The architecture of museums has for long made for passionate discussion and dissent. In Berlin, an old railway station was converted into an excellent space for contemporary art — the Hamburger Bahnhof.
In Bilbao, a Gehry building sits smugly as visitors gape at it 24x7. And when the new MoMA building was ready, it was the focus of discussion too. The thing about all these buildings is they’ve worked. Whimsical as some of them are, they fit into the neighbourhood like eager to harmonise daughters-in-law. Not so the New Museum at New York’s Bowery. It’s presence is edgy.
Bowery is a bit like Delhi’s Daryaganj. Walking down the street, you find wholesalers selling large, steel catering and restaurant equipment. On occasion, there is a music store. Till about 40 years ago, it was a rich, diverse area for artists who lived in lofts and contributed to a buzzing, thriving community. Artists like Lichtenstein and Eva Hesse all flourished here. That zing is not evident now. Instead, making assertions of a recent past is the New Museum.
The building stands out for its architecture as much as for the kind of flavour it gives to this has-been and is-once-again street. It is built on a parking lot and stands aggressively assertive. It is eye catchingly vulnerable — built as a set of cubes and boxes rising upwards on a core, a jewellery box kind of thing. According to the museum literature, the “New Museum at 235 Bowery is the first new art museum ever constructed from the ground up below 14th Street in Manhattan”.
I like all of this. But here’s my point. Does this 2005 building make a larger point with its imposing presence? I think it does. It’s unpeeling history to remind the street of its rich historic past. It’s announcing the buoyant state of affairs of cutting edge, experimental art and the expanding market for it. It’s the tallest, most unusual building in the region, made to exercise power. In the case of the New Museum, it’s really not needed — it has a formidable reputation to rest upon. But it uses architecture to expand its space — and it can afford to.
The New Museum is not alone in this. Think of the Devi Art Foundation’s new building. Just inaugurated, the building, located in the harsh urbanscape of Gurgaon, tickles with its confidence. Gurgaon, where new kinds of cities are being muddled through, is now forced to think of new kinds of artistic expression. In fact, it may be a little taken aback because the high land prices work against the logic of investing in a space that showcases art that might or might not sell. But the fact of its existence, it’s cradling of video art and photography reinforces the fact of new kinds of artistic production. That’s what investing in an eloquent structure offers.
But what happens if you already have a building whose language you intervene in? Jeff Koons did just that when he set up a show in Versailles recently, outraging several tourists. They wanted a peek into late 17th century France, especially the almost mythically opulent and firmly entrenched (it seemed then) royalty. Instead, Koons butted in with his inflated dogs and plastic hanging red lobster.
More From This Section
Reportedly, a fair number of people hated it, but clearly some didn’t. Again, the viewers were led on by the architecture to expect the standard stuff and almost appalled by the deceptive “ahistoricness” of Koons. Yet, like the New Museum, the Versailles makes a larger point. By allowing the show, it calibrated the shift and evolution of the visual. Koons was clearly the new extravagant housed in the older version of excess. Once again, the building made the point.
