Sebastian Smee wrote about the fate of the Gardner Museum's carriage house in today's Boston Globe. The Museum's quirky and historic outbuilding is set to be demolished to make way for yet another glass-box museum addition.
Isn't it time we realized that building yet another boring and insanely expensive glass box is not necessarily the automatic best solution when a public institution is planning for its future?
The Gardner's director, Anne Hawley, and board want to this "modern" addition to increase space for visitor amenities, such as a performance hall, a gift shop, a café and kitchen, educational space, and a lobby. They've chosen Renzo Piano, who is quite good at building glass boxes that don't seem immediately dated (well, at least not for a least a decade or so). His firm would be a decent choice for such an expansion — if such a museum were meant to expand. But the Gardner is not.
Bostonians and visitors worldwide love the Gardner Museum because it never changes. It retains its early 20th-century charm and character to a high degree. We go there at least as much to experience that spirit of the past as we do the architecture and works of art. What other museum casts such a spell, these days? We also love the Gardner because it's the personal expression of one idiosyncratic, gifted, and visionary woman — who left her stamp so strongly that we still feel a bit nervous when we visit. Because we don't feel like museum-goers, we feel like guests in her home.
Mrs. Gardner was smart enough to realize that, someday, another strong woman might come along and try to impose her personal vision on her palace. People like Anne Hawley are precisely why Mrs. Gardner wrote what she believed was an ironclad will. And for many decades, that will succeeded in keeping her treasure intact for all of us to enjoy, just as she imagined it.
But Mrs. Gardner couldn't know that her museum would one day be saddled with this board of trustees, who believe they should be planning for giant crowds of imaginary, future visitors. But will those tour-bus hordes actually come? And even if they do, they don't belong there. Intimacy and a sense of solitude are key to experiencing the Gardner Museum. Its galleries and spaces were not designed for scores of people. The MFA has spaces to accommodate large numbers; the Gardner is very different.
Mrs. Gardner also couldn't know all the ways that laws can change or be bent, permitting even the strongest wills to be broken. She would never have believed that her wonderful and unique historic home would be allowed by local authorities (and stewards of historic architecture) to succumb to the lure of dollars from tour buses and the shiny newness of glass-and-steel boxes.
This is tragic. And the worst of it is that permanent damage will be done because a few powerful people lack vision. A vast crowd of others, having less power and influence, can do little but protest and try to persuade — using reason only because laws, historic regulations and owner's wills have become meaningless.
Trevor Fairbrother, a freelance curator (and internationally renowned expert on John Singer Sargent, a close friend of Mrs. Gardner's), can protest the demolition without fear of losing his job:
The Carriage House, walls and trellises constituted a key element in the founder's vision of Fenway Court as an architectural and horticultural statement.
But Gardner staff members are also questioning the demolition and don't dare voice their opinions. Smee reports:
Hawley acknowledged in an interview that at a staff meeting, after debate about the new extension, she told staff members that if they couldn't support the proposal, they might want to consider leaving the museum.
One of the most valuable resources of a great museum is its staff. Generally, museum staffs consist of dedicated, hardworking, well-educated, grossly underpaid professionals who have deep, specialized knowledge of the collection and the museum's history that can't be easily replaced. You'll find that many museum employees have been working at "their" museum for decades, if not generations, are loyal, and care passionately about everything that goes on there. And trust me, they aren't doing it because it's easy money. They're often struggling to hold the place together on a shoestring (or half a shoestring) budget.
I know: I have more than 24 years of museum experience myself. Museum staffs are like huge extended families, sharing common goals, long histories, and survival tactics. Along with love and respect for "their" buildings and collections.
So now we hear that Gardner employees are being bullied about this horrific building proposal, being told that if they don't shut up and get with the program, they should leave. There is no doubt in my mind that the Gardner staff has the Museum's best interests at heart. Chances are excellent that they understand their museum much better than anyone. They're not interested in building monuments to themselves in the form of a giant glass box.
This would be an excellent time to breathe some fresh air into the Gardner Museum, but not with a wrecking ball. How about replacing the director? There simply have to be better ways to improve and protect our historic treasures than sticking posterity with another dust-covered glass box — and only memories of the historic charm and authenticity we destroyed in the process.
0 comments:
Post a Comment