|
|
 |
|
| Arts |
Inartistic Revivals
David Ross
02/02/2004
|
Baseball and art museums share a truism: Build it, and they will come. There exists a widely accepted notion that a new art museum—preferably of the contemporary variety—will revive not only moribund neighborhoods, but also rejuvenate wasted cities. The nation and the world now host, in varying stages of completion, several dozen museum expansions and new museum buildings. If only it were that simple.
 | | Dia:Beacon, Hudson River Valley |
The formula seems straightforward enough. An architect of note designs a super-attractive new art museum facility and establishes a hip program that promises the continuing attention of the international smart set. If all goes well, the sculptural quality of the building and the buzz that surrounds the birth of a new landmark will transform a nearly undistinguished city into a vibrant and hip destination for cultural tourists of international origin. The truism, like most, has reasonable origins. The trouble is that it is a truism, not a truth; and therein lays the problem.
Consider the fate of the Santiago Calatrava-designed Quadracci Pavilion for the Milwaukee Art Museum. The striking new building (literally an amusement park ride) has succeeded in drawing thousands of new visitors who would have never taken the time to visit Milwaukee as a cultural tourism destination; yet at the same time it has nearly bankrupted the museum. Or contemplate that of the Steven Holl-designed museum for the city of Bellevue, Wash.: Opened to critical acclaim in 2001, the edifice literally closed its doors in September 2003 because its board had neither anticipated the costs of operating the museum nor the precipitous plunge in the local economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
