Boxing night. Diller, MoMA and, preserve or not

Last week, on January 28, 2014,  The Architectural League presented a discussion regarding MoMA's plan for expansion plan and the intended demolition of the American Folk Art Museum took place at the New York Society for Ethical Culture, an appropriate venue for a conversation rife with implications for the ethics of preservation, real estate development and the architectural profession.

The League first called for the Museum of Modern Art "to reconsider its decision to demolish the American Folk Art Museum" and to "provide more information about why it considers it necessary to tear down this significant work of contemporary architecture" in April 2013, when the Museum initially announced its plan. The League wrote then that "[t]he public has a substantial and legitimate interest in this decision."

Video now available from the public conversation on the Museum of Modern Art’s reaffirmed decision to demolish the American Folk Art Museum building.

Synopsis.

The night began with a brief welcome by Annabelle Seldorf, President of the Architecture League, who called for decency and civility in the discussion (with laughter from audience). Reed Kroloff (Director, Cranbrook Academy) was the moderator for the discussion and introduced the first speakers  (08:27) with Glenn Lowry (Director of the Museum of Modern Art) and Ann Temkin (The Marie-Josée and Henry Kravis Chief Curator of Painting and Sculpture).

Lowry started by acknowledging the common criticisms of MoMA, that is, being large, monolithic, and insensitive, following on idea that the MoMA is making the museum better for the public. Comparing MoMA to Florence in the Renaissance, she elucidated that MoMA is a catalyst for contemporary artists, not just a museum for their work.

Next on the podium was Liz Diller, (21:34) (principal of Diller Scofidio + Renfro), with a palpable tension in the air, and immediately addressed it with a joke that the nicest remark she’d heard recently was how brave she was for attending tonight’s event.

"The FAM simply will not fit the gallery requirements of MoMA." ...included misaligned floors were difficult to use, a reduction of natural light and a prosthetic façade.

Following the presentations, a lively discussion (55:49) moderated by Reed Kroloff (director of the Cranbrook Academy) followed among Cathleen McGuigan (Editor of Architectural Record), Jorge Otero-Pailos (architect and preservation theorist), Nicolai Ouroussoff (critic and writer), Stephen Rustow (principal of design firm Museoplan), and Karen Stein (architectural consultant and writer) who argued a spectrum of positions and analyses in response to the Museum's plans.

- What is good for the public?

- The decision to demolish FAM was a failure of the original architecture or a failure on the part of MoMA’s new architectural plan? ...Rustow remarked that it is churlish to assume FAM could anticipate the future. ...and... Oroussoff  pointed that while FAM has a cultural history, MoMA’s responsibility is to its collection.

-... Mies,...Taniguchi or Kahn... fly on audience...

-... in 15 years, when MoMA is ready to move, what will be left?

-...the MoMA requires a unity of place and the museum does not want to fracture their collection...

“Idiosyncrasy, inefficiency and expense were the reasons cited by developers who wanted to demolish the Highline, and they were wrong. Does a cultural institution have a special rationale, or perhaps a special obligation, for valuing idiosyncrasy, inefficiency and investment that the private sector may not?” asked Vishan Chakrabharti.