Nanjing Tech University

英文原文：

Architecture vs. Art: The Aesthetics of Art Museum Design1

Larry Shiner

Abstract: Many art critics have complained that the most dramatic art museum designs of the last decade have upstaged or interfered with the art within. This essay examines eight contemporary cases before drawing some lessons for art museum design, and ends by setting the architecture vs. art problem in the context of the philosophy of architecture, focusing on the issues of function and symbolism.

Keywords: architecture, architecture vs. art, architecture vs. building, art, art museum history, art museum typology, art museums, function, necessary conditions, philosophy of architecture, symbolism; Center for Contemporary Art (Cincinnati), Denver Art Museum, Guggenheim Museum (Bilbao), Institute of Contemporary Art (Boston), Milwaukee Art Museum, Museum of Modern Art (New York), Nelson-Atkins Museum (Kansas City), Pulitzer Foundation (St. Louis)

1.Introduction: Upstaging vs. Interfering

By now we have come to expect audacious designs for new art museums, such as Daniel Libeskinds kaleidoscopic new wing for the Denver Art Museum that opened in the Fall of 2006.

Photograph by author.[2]

But such wild architectural fantasies have also given rise to complaints that museum architecture too often becomes the real art work overshadowing what is inside.

There is little doubt that most of those who fly to Bilbao to visit the Guggenheim Museum (1997) are going primarily to see Frank Gehrys shimmering titanium sculpture. For almost a decade, people in the museum world have talked of the 'Bilbao effect,' referring to the marketing potential for a museum and its city when a famous architect creates an eye-catching design. The primary issue raised by recent art museum designs is how to resolve the tension between architects desire for an artistic statement of their own and art lovers desire for a building that shows the art to best advantage. Obviously, one would like to have both. But many critics have worried that too often the art ends up playing second fiddle to the architecture. A review of the new De Young Museum (2005) in San Francisco began with these lines: 'it seems that architects have become the big bad wolf of the museum world. Too often, flash and bravura win out over contemplation . . . and architecture triumphs over art.'[3] Hal Foster goes even farther in Design and Crime, saying that iconic museum designs often inflate the art museum into 'a gigantic spectacle-space that can swallow any art, let alone any viewer, whole.'[4]

Complaints of this kind actually combine two objections that ought to be distinguished.[5] One objection is that spectacular architecture will upstage or overwhelm the art. The other is that strange curves, odd angles, enormous heights, and brilliant light will directly interfere with our appreciation of the art. I think both these fears are often exaggerated, but the issue itself is an important one with larger implications for the aesthetics of architecture. To get a clearer view of the tension between architecture and art, I propose that we

1. briefly put the issue in historical context,

2) look at examples of the types of museums that are affected differently by radical designs,

3) draw some lessons concerning art museum design, and finally,

4) look at the issue of architecture vs. art in the wider perspective of the philosophy of architecture.

2.Architecture and the Aims of the Art Museum

Since many critics complain that flamboyant museum architecture distracts viewers from the contemplation of artworks, it is worth noting that disinterested contemplation was not the primary aim of those who first opened private collections to the public in the eighteenth century. The first museums had a variable mix of aims: royal or national prestige, the preservation of 'heritage,' providing models for artists and craftsmen, and the enlightenment of the public with an emphasis on arts moral and civic benefits.[6] In terms of architectural form, most of the purpose-built art museums of the nineteenth century adopted some version of classicism, typically with a grand stairway up to an entry under a pediment and columns. Once inside there was usually a great hall, sometimes with a dome and rotunda or even a multi- story atrium.[7] These entryways and reception halls are impressive architectural statements in their own right, and from that perspective, todays dramatic reception halls by Gehry or Calatrava are variations on an old theme. It may be that part of what makes many recent museums seem like a radical break with an architectural tradition more attentive to art is that we have become so accustomed to classical museums that we seldom pay much attention to their architecture.

Moreover, we may be too hasty in thinking that nineteenth century architects were keeping humbly in the background. Leo von Klenzes Glypothek (1815) for King Ludwig of Bavaria, was a monumental building dominated by a high central portico lined with eight Ionic columns. We can see the conflict between architecture and art already beginning in the disagreement over the design of the interior, since the scholar-advisor for the project wanted a sparse interior to set off the statuary, but Klenze won out with his plan for a richly ornamented interior

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

英语译文共 44 页，剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[258882]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word