April 9, 2010
Exhibitions of the work of Andrea Palladio (1508-80) often seem as ubiquitous as performances of Mozart’s operas. That is as it should be, for Palladio is the nonpareil of his art, an architect of genius analogous only to Mozart among composers. One can quibble about the quality of each show, but it is fruitless to spill ink about the artist who defines perfection in building.
Leave it to Nicolai Oroussoff of the New York Times to whine about “endless vulgar knockoffs” of Palladio’s buildings while reviewing an exhibition which purports to treat the architect’s influence in history. The young critic’s grasp of architectural history has never been impressive, but his comments in today’s Arts section are even more pathetic than usual. Like many modernists, he assumes that Palladio’s architecture can be explained by comparing Renaissance Venice to other waning civilizations (like our own) that threw money at lavish displays of domestic architecture–villas and palaces. Hence the supercilious comment about “vulgar” houses that cheapen the “idealism” of Palladio’s art.
Charles Hind, a curator at the RIBA in London (an institute of architects, not “architecture” as Oroussoff believes), has mounted show of drawings and models at the Morgan Library that should attract anyone interested in how architecture is made. The RIBA has the largest collection of Palladio drawings in the world, and any opportunity to view them outside London is rare. Ouroussoff complains that not enough drawings made it across the pond because the Morgan is too small and the Brits ran out of money. Did anyone complain that there were too few Michaelangelo drawings at the Morgan’s blockbuster show twenty years ago?
I could go on about how lame-brained today’s review is, but Ouroussoff is already my bete noir. Suffice it to say that only a fool would try to paint history’s greatest architect as the victim of cash-strapped museums and venal mansion builders in Old Westbury. Architects like Jefferson and McKim revered Palladio for his sublime understanding of the classical tradition. Go and see the “Palladio and His Legacy” and you will too.
April 2, 2010
The Department of Architecture and Design at the Museum of Modern Art is experiencing a resurgence. Long the center of scholarship and barometer of trends in the design professions, MOMA’s architecture galleries have produced some of the most influential exhibitions in history: the 1932 International Style show, the first retrospective of the work of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe during the 1960s, the astounding Beaux Arts architecture show in the 1970s, and the infamous Deconstruction exhibit. All of these events were produced under the watchful eye of Phillip Johnson, who briefly served as head of the department as a young man.
It is said that Johnson “appointed” every curator in the department during his long career. If so, the first department head not chosen by PJ is Barry Bergdoll, the man at the helm today. Though quite different than the typical curator of the Barr/Johnson years, Bergdoll is doing what MOMA was set up to do: interpret the history, theory, and current trajectory of “modern” architecture.
He is uniquely qualified for the job. An expert on 19th and 20th century European architecture, he has also served as a researcher for the New York City Landmarks Commission, a professor at Columbia University, and a historian of the Columbia campus designed by McKim, Mead and White. His life partner is a distinguished New York architect.
Bergdoll has only been on the job for a short time. All of his exhibitions have been popular with the public–a show on pre-fab housing, the Bauhaus, and the current look at New York’s shoreline in the future. Most important, they have been pluralistic, surprising, and on target with MOMA’s mission of education and scholarship. That cannot be said of the haphazard record of his predecessor, Terry Riley.
Though it is too soon to predict a legacy for Bergdoll’s MOMA, he has so far proven to be just what the city and nation needs in a “keeper of the flame” for great design. Amidst uncertainty and confusion in the profession at large, MOMA can stand for intelligence, good taste, and innovation. It should also be a place where “the modern” is interpreted in the broadest sense possible. In Bergdoll’s pantheon, there is ample room for Charles McKim alongside Frank Gehry, for Charlotte Perriand and Julia Morgan alongside Le Corbusier and Eric Owen Moss, and for Ricardo Porro alongside Eduardo Legoretta. He proved this last week when he went to the Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America (a bastion of supposed conservatism) to lecture on McKim’s Columbia campus. As a former president of the Society of Architectural Historians, Barry Bergdoll has seen the built environment through a wide lense. He won’t narrow his point of view to please a few avant garde pundits. Bravo for that.