Comments on: Clyfford Still Museum Design Revealed

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:30:00 +0000

First, its an art museum. The architecture should not compete with the art it holds, and it should complement the art. From the little I know of Still's work, this scheme seems appropriate. Also, what's yet to be tested is the users experience. One critical component of this is to bring in natural light properly, which from the rendering, I think it has some good attempts at daylighting (i.e. windows at the edges of the spaces to bring in non-glaring and indirect sunlight).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:15:00 +0000

I agree that the rendering here is unimpressive. But after taking a look at the links found in previous blogs and seeing a couple of interior pics and another exterior rendering, I am excited to see how this turns out!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:33:00 +0000

YUCK! It's so blahhh. Thank God it's not too near the 16th street mall or Lodo where most of the people are.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:11:00 +0000

I kinda agree with the argument this building is somewhat nostalgic. Maybe too soon? Or, maybe past to the back?

Maybe anything goes in this area? Or on a bigger scale anywhere. I like that better than the downtown Denver brick 3-5 story bases with "modern" tops.

I cannot wait to see the "w!"

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

By: historymystery

historymystery — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:57:00 +0000

Anonymous from Saturday, you're absolutely right. I thought about it after I sent it, and realized that I was being an ass. My apologies to anyone out there who was offended.
Historymystery.

By: giovoni

giovoni — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:56:00 +0000

I'd probably be dissapointed if this was the expansion of the DAM, and no other buildings were being built for art in Denver. But taken with the MCA and the Hamilton wing and the three buildings as a whole together make a great addition to the city's public buildings. The rendering on the blog doesn't seem to be a good representation of what the building will look like either. There are several more "white" renderings that look much more interesting and pleasing. This building is a little different from the others in that it's built to hold the work of one artist.

The Hamilton is a living advertisement for Denver and the Art museum. The MCA is a deliberate slap in the face to the arrogance of the DAM. It screams out, calculatingly how modest and unobtrusive it is. Both house things that you may not really be sure of when you go in. Anyone going to the Still museum knows why they are going already.

Lastly, if you search for some of Still's work.. they look like they will be very much at home here.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:03:00 +0000

I think the design is good (not great) and I understand why many people don't like it. And yes, historymystery, you do sound like a pretentious snob when you attribute a difference of opinion to a lack of education. I have no doubt that many of the people who dislike the design are familiar with modern architecture and Still's work. Art is subjective. As if we'd have all come to a consensus if we had remembered the name of the Bach wing. Please. Arguments of this kind are extremely unconvincing.

By: historymystery

historymystery — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:50:00 +0000

It blows my mind that so many people hate this building. It will be an excellent addition to the Golden Triangle.

What no one has mentioned is that not only is it a "quiet" counterpoint to the Hamilton and North Buildings of the DAM and to the technicolor DPL (not to mention the high Victorian of the Byers-Evans House across the street), it nicely echoes the design of the old Bach wing of the DAM across the street. For those of you who don't know the Bach wing by that name (does the DAM even call it anything now?), it's the one-story portion with Palettes restaurant that is directly on the corner of DAM's original property, 13th & Acoma. If I remember correctly, the original architect was James Sudler, and it was built some time after World War II as the first part of a potential new home for the museum, which up to that time had been housed in a variety of locations, including the fourth floor of the City & County Building and an old mansion on Capitol Hill.

What this argument highlights is the serious lack of education about architecture in the U.S. If you go to college, you might take an art history class to get a liberal arts credit, but those classes hardly ever go beyond painting and sculpture. I don't want to sound like a snob (I remember the last time someone spouted off in a really pretentious way, back in January or so), but come on, folks. Learn a little about the history of Modernism as not only a movement in the fine arts but also in architecture. This building, echoing the best of the 1950s, is an absolutely perfect complement to Still's works. Maybe the DAM can build yet another wing some time in the future, maybe right next door on Bannock, to house their huge collection of Robert Motherwell's works, and maybe it could be something this good.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 03:15:00 +0000

I agree… I think "textured" was an inadequate adjective to describe the surface. If you look closely at the second rendering, you can see the texture is exaggerated and well thought out. I bet the shadows will continually move with the sun so it never looks the same. Could even be lit up cool at night.

I don't think it's the 70's popcorn the name "textured concrete" suggests.

By: Ryan Nee

Ryan Nee — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:41:00 +0000

Anonymous – Good point about the textured concrete, except that if you look at the rendering I posted above, it appears to be very weird looking textured concrete, with ripples and waves and other oddities. On NPR this morning they mentioned it might have quartz and obsidian embedded in it. I picture this being poured into a custom mold which will create the texture they are talking about. I think it's going to be a really surreal and unique surface.

If it's the 70's kind of texture — concrete with brown pebbles in it — then I completely agree with your dislike for the materials. But I don't think that's what is going on here.