Comments on: Fast Talk: With Daniel Libeskind http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/05/21/fast_talk_with_daniel_libeskin/ Reflections on art and architecture by TIME critic Richard Lacayo. Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:49:09 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: OCAD student http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/05/21/fast_talk_with_daniel_libeskin/comment-page-1/#comment-61 OCAD student Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:21:12 +0000 http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/05/21/fast_talk_with_daniel_libeskin/#comment-61 I've been to Libeskind's Jewish Museum in Berlin, and have also studied his deconstructivist approach to architecture through my design classes at OCAD (another strangely innovative Toronto architectural venture), but I have yet to judge the ROM addition because I have not seen the interior and therefore can not truly measure its success or lack thereof in accommodating artwork—its primary purpose. However, having a broader understanding of how Libeskind derives inspiration and infuses this fervent enthusiasm into his work, enables me to be more open-minded about his outright rejection of the past and his determination to create something that speaks a completely new language. The Jewish Museum is not some crude assembly of shards and voids without meaning, and therefore how can we, in a single glance, assume that is what the ROM is? In fact, the ROM, much like the Jewish Museum and NOT the Denver Art Museum, is a historical and cultural institution that houses much more than just artwork. Dramatic sloping walls and angles may not necessarily be a hinderance to many of the displays, since they don't necessarily need to be hung on walls, plus I didn't see any of the architectural after-thoughts mentioned about the Denver Art Museum above, at the Jewish Museum. The reality is that this building is now something people talk about and it brings a new vernacular to Toronto that didn't exist before. It will thrive among the OCADs and the AGOs and long outlive the epidemic of condos threatening to destroy the entire fabric of Toronto's inherent culture. We should be welcoming change of this sort rather than championing against it. Aren't there more adverse and less inspriring structures to vehemently oppose in Toronto? I've been to Libeskind's Jewish Museum in Berlin, and have also studied his deconstructivist approach to architecture through my design classes at OCAD (another strangely innovative Toronto architectural venture), but I have yet to judge the ROM addition because I have not seen the interior and therefore can not truly measure its success or lack thereof in accommodating artwork—its primary purpose. However, having a broader understanding of how Libeskind derives inspiration and infuses this fervent enthusiasm into his work, enables me to be more open-minded about his outright rejection of the past and his determination to create something that speaks a completely new language.

The Jewish Museum is not some crude assembly of shards and voids without meaning, and therefore how can we, in a single glance, assume that is what the ROM is? In fact, the ROM, much like the Jewish Museum and NOT the Denver Art Museum, is a historical and cultural institution that houses much more than just artwork. Dramatic sloping walls and angles may not necessarily be a hinderance to many of the displays, since they don't necessarily need to be hung on walls, plus I didn't see any of the architectural after-thoughts mentioned about the Denver Art Museum above, at the Jewish Museum.

The reality is that this building is now something people talk about and it brings a new vernacular to Toronto that didn't exist before. It will thrive among the OCADs and the AGOs and long outlive the epidemic of condos threatening to destroy the entire fabric of Toronto's inherent culture. We should be welcoming change of this sort rather than championing against it. Aren't there more adverse and less inspriring structures to vehemently oppose in Toronto?

]]> By: Johann Mayles http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/05/21/fast_talk_with_daniel_libeskin/comment-page-1/#comment-60 Johann Mayles Wed, 30 May 2007 23:43:45 +0000 http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/05/21/fast_talk_with_daniel_libeskin/#comment-60 Libeskind is a hypocrite. What kind of architect hires another architect to design his own home? Libeskind would never put up with that sloping / slashing nonsense in his own home, so he hired a "safe" architect (one who used to do traditional interiors, no less) to give him a normal space to live in. Libeskind is a hypocrite. What kind of architect hires another architect to design his own home? Libeskind would never put up with that sloping / slashing nonsense in his own home, so he hired a "safe" architect (one who used to do traditional interiors, no less) to give him a normal space to live in.

]]> By: amberglow http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/05/21/fast_talk_with_daniel_libeskin/comment-page-1/#comment-59 amberglow Tue, 22 May 2007 23:23:22 +0000 http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/05/21/fast_talk_with_daniel_libeskin/#comment-59 His work is very unwelcoming and repetitive (and kinda mean and aggressive too). I'll take Calatrava anytime. His work is very unwelcoming and repetitive (and kinda mean and aggressive too).

I'll take Calatrava anytime.

]]> By: Anonymous http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/05/21/fast_talk_with_daniel_libeskin/comment-page-1/#comment-58 Anonymous Tue, 22 May 2007 16:14:37 +0000 http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/05/21/fast_talk_with_daniel_libeskin/#comment-58 We toured the Denver Art Museum in March. The building is very striking from the outside and is a major addition to the cityscape, particularly in conjuntion with the older buildings around it. However, it is difficult inside. The walls are all painted white. Those that slope forward now have tacky wooden "curbs" along the floor to keep people from hitting their heads. The back sloping walls are all scuffed as shoes hit the wall at the floor. Of course hanging art on the sloping walls is difficult. In addition the sharply angular exterior has begun leaking from all of the snow over the winter that accumulates in the angles. We toured the Denver Art Museum in March. The building is very striking from the outside and is a major addition to the cityscape, particularly in conjuntion with the older buildings around it. However, it is difficult inside. The walls are all painted white. Those that slope forward now have tacky wooden "curbs" along the floor to keep people from hitting their heads. The back sloping walls are all scuffed as shoes hit the wall at the floor. Of course hanging art on the sloping walls is difficult. In addition the sharply angular exterior has begun leaking from all of the snow over the winter that accumulates in the angles.

]]> By: S_Becker http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/05/21/fast_talk_with_daniel_libeskin/comment-page-1/#comment-57 S_Becker Tue, 22 May 2007 15:16:19 +0000 http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/05/21/fast_talk_with_daniel_libeskin/#comment-57 Mr. Libeskind's defense of his architecture falls short for me. I agree with his contention that we need an architectural vanguard pushing the envelope of our profession, and that the box need not be the go-to solution for every situation. However his forms rebound too strongly in the opposite direction. If you think of a beautiful window, it has to do two things. It must stand on its own and speak for itself as an object in terms of craftsmanship, design, all the things we hold architecture to. But equally, it must be able to disappear, and just serve as a window, not interfering with the view. This is the challenge of architecture, to make something which has its own voice and can stand on its own, but equally can fade to the background and serve as a canvas for the potential events that occur with it. His buildings have quite a loud voice and satisfy the first criteria, but are so loud they can never become background. Thus, the occupants, and the events and happenings which this building is supposed to engender, are instead always reckoning with the building itself. Mr. Libeskind's defense of his architecture falls short for me. I agree with his contention that we need an architectural vanguard pushing the envelope of our profession, and that the box need not be the go-to solution for every situation. However his forms rebound too strongly in the opposite direction. If you think of a beautiful window, it has to do two things. It must stand on its own and speak for itself as an object in terms of craftsmanship, design, all the things we hold architecture to. But equally, it must be able to disappear, and just serve as a window, not interfering with the view.

This is the challenge of architecture, to make something which has its own voice and can stand on its own, but equally can fade to the background and serve as a canvas for the potential events that occur with it. His buildings have quite a loud voice and satisfy the first criteria, but are so loud they can never become background. Thus, the occupants, and the events and happenings which this building is supposed to engender, are instead always reckoning with the building itself.

]]>