Design Observer

About
Books
Job Board
Newsletters
Archive
Contact



Observatory

About
Resources
Submissions
Contact


Featured Writers

Michael Bierut
William Drenttel
John Foster
Jessica Helfand
Alexandra Lange
Mark Lamster
Paul Polak
Rick Poynor
John Thackara
Rob Walker


Departments

Advertisement
Audio
Books
Collections
Dear Bonnie
Dialogues
Essays
Events
Foster Column
From Our Archive
Gallery
Interviews
Miscellaneous
Opinions
Partner News
Photos
Poetry
Primary Sources
Projects
Report
Reviews
Slideshows
The Academy
Today Column
Unusual Suspects
Video


Topics

Advertising
Architecture
Art
Books
Branding
Business
Cities / Places
Community
Craft
Culture
Design History
Design Practice
Development
Disaster Relief
Ecology
Economy
Education
Energy
Environment
Fashion
Film / Video
Food/Agriculture
Geography
Global / Local
Graphic Design
Health / Safety
History
Housing
Ideas
Illustration
India
Industry
Info Design
Infrastructure
Interaction Design
Internet / Blogs
Journalism
Landscape
Literature
Magazines
Media
Museums
Music
Nature
Obituary
Other
Peace
Philanthropy
Photography
Planning
Poetry
Politics / Policy
Popular Culture
Poverty
Preservation
Product Design
Public / Private
Public Art
Religion
Reputations
Science
Shelter
Social Enterprise
Sports
Sustainability
Technology
Theory/Criticism
Transportation
TV / Radio
Typography
Urbanism
Water


Comments Posted 06.03.10 | PERMALINK | PRINT

Alexandra Lange

My .02 on the Whitney


OK, so I am obsessed with the Whitney. It seemed like everyone had taken their shot at outrage, pleasure, conspiracy theory regarding the museum’s move from their Marcel Breuer building on the Upper East Side to a (thankfully not neo-classical, or beloggia-ed) Renzo Piano building at the base of the High Line, and perhaps there was nothing more to say. I did some outraged Tweeting. But I keep thinking about the building, and in my head my voice is rather shrill, an indication that I should write a blog post and not bore people at a BBQ.

Why am I so emotional? The Whitney is my second-favorite building in New York, after Lever House. To me it personifies the quest for new forms, new uses for materials and new moods in modern architecture. It isn’t like anywhere else. It is beautiful. It has gravitas.

First, the idea that the Whitney is not a good place to show contemporary art is outrageous. There is no better place to see a Barnett Newman. And who knows where contemporary art will go? For Whitney director Adam Weinberg to tell the Times

the downtown site was necessary if the institution wanted to stay relevant. “It became apparent that to try to expand uptown meant building vertically or ruin the integrity of the Breuer building,” he said. “And vertical museums don’t work because in order to show the kind of art being made today, we need large open spaces.”

shows a short-sightedness that I couldn’t believe he wasn’t called on. Then Roberta Smith added insult to injury. If the Whitney is chasing the perfect architecture to show “the kind of art being made today,” their Piano building will be obsolete before it is finished. I was so happy when Chuck Close told the Observer: “I’ve shown in the Modern, the Met and the Whitney and I think the fourth floor of the Whitney is the best place I’ve ever shown,” he said.

Second, if the Whitney thinks a new building will help it compete with Met/MoMA/Guggenheim, they really are rolling the dice. They have an icon, one powerful enough that Pentagram’s Abbott Miller incorporated its gravity and awkwardness into their identity when he redesigned it in 2000. And they are throwing that identity away. They have picked an architect for the new building whose museum ubiquity is beginning to be comical, and told him who knows what. Yes, they will have big spaces, but so does the New Museum, which managed to build an icon (at least from the outside) but still doesn’t seem to know quite what to do with the contents.

It’s strange, but they seem to be kicking Breuer to the curb at precisely the moment that Brutalism comes back, much as MAD turned its back on Edward Durell Stone at the moment ornament was rehabilitated. The Whitney might become MAD: new building that doesn’t quite stick in the mind, a hip logo floating in the digital ether. It should come together, but it doesn’t.

At the end of Aaron Betsky’s rather flip summary of the situation (the Michael Graves addition proposals will always be a travesty) he mentions a possibility that made my blood run cold: retail. If the Met leases the Whitney, and installs their Newmans, Closes, and Pollocks, maybe we can all be happy. But I think the Whitney will repel retail. It was built to be a museum, it is a great museum, but without art, it might as well be dead.

Share This Story

RELATED POSTS


What I Learned from Architect Barbie


Utopian Image: Politics and Posters


Red and Gold: A Tale of Two Apartheid Museums


Head of the Dragon: The Rise of New Shanghai


Networks Before the Internet



LOG IN TO POST A COMMENT
Don't have an account? Create an account. Forgot your password? Click here.

Email


Password




|
Share This Story



Alexandra Lange is an architecture and design critic, and author of Writing about Architecture: Mastering the Language of Buildings and Cities. (Princeton Architectural Press, 2012). Her work has appeared in The Architect's Newspaper, Architectural Record, Dwell, Metropolis, Print, New York Magazine and The New York Times.
More >>

DESIGN OBSERVER JOBS









BOOKS BY Alexandra Lange

Writing About Architecture: Mastering the Language of Buildings and Cities
Princeton Architectural Press, 2012

Design Research
Chronicle Books, 2010

More books by contributors >>