Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk
Post Number: 980 Registered: 11-2005
| Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 4:37 am: | |
Anyone else excited to see what it's going to look like? The huge spread and preview that the Freep did makes it look impressive. Not a huge fan of the architecture of the addition, but like my mommy always said, it's what's inside that counts. |
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy
Post Number: 6218 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 5:07 am: | |
I've seen little peeks from here & there within the DIA during construction and I can't wait for it to re-open. I always thought the museum was cool and now it's WAY cool. |
Texorama Member Username: Texorama
Post Number: 88 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 5:11 am: | |
Supposedly the new displays are going to be fairly radical in terms of exhibition design. So it's interesting that they went with a fairly conservative concept for the exterior additions, especially when weird museum structures are going up all over the place. Maybe they thought people couldn't take a dual shock. |
56packman Member Username: 56packman
Post Number: 1852 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 8:07 am: | |
.............or perhaps someone with taste didn't want to get on the Frank Gehry bandwagon in spite of the classical architecture of the original museum building. There's two ways it can go--someone can respect the original design and build an addition that is very contemporary yet has some of the classical forms (even if just vestigal) expressed in a modern way ----OR---- It can just be an ego trip about what administrator (or developer or politician) "X" WANTS and you end up with a wing, or wings that look like they dropped out of space, or should have been built in Troy (the bad 70s design museum). |
Texorama Member Username: Texorama
Post Number: 90 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 10:51 am: | |
Both modern and classical additions can be done well, or badly--driving around the building, the net effect for me of the new structures is to turn the whole block into a blob of gray stone. Some museums have opted to have a lot of natural light, but maybe they figured there wasn't enough of that around here. Anyway, if the interior turns out to make sense, I'm on board all the way. Really curious to see what they come up with--the Metro Times did a big attack on the plans last year suggesting that they were going to dumb the exhibits down, but I bet they'll do a good job. Several of the special exhibitions from the last few years were among the best I've ever seen anywhere. In some ways I learned more about the Medici family and Florence from their show than I did by going and seeing the stuff firsthand, for example. |
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy
Post Number: 6220 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 11:11 am: | |
Hmmm... I missed that MT article about them dumbing down the exhibits. But one wonders if that's a good thing for the viewer- especially for the un-initiated viewer. I'm wondering if the Metro Times is slamming the fact that some of the exhibits are geared more towards families & the kids. Conversely on the flip side of the coin is that the DIA could make it so heady, only art historians can really understand the relevance of some of the exhibits. I agree, Texorama- I think they'll find a happy middle ground where a lot of the people will enjoy. They've really hunkered down and have done a really thorough & concise job with the shows as of late. The DIA truly is a jewel in the city people need to come see again & again. |
Texorama Member Username: Texorama
Post Number: 91 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 11:42 am: | |
This was the Metro Times article: http://www.metrotimes.com/edit orial/story.asp?id=10036 And here was the director's response (pretty strong, I thought): http://www.metrotimes.com/edit orial/story.asp?id=10115 They're trying to put the art in its context, and that offers the chance to do some things for families, etc. It does not eliminate in-depth treatments. The Degas exhibition as a whole had much more detail about his life and world than similar blockbuster shows. |
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 1184 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 11:48 am: | |
I miss the contrast between the black granite and the original section-- the black served to highlight the original. But I don't mind the lack of windows in the new sections-- when I go to a museum I go to see the exhibits, not daylight. It's OK to have a self-contained world where you can forget for a while what's outside. And it can be a pain to protect exhibits from the UV light which comes through windows. |
Southen Member Username: Southen
Post Number: 332 Registered: 08-2006
| Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 1:44 pm: | |
Im hoping that the interior is spectacular because Michael Graves design on the exterior really does nothing for me. Perhaps in the future if an addition is necessary they will go a bit more outside the box. |
Steelworker Member Username: Steelworker
Post Number: 1020 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 1:47 pm: | |
YIPPIE it is reopening on my B-day looks like i know what im doing to celebrate. |
Msamslex Member Username: Msamslex
Post Number: 8 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 4:07 pm: | |
Steelworker, I had the same idea, go to the DIA on my birthday! Mine is the 24th! |
Oakmangirl Member Username: Oakmangirl
Post Number: 567 Registered: 08-2007
| Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 5:32 pm: | |
Im hoping that the interior is spectacular because Michael Graves design on the exterior really does nothing for me. Perhaps in the future if an addition is necessary they will go a bit more outside the box. Southen, I agree. Not only is Michael Graves too literal an architect, he's also very dated and boring, IMO. I wonder what Pei would have designed; his glass pyramid at the Louvre is stunning at night. |