4SC/AGO/ROM Interior/Exterior Brouhaha

[Urban Shocker]

Your constant attempt to divorce form from content is the very definition of "hollow spectacle" and nicely proves the point I have made several times before.

I suspect that the only disconnect between the form our new arts centres take and full enjoyment of their successful function lies with internet geeks like you who obsess about exteriors and obviously don't visit functioning cultural buildings. The many thousands of us who actually get out, go places, and are fully engaged with the life of the city are having a whale of a time.

 

[TKTKTK]

Your constant attempt to divorce form from content is the very definition of "hollow spectacle" and nicely proves the point I have made several times before.

You are obviously not reading mine, or anyone else's posts on here, so it's really a shame you keep replying. To recast criticism of a building's envelope as "divorc[ing] form from content" is both ignorant and disingenuous.

I suspect that the only disconnect between the form our new arts centres take and full enjoyment of their successful function lies with internet geeks like you who obsess about exteriors and obviously don't visit functioning cultural buildings. The many thousands of us who actually get out, go places, and are fully engaged with the life of the city are having a whale of a time.

Well, if your expectations are low, you can have a whale of a time anywhere - even a car dealership! Anyway, you're back to trying to lord your cultural sophistication over me (even while espousing an aesthetic-conservatism that belongs in another century). What's the point? Is there someone on UT that's going to be impressed by your bluster, even while your arguments keep echoing hollowly?

This internet geek is certainly not cowed by you, so keep the insults coming!

 

[ganjavih]

C'mon, US. You know the conservatively-designed exterior has nothing to do with acoustics. You know it has everything to do with lack of funding. Why are you suggesting that it was the result of some great vision from the Diamond folks?

 

[Urban Shocker]

The exterior of this opera house looks the way it does because it is part and parcel of the design of this opera house as a whole, along with the rest of the building, and to imply that the interior is "restricted" while the exterior must fit your vague definition of "the most appropriate physical expression of 'opera House'" and look different is nonsense and a clear example of your ignorance of how the design process works. Clearly the exterior of this opera house is the most appropriate physical expression of this opera house. It just happens that you want the exterior shell to look different and not be a part of the design as a whole.

My expectations of how the new opera house would sound were very high indeed, given the track record of who was designing it, the acoustical expert who worked on it, the demands of the audience, and the determination of the COC to get a great hall. Like many - if not most - of us who hear opera there, these expectations were exceeded when the building opened.

A broad spectrum of people from all cultures goes to arts events because we enjoy them. You're either bitten by the arts bug or you're not. Anyone who actually gets out now and then to the galleries, theatres and museums in our city will see that the very best of what is presented is always a reflection of contemporary culture, notwithstanding your geriatric assumption of what the arts are all about.

 

[Urban Shocker]

ganja: Grey brick is the new blue titanium, haven't you heard?

 

[TKTKTK]

The exterior of this opera house looks the way it does because it is part and parcel of the design of this opera house as a whole, along with the rest of the building, and to imply that the interior is "restricted" while the exterior must fit your vague definition of "the most appropriate physical expression of 'opera House'" and look different is nonsense and a clear example of your ignorance of how the design process works. Clearly the exterior of this opera house is the most appropriate physical expression of this opera house. It just happens that you want the exterior shell to look different and not be a part of the design as a whole.

I'm ignorant of the design process because I maintain that the building's envelope was a tertiary consideration, and as such isn't a particularly accomplished or interesting answer? It isn't even a final answer, as we both know the building intends to expand itself when more money is available.

Yet you, who falsely maintains that the building could look no different because its final form was the only way to satisfy the program, are informed?

Even bluster won't save that logical error.

I've been to more than a few opera houses in my day, and while the sound has been nearly impeccable in most, they each looked vastly different.

My expectations of how the new opera house would sound were very high indeed, given the track record of who was designing it, the acoustical expert who worked on it, the demands of the audience, and the determination of the COC to get a great hall. Like many - if not most - of us who hear opera there, these expectations were exceeded when the building opened.

You won't get any argument from me. The building sounds great. The contentious issue has always been about looks though.

A broad spectrum of people from all cultures goes to arts events because we enjoy them. You're either bitten by the arts bug or you're not. Anyone who actually gets out now and then to the galleries, theatres and museums in our city will see that the very best of what is presented is always a reflection of contemporary culture, notwithstanding your geriatric assumption of what the arts are all about.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think the arts are about geriatric patronage, but I do think your arguments amount to geriatric patronizing (patronization?). I thought I'd made that distinction clear in a previous post. Oh right, you're still not quite reading these. Your bad.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Your assumption that people who are fully engaged in the cultural life of our city are "espousing an aesthetic-conservatism that belongs in another century" is a good example of your geriatric attitude to our lively arts scene. Your spinsterish disapproval of the ROM for showing contemporary art, when it is part of their mandate, is but one example of such fuddy-duddyism.

Brick is a durable material and the grey manganese brick they've used on the opera house is gorgeous. Being grey it reacts to ambient lighting in a more versatile way than other colours - as visits to the building at different times of the day will show. It's a great foil, texturally, to the sleekly glassy City Room and the Jackman Lounge.

The only "expansion" of the building that has been talked about by the COC is the possible addition of a rooftop patio, which could use the same palette of materials. We were told by the architect who gave us a tour that there is room for possible expansion at the east end - for an extra stage, I assume.

 

[Ziggy]

Fair enough, but one can become pretty confined, creatively speaking, if one is so terrified of the above that one is endlessly personally self-limited to plain, basic black...so to speak. In hindsight all successful 'expressionist' forms seem somewhat self-evident, but this is to completely dismiss the massive leap of faith required; where there is no risk, there is little or no reward...

I feel the AGO *is* a leap of faith in that a new form of Gehry spectacle is on offer. As for the FSC? Not so much. It is an attractive (on one facade, at least), stylish (on one facade, at least), simple and elegant building-on-a- budget that is the definition of 'safe' and 'acceptable'. It is the little black dress you can always rely on. This is not a crime, but it is somewhat incongruent to the long-held expectations people had for it.

Yes, I agree that confining one's self to a particular style or aesthetic can be confining, as can fearful avoidance of "gaudyness" (although I actually love Gaudi's architecture). But the reverse is also true, derision of any design which is simple and minimal, leads to extravagant and pretentious Dubaiesque architecture. I think it basically boils down to a matter of taste, I just object when minimalist non-flashy, but very nice buildings are disparaged and seen as some sort of indictment of Toronto "lack of ambition", which is ridiculous.

There's also nothing wrong with some flamboyance, which AGO has. I'd say it's a good example of an ambitious design, with a whimsical form that serves it's function well.

 

[TKTKTK]

Your assumption that people who are fully engaged in the cultural life of our city are "espousing an aesthetic-conservatism that belongs in another century" is a good example of your geriatric attitude to our lively arts scene. Your spinsterish disapproval of the ROM for showing contemporary art, when it is part of their mandate, is but one example of such fuddy-duddyism.

You're wrong again (par for the course the last couple posts, eh?) It wasn't a general assumption that people who engage in the cultural life of the city (of which I'm one, like virtually everyone on this board) were "espousing an aesthetic-conservatism that belongs in another century" - I was referring to your espousing

And it wasn't disapproval that the ROM displays contemporary art, it was the correct opinion that contemporary art doesn't/shouldn't form the crux of their mandate. You kept trying to twist that argument around (like you're doing now) to make it seem like I'm on the wrong side. I still feel the Crystal is a peculiar answer to a museum addition, and one that seems best suited to a venue able to commission work designed for so specific an environment. Funny how you ignore appropriate programmatic response when it suits you. Oh wait, never mind, if I bring that up we'll all have to hear about that hallway again, or how this plan returns the ROM to the original expansion plans set out by Darling and Pearson (whom I'm sure intended a crystal all along).

It's interesting, for me at least, because the Crystal is the opposite problem to the AGO and 4SC. It's a form that is, I think, ill-suited to its purpose - even while I like it from a purely aesthetic position.

Brick is a durable material and the grey manganese brick they've used on the opera house is gorgeous. Being grey it reacts to ambient lighting in a more versatile way than other colours - as visits to the building at different times of the day will show. It's a great foil, texturally, to the sleekly glassy City Room and the Jackman Lounge.

It's a really, really beautiful brick - but it's used in a very dull way, adding up to a very dull form. It's unfortunate.

The only "expansion" of the building that has been talked about by the COC is the possible addition of a rooftop patio, which could use the same palette of materials. We were told by the architect who gave us a tour that there is room for possible expansion at the east end - for an extra stage, I assume.

Sounds like plans for expansion to me. I hope they consider refining the exterior while they're at it.

 

[TKTKTK]

Yes, I agree that confining one's self to a particular style or aesthetic can be confining, as can fearful avoidance of "gaudyness" (although I actually love Gaudi's architecture). But the reverse is also true, derision of any design which is simple and minimal, leads to extravagant and pretentious Dubaiesque architecture. I think it basically boils down to a matter of taste, I just object when minimalist non-flashy, but very nice buildings are disparaged and seen as some sort of indictment of Toronto "lack of ambition", which is ridiculous.

I think it's ridiculous too, but only if its applied indiscriminately. The criticism of 4SC would be overkill if it were the podium to a condo, a grocery store, a community centre, a civic community theatre, etc. But it's the home of the Canadian Opera Company. I just don't think we've quite done them justice with this building. It's not an abject failure, but outwardly it's certainly not as deft or as skilled as those performing inside.

There is still a great appreciation for understated, simple, minimalism. But I think there's some unease when it gets applied to everything.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Your incorrect assumption ( your words ) concerning my involvement with the cultural life of the city is just that - an assumption. People either form part of that community or they don't. There are plenty of us with shared interests who do.

Contemporary art is the ROM's mandate. The fact that there's a gallery in the Crystal devoted exclusively to it should have been your first clue to the centrality of the contemporary arts to the ROM's mandate. Perhaps the name of the department within the Museum that oversees the art gallery - the Institute for Contemporary Culture - should've been your second clue?

I hope that one day you will visit the Museum - you'll see plenty of contemporary art there, and perhaps enjoy yourself. The new South Asian gallery is but the latest example of a ROM showplace for contemporary art that is integrated with earlier examples of cultures from the region.

The Crystal galleries are versatile display spaces that fit the programmatic requirements of the institution ( your Darling and Pearson reference ) while accommodating the collections without dictating where and how the artifacts should be housed. The dinosaurs are in their third location since the Museum opened in 1914, and there is no reason to suppose they won't be on the move again one day.

The brick used in cladding the opera house contributes to the bold statement that the building makes. The fly tower, for instance, is massive - and I don't see anything dull in that. Taken as a whole, the brick hardly makes a modest statement.

 

[TKTKTK]

Your incorrect assumption ( your words ) concerning my involvement with the cultural life of the city is just that - an assumption. People either form part of that community or they don't. There are plenty of us with shared interests who do.

No, they weren't my words - they were your words. I only used "assumption" because I was paraphrasing you. You're not actually reading these posts, are you? Anyway, I don't assume anything of your involvement with the cultural life of the city (how could I? When have you ever left room for someone to assume your role in the arts community, as you're constantly trying to draw attention to it?) - I just called you a moldy old fuddy-duddy. You've hardly been proving me wrong.

Contemporary art is the ROM's mandate.

No. It's part of the ROM's mandate. Which is what I've said all along. I disagree to the extent you think this building should be playing to that portion of the mandate.

The fact that there's a gallery in the Crystal devoted exclusively to it should have been your first clue to the centrality of the contemporary arts to the ROM's mandate. Perhaps the name of the department within the Museum that oversees the art gallery - the Institute for Contemporary Culture - should've been your second clue?

If the ROM thinks that Contemporary Art is central to its mandate (rather than forming a complimentary aspect to it), than we have some major issues at that institution.

I hope that one day you will visit the Museum - you'll see plenty of contemporary art there, and perhaps enjoy yourself. The new South Asian gallery is but the latest example of a ROM showplace for contemporary art that is integrated with earlier examples of cultures from the region.

Been there, seen the museum. That's why I'm commenting on it.

The Crystal galleries are versatile display spaces that fit the programmatic requirements of the institution ( your Darling and Pearson reference ) while accommodating the collections without dictating where and how the artifacts should be housed. The dinosaurs are in their third location since the Museum opened in 1914, and there is no reason to suppose they won't be on the move again one day.

I'm sure they will move again. Possibly when the Crystal is torn down in 15 years time, or maybe we'll just get bored of them where they are and truck them off somewhere else. Maybe the AGO?

The brick used in cladding the opera house contributes to the bold statement that the building makes. The fly tower, for instance, is massive - and I don't see anything dull in that. Taken as a whole, the brick hardly makes a modest statement.

So if not the brick masses, what is it that brings the building down to so modest a level? Or are you now going to argue that quiet is loud, and loud is quiet, black is grey, old is new, museums are contemporary art galleries, and a crystal answers a hundred year old plan in the best possible way? You just like arguing, even when you obviously don't really know what you're talking about.

I realize, now, why I'm the only one who ever gets into these fiery debates with you. Everyone else has already smartened up Me too now, I suppose.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Contemporary art is central to the ROM's mandate. The entire first and third floors are devoted to the arts and culture and contemporary art is showcased throughout. That's the disadvantage of keeping your eyes closed when you go there TKTKTK - you miss things. No wonder you're so out of touch with reality. The South Asian Gallery, the Sigmund Samuel Gallery of Canada, the Gallery of First Peoples, the Gallery of Japan, the Gallery of Korea all contain contemporary art and/or design. Canada Collects contained plenty of contemporary art. The ICC is all about contemporary art. Naoko Matsubara's contemporary art prints form part of their permanent collection and have been exhibited there. She has three recently commissioned works on display there now. There was a display of Charlie Pachter's work in the Crystal Court recently. There was performance art by Kent Monkman recently. There's an exhibition of contemporary art and design from China opening there in May. Contemporary art is clearly central to what the Museum does and you're the only person I've heard of who has issues with that fact.

 

[TKTKTK]

Contemporary art is central to the ROM's mandate.

And I'm suggesting that it isn't, and that it really shouldn't be. I don't program the ROM, so I'm hardly on the hook for its drift - but I have to say that on the times I've gone, the ROM hasn't struck me as having Contemporary Art as it's central mandate - it really seemed to be more about art, craft, and knowledge through the ages.

We have 3 good, large, institutions for whom Contemporary Art exhibitions are inarguably central. Why does the ROM need to comprise a tenuous 4th? That isn't to suggest that Contemporary Art has NO place in the ROM, but its role should be complimentary rather than focused. Enough about the ROM though, eh? We'll never see eye to eye on this.


I wish I could actually just rotate the three building styles/executions counter-clockwise. 4SC gets Gehry's gorgeous titanium, but in the current dark dark grey, plus the twisty stairs. The ROM gets, well, boned with Diamond's still too understated brick and glass treatment (though maybe it'll hold nicely against the historic wings). Then the AGO gets the full-on Crystal freakout in electric blue.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Well, the ROM's mandate is the arts through all the ages - including ours. And all cultural institutions ( including the AGO - yes, yes, I know we've drifted waaaay off topic here and I'm trying to get back on course, really I am ... ) must remain connected to the contemporary world or face decline - hence the importance of bodies such as the ROM's ICC, I think. It links their mandate to display the arts very closely to creative culture of the present.

Adapt or die - one of the main reasons the ROM launched their expansion was to deal with a reduced interest from the public in what they had to offer, and difficulties connecting with that public. Hence a deliberate decision to employ the camera-friendly voodoo trickery of Big Hair iconic architecture to entice the masses through the front door and keep the staff gainfully employed.

It sems to have worked, judging by the crowds there whenever I go. And although Libeskind may be flavour of the month, producing high-fashion shape du jour buildings that will inevitably become horribly unfashionable sooner rather than later, he still understood the basic programmatic requirements of the institution better than the other shortlisted architects - and designed a building to address those issues. So I think that, for quite some time, it will be difficult to argue that the Crystal should be replaced. I think that Gehry, who is also a smart cookie and good problem-solving designer, will have similar success at the AGO.

The opera house and the Toronto Symphony are both doing their level best to capture new, younger and more diverse audiences too, with reduced ticket prices and targeted programming. And I think that there will be more and more cross-pollination of ideas between all these arts bodies. Film directors like Egoyan directing the Ring, an opera of Cronenberg's The Fly to name a couple of examples, and live broadcasts from the Met with babe divas wearing next to nothing, etc. etc.

Roy Thomson Hall, despite the acoustical improvements that their renovations gave them, still isn't considered one of the great halls acoustically, but they're a great orchestra ... with the right conductor. And the COC has both, which positions them as one of the finest places to hear opera anywhere in the world ( and the National Ballet ain't too shabby an outfit either! ). With 80% of opera tickets pre-sold to subscribers, and most performances sold out for the whole season, the building is a huge success. And the COC didn't have to resort to starchitecture to make it happen - and neither did the Ballet School, the Royal Conservatory, the Gardiner, and the upcoming Film Centre. But then none of them need to stand on the sidewalk like fairground barkers driving as many people through the front doors every day as possible. They're free of that, and their requirements are as different as their design solutions.

I don't discount the mass appeal of flashy starchitecture - this forum speaks eloquently of the appeal of buildings that are camera-friendly 3D logos. Whenever a new thread starts, with an image of some obviously computer-generated design by someone currently fashionable starchitect prominently posted, the discussion is always about how the building looks, rarely if ever about how it functions so we are firmly in the realm of seeing architecture solely as spectacle. The cutback on government funding has certainly put cultural centres on the spot, and the AGO and ROM see starchitecture as a solution to drumming up business, by drawing the masses with an iconic structure.