So the Studio Daniel Libeskind beats out the Think Group for the wtc redevelopment project. It's a victory if not for kitsch then at least for easy symbolism (Tour guide: "Yup, that spire is exactly 1776 feet high...") over Think's airy latticework, which will now remain merely a concept.
On the other hand: SDL's idea of exposing part of the original towers' foundation is pretty cool, adding an unusual (for New York) archaeological dimension to the design. New Yorkers -- as befits the denizens of any great city -- weren't shy about expressing their opinions about the plans, even if we had no say in the final choice. ("Woah, whaddaya think of this new Parthenon thing that's going up on the rock?" "Not much.")
Then again, Gotham doesn't dwell much on its past and it never has done so. And I have yet to hear anyone say that they really loved the old towers, as opposed perhaps to finding them impressive or handy landmarks, even during the two years when I worked down there in the financial district. So perhaps aesthetics are slightly beside the point.
Coincidentally perhaps, the New York Times today has two other unrelated large-scale architecture stories:
Albert Speer, (son of his namesake) is building a gigantic axis for Beijing's 2008 Olympic City. And Indonesia is planning a shopping mall by the massive eighth-century Buddhist temple at Borobudur in Java, a World Heritage site.
Frickin A
Went to Frick Collection yesterday with Paul & Bob (visitors from Maine) for a couple of hours. Bob has worked as a historian of Venetian art and knows his stuff. I just like looking at some of it.
My gut feeling: the steel magnate and plutocrat Henry Clay Frick (1849-1919) probably didn't enjoy art very much, though he sure collected a lot of big names. Some attributions have been withdrawn or downgraded to "school of" status (though frame of the dubious, incomplete "Polish Rider" is still labelled Rembrandt); other works aren't particularly good (a weak Manet, butt-ugly Degas dancers), some just bad-to-mediocre (de la Tour, Piero). I hear the buyer cabling Frick "What you need to buy next is..." and the first thing on the market by, let's say, Tiepolo would be crated for the next steamer over. Have times changed? Perhaps today's magnates are less in awe of Old Masters.
There's little in the way of Impressionists (an unimpressive Monet) to lighten the Golden-Age formality. God, what a relief a few Cezannes would be among all this brown and black! (For example, there's a proto-Cubist sunlit view of Roman Forum at dawn by Corot). Frick bought lots of fomal portraiture (Gainsborough, Ingres), a lot of of fat old men (by Hals and Van Dyck) as well as bucolic/fleshy (Boucher, Fragonard) scenes. He had, for unknown reasons, several views (one an early Turner) of the gloomy ferry port of Dieppe on the English Channel. Did he have business interests there perhaps?
Would dinner chez Frick have been fun? No, I would prefer to party with Boston's Isabella Stewart Gardner, even if her Vermeer is still being held being held for ransom somewhere.
But the Frick does indeed house honest-to-god masterpieces: two late Rembrandt self-portraits, two Vermeers, a fabulous Velazquez (a dour Philip IV), a couple of El Grecos (St Jerome), a pair of Holbeins (Thomas More and the pig-eyed chancellor Thomas Cromwell), two Titians, a Bellini (St Francis), a lovely van Eyck and a Bronzino. All worth an extended look, even if admission is a bit pricey at $12.
Reading: The current New Yorker has a long profile of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan by Philip Gourevitch and a profile of the awesome actress Frances McDormand by Joan Acocella. Neither article, unfortunately, is online -- why not do put 'em up as a civic service, Mr Newhouse? At the very end, McDormand recommends my favorite movie of the past several months: Rivers and Tides.
Note to self: If brevity is the soul of wit, future entries to this page will have to be much shorter.
Nice rundown of the Frick (I'd rank the Ingres with the "masterpieces",) but regarding "today's magnates" it almost makes you nostalgic for the old robber barons. Case in point: Vivendi's dismantling of the Seagram's collection.
|
On the other hand: SDL's idea of exposing part of the original towers' foundation is pretty cool, adding an unusual (for New York) archaeological dimension to the design. New Yorkers -- as befits the denizens of any great city -- weren't shy about expressing their opinions about the plans, even if we had no say in the final choice. ("Woah, whaddaya think of this new Parthenon thing that's going up on the rock?" "Not much.")
Then again, Gotham doesn't dwell much on its past and it never has done so. And I have yet to hear anyone say that they really loved the old towers, as opposed perhaps to finding them impressive or handy landmarks, even during the two years when I worked down there in the financial district. So perhaps aesthetics are slightly beside the point.
Coincidentally perhaps, the New York Times today has two other unrelated large-scale architecture stories: Albert Speer, (son of his namesake) is building a gigantic axis for Beijing's 2008 Olympic City. And Indonesia is planning a shopping mall by the massive eighth-century Buddhist temple at Borobudur in Java, a World Heritage site.
Frickin A
Went to Frick Collection yesterday with Paul & Bob (visitors from Maine) for a couple of hours. Bob has worked as a historian of Venetian art and knows his stuff. I just like looking at some of it. My gut feeling: the steel magnate and plutocrat Henry Clay Frick (1849-1919) probably didn't enjoy art very much, though he sure collected a lot of big names. Some attributions have been withdrawn or downgraded to "school of" status (though frame of the dubious, incomplete "Polish Rider" is still labelled Rembrandt); other works aren't particularly good (a weak Manet, butt-ugly Degas dancers), some just bad-to-mediocre (de la Tour, Piero). I hear the buyer cabling Frick "What you need to buy next is..." and the first thing on the market by, let's say, Tiepolo would be crated for the next steamer over. Have times changed? Perhaps today's magnates are less in awe of Old Masters.
There's little in the way of Impressionists (an unimpressive Monet) to lighten the Golden-Age formality. God, what a relief a few Cezannes would be among all this brown and black! (For example, there's a proto-Cubist sunlit view of Roman Forum at dawn by Corot). Frick bought lots of fomal portraiture (Gainsborough, Ingres), a lot of of fat old men (by Hals and Van Dyck) as well as bucolic/fleshy (Boucher, Fragonard) scenes. He had, for unknown reasons, several views (one an early Turner) of the gloomy ferry port of Dieppe on the English Channel. Did he have business interests there perhaps?
Would dinner chez Frick have been fun? No, I would prefer to party with Boston's Isabella Stewart Gardner, even if her Vermeer is still being held being held for ransom somewhere.
But the Frick does indeed house honest-to-god masterpieces: two late Rembrandt self-portraits, two Vermeers, a fabulous Velazquez (a dour Philip IV), a couple of El Grecos (St Jerome), a pair of Holbeins (Thomas More and the pig-eyed chancellor Thomas Cromwell), two Titians, a Bellini (St Francis), a lovely van Eyck and a Bronzino. All worth an extended look, even if admission is a bit pricey at $12.
Reading: The current New Yorker has a long profile of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan by Philip Gourevitch and a profile of the awesome actress Frances McDormand by Joan Acocella. Neither article, unfortunately, is online -- why not do put 'em up as a civic service, Mr Newhouse? At the very end, McDormand recommends my favorite movie of the past several months: Rivers and Tides.
Note to self: If brevity is the soul of wit, future entries to this page will have to be much shorter.
- bruno 2-27-2003 10:18 pm
Nice rundown of the Frick (I'd rank the Ingres with the "masterpieces",) but regarding "today's magnates" it almost makes you nostalgic for the old robber barons. Case in point: Vivendi's dismantling of the Seagram's collection.
- alex 2-28-2003 6:25 pm