Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
The Daily Photoist: November 23, 2009
Urban Planner: November 23, 2009
Image courtesy of the ROM.
On Friday, as part of Doors Open, the ROM hosted "The Bold Museum": an informal discussion between Kenton Vaughan (the director of The Museum, a documentary on the construction of the Michael Lee-Chin Crystal) and Kelvin Browne (the author of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum). We had high hopes for the event, as the ROM’s transformation is beautifully explored in Browne and Vaughan’s work, but instead of sharing their knowledge, the two spent the night discussing the merits of their creations, rather than the substance of them.
The presentation part of the evening was only saved by Browne and Vaughan’s anecdotes about Daniel Libeskind, the crystal’s lead architect, and his giant ego. According to Browne, after Bold Visions was published, the museum hosted a book signing with Libeskind and himself. There, Libeskind, in top form, happily chatted up the book’s merits and signed dozens of copies, before revealing to Browne that he had never even read it. Both Browne and Vaughan seemed to agree that Libeskind, while brilliant, was somewhat of a pompous phony. "He’s amazingly poetic," laughed Browne. "But a lot of what he says doesn’t make sense." Like us, the audience also enjoyed hearing about Libeskind's foibles and responded with roars of laughter every time the world-renowned architect was roasted.
Even after two years, though, the crystal can still induce rage. The most dramatic part of the evening came at the end of the question-and-answer period, when a man at the back of the crowd leapt to his feet and demanded that the hosts justify the crystal’s high cost. Several other audience members also voiced their disdain. We felt sorry for Browne and Vaughan, as they were treated like the crystal's creators instead of its historians. When he was designing the crystal, Libeskind said that he wanted a building that would evoke controversy and discussion and stay in the public’s minds for years to come; it looks like, for better or worse, he got his wish.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Libeskind is a pompous phony? I couldn't agree more. You will be interested to know that Daniel and Nina Libeskind paid another architect (Alex Gorlin) to design their home in New York. That didn't stop Danniel from lying to the New York Times, and saying he designed it himself. (The Times had to print a rare correction,)
But Libeskind's 15 minutes of fame are coming to an end. The Washington post described the ROM as "the most perverse and disastrous museum expansion in living memory." And Edward Rothstein, writing recently in the New York Times, lambasted Libeskin's Jewish Museum in Berlin, criticizing the pretentious architect for "trivialising history". Rothstein went on to liken the Jewish Museum to a cheap fairground ride.
Daniel Libeskind has always been a moronic buffoon, wrapping dumb architectural ideas in fast-talking jargon designed to evade question and criticism. No one can doubt that the emporor is wearing no clothes. Bravo to Kenton Vaughan and Kelvin Browne for giving Libeskind the ridicule he and his foolish architecture deserves.
I'm ambivalent about the ROM expansion, but you're making a fairly serious, and potentially libellous, allegation that Libeskind "lied" to the New York Times. If you go back to the source—the May 21, 2006, interview— the error would seem to be an accidental one by the newspaper rather than any misrepresentation by the architect. Though if you have any more reliable sources, feel free to share them.
As for the other points:
1) The "Washington Post" didn't criticize the ROM expansion. Rather, one writer (Philip Kennicott) wrote that the ROM expansion "may be the most perverse and disastrous museum expansion in living memory" [emphasis added]. However, another writer (Cindy Loose) seemed to take the opposite view.
2) On the subject of the Jewish Museum in Berlin, the New York Times article by Edward Rothstein spends far more time critiquing the exhibitions than the architecture. And the allegation that it "trivializes history" is directed against the displays rather than the building.
I like the outside of the Crystal, but not the inside (from what I've seen passing through for Nuit Blanche). I just wonder... when will someone realize the Bloor sidewalk needs some trees?