May 22, 2008The shape of the museum
During frequent walks to the Market area, I've enjoyed watching Roanoke's new art museum take shape and find it somewhat fascinating that it looks quite different depending on which street or bridge one happens to be standing upon. A webcam offers just one of the views and perhaps not the one that many passing motorists are familiar with. The museum has elicited strong reactions from the community, much of it negative, as people try to reconcile their sense of design with that of the new building. I think this article in Slate "Why is symmetry so satisfying?" offers a little insight. Witold Rybczynski writes: "Yet today's expressionist fashion demands architectural asymmetry at any cost. That's a shame, since architects sacrifice one of their art's most powerful tools (not all architects—Norman Foster and Renzo Piano often use symmetry to great effect). Without occasional symmetry, all those angles and squiggles start to look the same." |
.....Advertisement.....
|
...Advertisement...
...Advertisement...
Comments
[May 22, 2008 4:26 PM]
GreggLuanne:
I remain a big fan of Randall Stout and his architecture. I don't think our museum is the best example of his work, though and perhaps leans too heavily on Gehry overall.
I'm thrilled about the museum building, though not so much because of how it looks. I think our ability as a community to complete it is a good sign overall.
I remain skeptical that the projected numbers of visitors will be attained or sustained. I desperately hope that I am proven wrong.
The community leaders who have made this project happen are to be commended. Like me, some of them are concerned about the impact the museum's operating budget may have on other programs and projects in Roanoke.
Whether one likes it or not, we have a lot invested in it and it will require all of us to support it over time. There are similar types of projects around the country that are having major financial difficulties because of lower than expected attendance.
Thank you for your thoughtful blurb on a case for symmetry. In the end, I believe cost, and not architecture, will play the biggest factor in the project's success or failure.
[May 22, 2008 9:48 PM]
JoshLuanne,
Glad you agree with my post about the new baseball stadiums. Let's bring back Three Rivers.
[May 23, 2008 9:08 AM]
Luanne T.You are sadly mistaken, Josh. I did not agree with your post about baseball stadiums. Three Rivers was a horrible place to watch a baseball game unless you brought along binoculars.
As a multi-use facility it was equally miserable to view a football game or a concert. I say good riddance.
The new PNC Park is and the old Forbes Field was far superior.
As to your complaint that all of the new parks are too expensive for families to enjoy, I think I proved to you that isn't so at PNC park. It may be at others, though. Decent seats at the Nationals' new park are pricey.
But so, too, are they expensive at older stadiums where demand exceeds seats.
[May 23, 2008 10:32 AM]
BUBBAYankees go home!!!
[May 23, 2008 11:59 AM]
JoshLuanne,
Uh, my point was that symmetry is better than the trendy assymetrical bent. And you apparently agree with that. Thanks.