Coming Soon to the Museum's Great Hall
[nggallery id=”53566″ template=galleryview] The Architect’s Newspaper has news about a temporary installation by Situ Studio that’s landing in the Brooklyn Museum’s Great Hall: “The work will transform the hall’s 16 classical columns with nearly 2,200 yards of Sunbrella Canvas-Natural fabric, which is to be folded and stretched over suspended bent-steel tubing and plywood rings with…
[nggallery id=”53566″ template=galleryview]
The Architect’s Newspaper has news about a temporary installation by Situ Studio that’s landing in the Brooklyn Museum’s Great Hall: “The work will transform the hall’s 16 classical columns with nearly 2,200 yards of Sunbrella Canvas-Natural fabric, which is to be folded and stretched over suspended bent-steel tubing and plywood rings with diameters ranging from 5 to 20 feet. Beneath the fabric shapes, Situ will install benches and tables fabricated with LG Hausys HI-MACS solid surfacing, creating the rounded benches with a controlled heat process called thermoforming.” The museum notes that the “project will be the first installation in the Ennead Architects–designed renovation of the Great Hall, which was built in the early twentieth century as a part of the original McKim, Mead & White architecture.”
reOrder: An Architectural Environment by Situ Studio [ArchPaper]
Exhibition Description [Brooklyn Museum]
Without creating a curatorial focus, the BM will always be little brother to the Met.
But what should they focus on? Modern is covered my MoMA and the Guggenheim. The New Museum covers contemporary. The Whitney focuses on American art.
As it is, I only go to the BM when they have an interesting special exhibit (Murakami, Gilbert & George, Basquiat, etc).
I suppose they could specialize in 19th century works, but I don’t see that boosting ticket sales.
what is the alternative? putting 19th century in storage? stop showing asian and egyptian? much of their visitor pop is students, so they need to show this stuff also their mission and probably mandate is be be what they are, may not have much of a choice
remember building and institution are owned by the City of New York, as is the Met board can’t do just anything it wants
I guess my question is why does Brooklyn have to stick with being comprehensive, which by most measurements it is not working well, and there is one of the best (if not the best) comprehensive museums in the world close by?
MFA has many more good paintings than BK, no comparison. And they focus on old stuff, as Boston has the Contemporary and is the only large game in town. NY of course is much more competitive and BKLYN Museum stuck with being a comprehensive on a smaller scale. They can’t afford to cut out any century they cover. In fact they have the third biggest Egyptian collection after Met and MFA in the country. so tough road to hoe, and we have to support them as Minard suggests come what may
Center is a fuzzy term, but I would say that Brooklyn is adjacent to the center or is a non-central component of the center city.
The fact is that when it comes to culture and money, Manhattan is the center of the metro area, with Brooklyn being second.
Brooklyn’s status is not necessarily a good thing or bad thing, but it should not be ignored.
The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston apparently has a good strategy, and one that would probably work very well for the leading art museums in places like Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, etc…
However, I do not see how the strategy would work well for the Brooklyn Museum when the Met is so close. No matter how hard they try, they will never be able to match the Met’s resources as an encyclopedic museum.
The good news is that by being so close to the center of such a huge area, there are a number of large niches they could be very successful in.
Just brainstorming, they could focus on art of the Americas from colonial times to the present, and get rid of their Egyptian, African, and European collections. Or they could focus on pre-20th century art and get rid of anything newer. There are plenty of other combinations that would work.
Or they continue to be an encyclopedic museum with a variety of special programs that are somewhat successful but do not lead to the museum fulfilling its potential.
Population of Boston 589,000; population of Brooklyn is 2,567,000.
Brooklyn is at the center of a Census Metro area four times as big as Boston. Or do you count Brooklyn as a suburb?
Comparing Boston to Brooklyn populations is pretty misleading.
Boston is the center of a Census metro area almost twice as big as Brooklyn and a Census Combined Statistical Area 3 times the size of Brooklyn.
Brooklyn is not the center of any metro area.
The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston -now that’s a great museum!
A great museum. I plan to go to Boston just to see the new wing.
Boston has about a third the population of Brooklyn. And no, MFA is not the Met, or the Louvre, but it displays its historic collections beautifully and with pride and people flock there.
Great museums have to give people great art; wrapped columns are fine, but the great art has to be there too.