert Moses? It's so silly to automatically relate anyone who encourages progressive architecture to the kind of brashly disrespectful work of urban expressway construction.

dktshb · #**126** Posted **Apr 1, 2007, 5:06 PM**

The exterior with its "glow" compliments the original structure, but I don't find it to be all that fastinating. The interior seems dark and uninspiring IMO.

niwell · #**127** Posted **Apr 2, 2007, 7:51 PM**

I think this is a building I'd have to see in person to really appreciate it. From the images online (http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/pop...eshow_speed=10) it looks like a considerable amount of attention was put into the details, despite the minimalist appearance. The reflecting pond installation (image 13 on the link) looks especially interesting.

Such a type of architecture is suited to a museum I think, where you want something innovative, yet not to take away from the art itself. If this was an office building or condo I'd probably think differently.

philip · #**128** Posted **Apr 6, 2007, 4:28 AM**

Looks like a villan's lair with no windows.

LosAngelesBeauty · #**129** Posted **Apr 15, 2007, 9:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrizow

it's also much more about the inside than the outside. it's an enormous underground space with translucent glass "lenses" on the surface. it's gorgeous, particularly at night, and is easily the most important museum project in the world right now. check out the METROPOLIS article.

Razqal · #**130** Posted **Apr 15, 2007, 1:35 PM**

LOSANGELESBEAUTY!!! LOSANGELESBEAUTY!!! HAVENT SEEN YOU IN THE TAIWAN FORUMS LATELY. NOR AT THE ABBEY. WASSUP????

woodrow · #**131** Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 2:17 PM**

Paul Goldberger's review in The New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...printable=true

Short take - He likes it.

Money quote - " . . . one of the best museums of the last generation."

pico44 · #**132** Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 5:57 PM**

Amazing. Kansas City really hit a homerun with this one. Good for them. I can't think of a more interesting (or more beautiful) addition going on for any museum in the world right now. Of course, plans for Piano's new Whitney expansion in SoHo have yet to be released.

observer · #**133** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 3:23 AM**

How do you explain to those who are not architects just how incredible this building is? How do you explain if often takes more effort and talent to elinate than to add? How do you explain the the pain involved in designing and building the least amount possible? I would volunteer that architecture such as this is an aquired taste, but once you 'see' all of it's complexity and simplicity in one glance.......it will leave you craving for more.

woodrow · #**134** Posted **May 19, 2007, 2:41 AM**

^^ observer-
I think the critic from The Washington Post does a nice job of describing what you call the " . . .pain involved in designing and building the least amount possible . . . " (BTW, I like your line). There will probably be more explication of that very aspect as more reviews are written and published.

In any case, he seems impressed -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051800358.html

As is the critic for Bloomberg.com -

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...nJU&refer=muse

UglymanCometh · #**135** Posted **May 22, 2007, 6:35 PM**

I don't know about "most anticipated", but I do like it.

ignatius · #**136** Posted **May 22, 2007, 7:56 PM**

Washington Post digs it...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051800358.html

Quote:

Of course, it may well have a big impact on tourism as word gets out. And despite Wilson's insistence that the building was always meant to serve the art, it has jaw-dropping spaces. The largest of the five boxes -- Holl calls them "lenses" -- has a long, gently sloped and very narrow staircase that seems suspended in midair. It is, in fact, hung from a huge beam disguised as the handrail. The glass panels -- constructed in Germany -- along the wall facing into the museum's new front courtyard seem to be a simple, lightweight cladding, but as you study them, they don't seem to be clad onto anything strong enough to hold them. They are, in fact, hung from a huge cantilevered beam hidden from view. The simplicity of the outside skin of the building entirely hides the drama of its structural support.

"It defies logic," says Casey Cassias Jr. of BNIM architects, the local firm that carried out Holl's design. Yet, "you don't think as you walk through, 'How did they do that?' "

Instead, the eye is captivated by a weird geometry of lines and planes, a play of angles that might be called, paradoxically, both serene and expressionistic. No ceiling is quite parallel to the ground, no hallway perfectly straight. It is as if someone had whitewashed the set to the old German horror classic "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari." And yet it is soothing space, with ample access to the great green lawn just outside.