The Art Gallery of Ontario, street view
During my recent travels to Canada I checked out the Art Gallery of Ontario‘s grand reopening. I discuss my impressions of Frank Gehry’s newest building and the collection itself over at Frieze Magazine. I’ve posted a teaser below but as always you’ll have to click through to read the full piece.
Will starchitect Frank Gehry's redesign transform the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO) into a world renowned building? That certainly seems to have been the goal of much of the recent museum-building in the city, though the results have been uneven. Just down the street is Will Alsop's CDN$42.5 million Ontario College of Art and Design, which preserved residents' views of the park by putting the institution on stilts, though the project's scale was ultimately limited by budget constraints. Meanwhile, Daniel Libeskind's recent addition to the Royal Ontario Museum feels tacky and slightly out-of-step with the city. While it's still too early to gauge how both Toronto and the international community will respond to the AGO, my own impressions are mixed: the CDN$300 million renovation, inspired by the late Ken Thomson's recent bequest, is impressive but far from perfect. The building's location is less than ideal, many of the exhibitions lack sufficient curatorial direction and levels of accomplishment within these spaces is too often linked to the interests of their main donor.
Some 2000 works from Thomson's collection now occupy more than a quarter of AGO's 110 galleries — making up nearly 50 % of the works displayed — though you're more likely to read about how the architect's early life in the city influenced the building than the complex effect a major gift can have on a museum's collection-building strategy. Given the criticisms that Gehry's blockbuster museum projects have drawn — a perceived lack of sensitivity to the local area, for one — one would imagine his Canadian heritage would fuel hopes for this project. As far as exterior treatments go, it's difficult to say that Gehry has successfully integrated the AGO with the surrounding buildings: the narrow, adjacent street flanked by Victorian homes obscures all full-frontal views. Notably, the two largest physical changes to the building — the blown glass-like façade and the new addition of a cube housing contemporary galleries resting atop the old building at the rear of the museum — are much more impressive from within.
To read the full piece click here.
{ 14 comments }
It is great to read your assessment, Paddy. I especially appreciate your note on the percentage of space given over to donated work.
I didn’t mind the haphazardness of the contemporary galleries as much, but I’m not as much of a spatial thinker as I probably should be. I did feel confused by the multiple interpretive themes on the top two floors and the single interpretive theme (memory) on the 3rd floor, which overall seemed a bit of a grab bag save for those more focused spaces like the Group of Seven and Toronto in the 70s areas.
I also agree it is more “spectacular” from the inside than out–not contributing a ton to the streetscape, really.
It is great to read your assessment, Paddy. I especially appreciate your note on the percentage of space given over to donated work.
I didn’t mind the haphazardness of the contemporary galleries as much, but I’m not as much of a spatial thinker as I probably should be. I did feel confused by the multiple interpretive themes on the top two floors and the single interpretive theme (memory) on the 3rd floor, which overall seemed a bit of a grab bag save for those more focused spaces like the Group of Seven and Toronto in the 70s areas.
I also agree it is more “spectacular” from the inside than out–not contributing a ton to the streetscape, really.
It is great to read your assessment, Paddy. I especially appreciate your note on the percentage of space given over to donated work.
I didn’t mind the haphazardness of the contemporary galleries as much, but I’m not as much of a spatial thinker as I probably should be. I did feel confused by the multiple interpretive themes on the top two floors and the single interpretive theme (memory) on the 3rd floor, which overall seemed a bit of a grab bag save for those more focused spaces like the Group of Seven and Toronto in the 70s areas.
I also agree it is more “spectacular” from the inside than out–not contributing a ton to the streetscape, really.
I thought the themes were a really bad idea. Postmodernism was given a small 15 x 15 cube of space, and it seemed basically an excuse to throw a bunch of stuff together with Jeff Wall. With that size of space there’s no hope in putting together a show that does the theme or the art justice so there’s no point.
Like you, I was very confused by the multiple interpretive themes and the single interpretive theme on the 3rd floor. There has to be better way to arrange those galleries.
I thought the themes were a really bad idea. Postmodernism was given a small 15 x 15 cube of space, and it seemed basically an excuse to throw a bunch of stuff together with Jeff Wall. With that size of space there’s no hope in putting together a show that does the theme or the art justice so there’s no point.
Like you, I was very confused by the multiple interpretive themes and the single interpretive theme on the 3rd floor. There has to be better way to arrange those galleries.
I thought the themes were a really bad idea. Postmodernism was given a small 15 x 15 cube of space, and it seemed basically an excuse to throw a bunch of stuff together with Jeff Wall. With that size of space there’s no hope in putting together a show that does the theme or the art justice so there’s no point.
Like you, I was very confused by the multiple interpretive themes and the single interpretive theme on the 3rd floor. There has to be better way to arrange those galleries.
I’m with you Paddy, there were some major clunkers in the curatorial. Those are things that can change easily if the curatorial staff is prodded enough. But, unfortunately, over the years, there has been some less than smart shopping and too often I found myself asking why the hell did they purchased this piece?
I’m with you Paddy, there were some major clunkers in the curatorial. Those are things that can change easily if the curatorial staff is prodded enough. But, unfortunately, over the years, there has been some less than smart shopping and too often I found myself asking why the hell did they purchased this piece?
I’m with you Paddy, there were some major clunkers in the curatorial. Those are things that can change easily if the curatorial staff is prodded enough. But, unfortunately, over the years, there has been some less than smart shopping and too often I found myself asking why the hell did they purchased this piece?
Yeah, it’s really remarkable how many second rate works they have from big name artists. It sounds uncharitable, but there were times when it seemed like the goal was just to have a work from that artist, regardless of quality.
Yeah, it’s really remarkable how many second rate works they have from big name artists. It sounds uncharitable, but there were times when it seemed like the goal was just to have a work from that artist, regardless of quality.
That might be the result of small acquisition budgets. You can’t afford to buy to soon, and risk half a collection that never gets out of storage and if you are too late, you can’t afford the major pieces. (I guess I’m concurring with your statement, I’ve also heard from a few artists that even though their work was purchased years ago, it’s never made it out of storage)
The other issue is that thing we can call the “director’s wish list”, that list of names that every institution now feels they have to have represented in their collection. Got to be a player in the big museum monoculture. I’m not ready to pin blame on the curatorial staff for this one. I know that some sales to the AGO can seem to move at a glacial pace, with all the levels of approval needed. (one artist told me that even though they are slow to decide, once they do decide, they sure do pay fast.)
That might be the result of small acquisition budgets. You can’t afford to buy to soon, and risk half a collection that never gets out of storage and if you are too late, you can’t afford the major pieces. (I guess I’m concurring with your statement, I’ve also heard from a few artists that even though their work was purchased years ago, it’s never made it out of storage)
The other issue is that thing we can call the “director’s wish list”, that list of names that every institution now feels they have to have represented in their collection. Got to be a player in the big museum monoculture. I’m not ready to pin blame on the curatorial staff for this one. I know that some sales to the AGO can seem to move at a glacial pace, with all the levels of approval needed. (one artist told me that even though they are slow to decide, once they do decide, they sure do pay fast.)
That might be the result of small acquisition budgets. You can’t afford to buy to soon, and risk half a collection that never gets out of storage and if you are too late, you can’t afford the major pieces. (I guess I’m concurring with your statement, I’ve also heard from a few artists that even though their work was purchased years ago, it’s never made it out of storage)
The other issue is that thing we can call the “director’s wish list”, that list of names that every institution now feels they have to have represented in their collection. Got to be a player in the big museum monoculture. I’m not ready to pin blame on the curatorial staff for this one. I know that some sales to the AGO can seem to move at a glacial pace, with all the levels of approval needed. (one artist told me that even though they are slow to decide, once they do decide, they sure do pay fast.)
Comments on this entry are closed.