New Vancouver Art Gallery | Proposed

[s211]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

The current gallery can only show 3% of the VAG's total collection at one time!

As I understand it, even in a new building the VAG would continue to exhibit a small fraction of its collection. They did quote a figure sometime ago, which I don't recall exactly, but I remember thinking "you want to spend how much and then only exhibit a slightly larger amount of your collection than before?".

[mukmuk64]

Yeah measuring effective building size in terms of "percent of collection shown" is probably not the best metric. Probably best to use SqFt.

From the article I pulled that 3% number from:

http://www.vanmag.com/News_and_Features/Fight_for_the_Vancouver_Art_Gallery?page=0%2C2
...
There was the small-bore technical case she made, laid out in the 66-page report the gallery commissioned from Toronto-based Lord Cultural Resources. Lord, with a long list of big-name galleries in its client folder, provided numbers to back up the argument that a bigger gallery could generate the revenue to pay for higher costs, that it wouldn't drain the coffers so much that there'd be no staff or resources to actually do anything in it. The gallery's budget would grow from the current $12.4 million to about $20 million, but the increased attendance, store and café sales, and a mysterious $1 million in additional government and donor funding would pay for it, the report concluded. More space, the Lord report said, always means more visitors and more revenue. The trick is not to overestimate how much more. The current gallery, with 44,000 square feet of exhibition space (a little smaller than what's in Fort Worth, Texas), can show only three percent of its permanent collection at a time. A new building with almost double the exhibition space is projected to boost attendance from 260,000 to 450,000 the first year after opening-typically a time of upswing for any new museum-then average 380,000 a year. Lord (and Bartels) point out that the VAG is more successful than many galleries by the measures that galleries like to use. It gets more visitors per square foot of exhibition space and has more members than other galleries its size. The VAG doesn't get anywhere near the government money-provincial or federal-that Ontario and Quebec galleries do, nor American ones. Instead, it's the Vancouver public that allows the VAG its successes. They pay the relatively expensive $22.50 high-season admission, buy memberships at 30,000 people a year, shop at the museum store, rent its rooms for parties, and generally love the gallery enough that they cover 48 percent of its budget. In American galleries, support from patrons accounts for an average of 22 percent.
...

So the current VAG building is a bit smaller than Fort Worth's art gallery.

Would be very interesting to see where Vancouver places amongst cities in terms of "sqft for art museums" amongst major cities in the world. I suspect Vancouver places pretty low.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by s211

As I understand it, even in a new building the VAG would continue to exhibit a small fraction of its collection. They did quote a figure sometime ago, which I don't recall exactly, but I remember thinking "you want to spend how much and then only exhibit a slightly larger amount of your collection than before?".

Actually, I think that's the case with most major art galleries or museums. The British Museum only exhibits around 1% of its collection of 8 million items at any one time. So, increasing the items on display by even say, 0.5%, means finding space for an additional 40,000 items.

Obviously, the VAG's collection isn't anywhere near as large, but it's still quite sizeable. Plus, I seem to recall one of the issues with the current location was in fact the limited storage space that also wasn't optimal for preservation of the collection.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Didn't we hear that the courts wanted to expand back into the building?

Yes, that's my understanding - that the courts would jump on the existing space (which is owned by the Province).

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Actually, I think that's the case with most major art galleries or museums. The British Museum only exhibits around 1% of its collection of 8 million items at any one time. So, increasing the items on display by even say, 0.5%, means finding space for an additional 40,000 items.

Obviously, the VAG's collection isn't anywhere near as large, but it's still quite sizeable. Plus, I seem to recall one of the issues with the current location was in fact the limited storage space that also wasn't optimal for preservation of the collection.

Yes despite the VAG's hair-tearing the 3% figure is not out of line with other instituions. It is not a national museum, just a regional one.

...Overall percentages paint an even more dramatic picture: the Tate shows about 20% of its permanent collection. The Louvre shows 8%, the Guggenheim a lowly 3% and the Berlinische Galerie – a Berlin museum whose mandate is to show, preserve and collect art made in the city – 2% of its holdings....
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150123-7-masterpieces-you-cant-see

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

but those percentages are also relevant to the # of paintings in the collection. if a collection of one million shows 2%, this is a lot more then a collection of 10,500 showing 4%.

even though the % is the same, the number of paintings on display can be very different. the less people can see, the less inclined they will be to want to go since there is no point. there is also the fact a courthouse is pretty much useless in preserving artwork, you need a proper storage facility for that, not only climate controlled but highly secured since you are talking about tens of millions in artwork.

and i don't know about anyone else, but i would love the province to expand back into the original building, seeing those historic court rooms, talk about history.

[djh]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

but those percentages are also relevant to the # of paintings in the collection. if a collection of one million shows 2%, this is a lot more then a collection of 10,500 showing 4%.

even though the % is the same, the number of paintings on display can be very different. the less people can see, the less inclined they will be to want to go since there is no point. there is also the fact a courthouse is pretty much useless in preserving artwork, you need a proper storage facility for that, not only climate controlled but highly secured since you are talking about tens of millions in artwork.

and i don't know about anyone else, but i would love the province to expand back into the original building, seeing those historic court rooms, talk about history.

That BBC article was excellent in explaining the reasons why galleries have large collections, much of which is not on display.

But your reasoning behind why people go to galleries is flawed. "Quality, not quantity" is probably the defining role of a gallery. People regularly go to galleries to see exhibitions by specific artists, or even just to go and see a single specific work. Nobody says "I'm NOT going to the Louvre because there's only one Mona Lisa so there's no point."

I agree that the Vancouver Art Gallery could definitely do with displaying more of its collection. But I'd guess many people would be way more inclined to go if it was showing way better-quality (read: well-known artists') work in the space (including national and international pieces), rather than increasing it's space and showing work from middle-level artists.

The dream scenario would be to have BOTH an expansion AND higher-quality work on show. But that's down to dollars and reputation. Maybe a fantastic world-class new location would raise the profile enough to encourage other galleries and individuals to tour their collections at the new VAG.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

How does this compare with other cities' major art galleries, and the world's great galleries? I honestly don't know. Without a comparison to the 'best-practice' number in the art world, 3% isn't meaningful.

What portion of the collection is cycled through each year? If 3% of the collection can be displayed at any one time, how much remains on permanent display and how much is rotated through?

Say that 1% of the gallery's collection is always on permanent display, that's the Emily Carr and Group of Seven work that will be forever on display. That means that 2% of the collection can be on display at any given time without impacting the permanent collection. If the gallery's curators were to cycle through the entire remaining 99% of their collection through the non-permanent part of the gallery, 2% of a time, with four shows a year, it would take 12.5 years to cycle everything though, assuming that the collection remains static during that time with no additions or subtractions.

Let's even be more realistic and say that on an annual basis, 1/3 of the gallery's display capacity that is not allocated to the permanent collection is used to display visiting pieces, meaning that the 12.5 years needed to cycle through the entire non-permanent collection increases to 16.67 years. If they had started this process in 1998 they could have shown everything they've got by now, all while showing a non-stop array of visiting works and keeping the permanent treasures on display the whole time. Call me a philistine, but that doesn't sound very unreasonable to me.

I don't know how realistic this is. I know nothing about curating an art gallery. I have a hunch that the gallery has a lot in its collection that it will never realistically ever show, plus a portion of the collection must always be out on loan to the public through their art rental program, plus reciprocal lending to other major art galleries. Plus, there must be works in the collection that will get a lot more public showing than others. I suspect that we will never have to wait all that long to see the works of Fred Herzog and company from the Vancouver School, so a random estate donation of a lessor work in need of restoration that the gallery accepted in the 80s will likely stay in storage for good.

So, how much of the VAG's collection that is likely to be shown can the gallery currently display at once? How much do they want to be able to display? How much room, and what kind of gallery spaces, do they need to display their preferred amount?

I don't know, maybe this is one of those things when the art world truly knows best what they need to take their curating capacity to the next level. Maybe we'll all be blown away by the design, money will rain from motivated donors, they'll build something spectacular on the new site that let's us experience the Bilbao Effect. Maybe more money will rain from heaven and the tired building systems, lighting, and layout obstacles of the current VAG will be inconsequential to an enthusiastic Vancouver Museum who transform the VAG into the MOV. Perhaps, as part of this process, money and world class landscape architectural design talent will rain down to transform the city's most dour-yet-important public space - the VAG's Georgia Plaza - and we can get the city square that the city's deserves.

Does the art gallery have a permanent display? Last time I was in there I brought my mom and she wanted to see some Emily Carr, and there were none to be found.

I almost think the VAG could support 2 sites. Instead of blowing it's load on a giant new building, build a smaller new building. A new, architectural masterpiece, that can house modern art and media. It could be attached to the Emily Carr institute and other schools and provide teaching and study and experimentation, as well as a proper storage facility to keep the collection not on display safe (and available for study). Then make the current VAG building the Classical Gallery. Put Emily Carr, Group of 7, Bill Reid, and others in the Classic building, along with historical photos and artifacts from the region and restore the interior (If the legislature is any sign, I bet it is amazing if it remains under that white plaster). You can make it a combination Vancouver art and history museum, while leaving the current MOV site the childish family day trip site it currently is.

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Does the art gallery have a permanent display? Last time I was in there I brought my mom and she wanted to see some Emily Carr, and there were none to be found.

They don't and it's a big problem. Imagine going to the Louvre but the Mona Lisa has been cycled out that season in favour of a bunch of other paintings.

Certainly there's nothing at the Mona Lisa level of attraction (yet) but I can think of several high quality and historically important items that would deserve being shown constantly.

As well a piece of art never gets to that 'Mona Lisa' level of renown unless many people can see it and they can depend on being able to see it all the time.

Essentially expanding the VAG allows the gallery to be able to permanently show select pieces, which has the potential to turn those individual works into international tourism draws, which benefits Vancouver tourism overall.

[ozonemania]

Listened to an interesting interview on CBC The Current today:

Architect Jacques Herzog shapes city culture with building design - May 20, 2015
The man who brought Beijing its Birds Nest is now soaring toward another project, eyeing an empty parking lot that will become a new Vancouver Art Gallery. Architect Jacques Herzog shares his ideas on how a building can change the cultural face of a city.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-c...y-culture-with-building-design-1.3080135

Interviewing Jacques Herzog and talking on some of his ideas surrounding the design of the new Vancouver Art Gallery. He hints at some of his observations about how he sees the city of Vancouver, Toronto, Canada in general. He clearly has an appreciation but also hints at some reservations as well.

[Klazu]

Is something happening with the VAG plaza or why have they cut down those nice trees at the corner of Georgia and Howe? That corner looks so empty now.

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Is something happening with the VAG plaza or why have they cut down those nice trees at the corner of Georgia and Howe? That corner looks so empty now.

It's a metaphor for the vacuous nature of the city.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Is something happening with the VAG plaza or why have they cut down those nice trees at the corner of Georgia and Howe? That corner looks so empty now.

Well, last week I saw some trees over there with roots being bundled up. Not sure if any were actually chopped down, but the ones bundled up were moved.

[Klazu]

Yeah, the trees were completely gone. Like no sign of there ever having been trees in there. I wonder why they removed them? Hopefully they will be brought back or something.

[officedweller]

They're probably repairing the underground vaults.
All the trees on Robson Square were removed and brought back after the repair work - so probably the same here, too.

[Graham_Yvr]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Is something happening with the VAG plaza or why have they cut down those nice trees at the corner of Georgia and Howe? That corner looks so empty now.

The City had a notice posted there that the trees were removed in advance of repair work. The trees were being re-positioned in Vanier Park IIRC.

The notice then went on to say that after repair work, the plaza was to be redesigned, and new trees added back as part of the new design.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by EdinVan

It's a metaphor for the vacuous nature of the city.

lol. i got it

[BCPhil]

The corner does look emptier, but it does provider better sight lines. You can see the beautiful architecture of the Gallery from across the street. You can go anywhere to see trees, there is only 1 art gallery.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Is something happening with the VAG plaza or why have they cut down those nice trees at the corner of Georgia and Howe? That corner looks so empty now.

FIFA party zone.

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/05/fifa-womens-world-cup-fan-zone-vancouver/

Don't let a world-class scandal stop the bread and circus' for the 99%

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The corner does look emptier, but it does provider better sight lines. You can see the beautiful architecture of the Gallery from across the street. You can go anywhere to see trees, there is only 1 art gallery.

Exactly what I thought!!!! Only have one art gallery why would you want to block it.