Skip to main content

On Libeskind's extension to the Denver Art Museum


At the Denver Art Museum, looking at the collections inside the new building designed by Daniel Libeskind. The exterior is very impressive, all exploding cubes, aggressive diagonal prows thrusting into space, shiny surfaces. Once you go inside, it gradually dawns on you what a bad design this is to show art in. None of the interior walls are rectangles, it seems. They're mainly polygons, very often all different within one room. This is no doubt intentional, but it seems to make it difficult to show any pieces with a consistent sightline.

Nevertheless, there is a lot of good art in the contemporary collection. A sculpture by Jim Dine called 'Wheat Fields' impressed me most. It struck me so much that I intend to write about it at greater length.

Tomorrow, I'm meeting an artist at her studio in the Santa Fe arts district of Denver. More later

 Subscribe to Praeterita in a reader

Comments

  1. I agree with you. Libeskind's design is horrendous. It overwhelms and diminishes the artwork. It's all about Libeskind and his insatiable ego. (Libeskind's other North American museum, the ROM in Toronto, was given the dubious distinction of being the "Worst Building of the Decade" by the Washington Post. It also made the "World's Top Ten Ugliest Buildings' on VirtualTourist.com) Nice to see someone call a spade a spade instead of hearing people heap praise on this over-rated clown.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Contrast that with the new modern wing of the Art Institute of Chicago, designed by Pritzker Prize–winning architect Renzo Piano. It is stunning. If you can, visit for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you can't visit, view additional info here:
    http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/exhibitions/modernwing/overview

    ReplyDelete
  4. TJ4321:
    The more I thought about the Libeskind Dam, the more I disliked it. The artist whose studio I visited in Denver told me that the building leaks, too. She also told me that when people from the board of the DAM raised questions about the suitability of Libeskind's design for showing art, L. replied: 'I couldn't give a fuck about the art.'

    ReplyDelete
  5. On a professional level I find Libeskind to be an over-rated hack with zero skill and less competence. I've seen him speak at lectures. Those experiences left me with the feeling that he is the most dishonest, disingenuous liar and cheat I've ever been in twenty feet of. I would not believe a word out of his mouth. He says one thing to please a gullible and juvenile audience. He immediately disregards it and designs whatever piece of shit his ego dictates. He is disgusting on so many levels that he is a disgrace to the human race.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On my 300th blog post

Crikey!

It's my 300th blog post. And I seem to remember that in my 200th blog post I said that I would start quoting from John Ruskin's "Praeterita", after which this blog was named. Well, better late then never, so quotation number 2 is below.

First, though, some thoughts on this blog and blogging in general. I started Praeterita at the end of last year after reading a book by an art-marketing guru called Alyson Stansfield that recommended it as a means for artists to publicise their work better. But from the start I thought it would be more interesting to talk in a discursive way about my wider interest in art, and artists, and the history of art. After a desultory beginning where I only posted once a week, my blogging habit has now grown to the point where I am posting sometimes twice a day, and more than 45 times per month (helped enormously by the Blogger feature that lets you save blog posts with a post-dated timestamp, so that you can put posts in the bank to …

My worst open studio

Most open studios are notable for nothing really happening. You sit there waiting for people to come into your studio, eat all your nibbles and guzzle the free drink, and then leave after a cursory glance at your work. Usually, the worst thing that happens is that you get stuck in a boring conversation with a dull person,

But there was one time a few years ago when I got into one of these conversations, and quite quickly the person I was talking to started to make homophobic remarks about another artist in the building. After a few minutes, I decided I'd had enough and asked him to leave. He seemed genuinely surprised that I had any objection to what he was saying, which in retrospect makes me even angrier if he thought he had a sympathetic ear.

He asked me why, and I told him I didn't like people talking that way, and I said: "This conversation ended 30 seconds ago." So he left.

So, nothing dramatic like Jackson Pollock getting drunk in a fancy New York apartment a…

Van Gogh on Degas

From a letter dated July 31, 1888:
“Why do you say Degas can’t get it up properly? Degas lives like some petty lawyer and doesn’t like women, knowing very well that if he did like them and bedded them frequently, he’d go to seed and be in no position to paint any longer. The very reason why Degas’s painting is virile and impersonal is that he has resigned himself to being nothing more than a petty lawyer with a horror of kicking over the traces. He observes human animals who are stronger than him screwing and f—ing away and he paints them so well for the very reason that he isn’t all that keen on it himself.”
Subscribe to Praeterita in a reader