A $140 million dollar plan for a new art museum in Berkeley has been stalled due to uncertainties about the economy.
Nancy at Chez NamasteNancy isn't so sure that's a bad thing, because she thinks current Bay Area art museums could do better:
The Bay Area has several "new" or "newish" museums and they do a poor
job of displaying the art. The new Jewish Contemporary Museum has an
expensive, stainless steel gizmo attached on one side of the old
building. It has two floors, one of which is used for a gift shop. Now,
that doesn't seem like a very good use of expensive space. Furthermore,
the fancy architecture can't be seen because it's crammed along side a
small alley with large buildings on either side. So, what's the point?
As an artist, of course I'd prefer that there be more space for art. As
an art historian, I wish that what art they have could be better
displayed. The same goes for the current Berkeley Art Museum. Outside
it looks like a huge concrete bunker. Inside - it looks like a huge
concrete bunker. Traditional paintings are overwhelmed in this cold
space; even works of contemporary painters like Howard Hodgkins don't
show well when hung against a huge concrete wall. Not even Hans
Hoffman's huge flamboyant pieces show up that well when they have to
compete with the vast atrium space in the middle of the museum. Our new
De Young Museum still looks like a Stalinist prison from the outside
and the inside foyer is three ceilings high. Where is the room for the
art? Anybody else care to comment?
Could Bay Area art museums do with concentrating more on being an appropriate backdrop for the art inside, as opposed to being their own visual statement? Good questions from Chez NamasteNancy.
Go tell her what you think.
