Letters to the Editor: Readers give their initial reviews of LACMA’s David Geffen Galleries
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- Visitors offer sharply divided initial reactions to LACMA’s new David Geffen Galleries: Some celebrate the flowing, non-hierarchical layout as liberating and delightful, while others find it confusing and disorienting.
- Critics say the open design lacks thematic context between artworks — 17th-century Dutch paintings next to South Asian sculpture — making it difficult to navigate without relying on a map or museum app.
- One visitor also criticized the exterior signage honoring David Geffen as an eyesore that prioritizes the donor’s name over LACMA’s identity and fails to greet tourists as a cultural institution.
To the editor: Sunday was my first visit to the David Geffen Galleries at LACMA with the art installed (“Inside LACMA’s lavish opening gala for the David Geffen Galleries with George Lucas, Ed Ruscha and Jeff Koons,” April 17). My initial impressions: gorgeous building, inside and outside. I somehow felt more in touch with the art, both the pieces mounted on those concrete walls and the smaller items of sculpture that were right out on tables without any glass case in the way.
But I did not appreciate the way the art was presented. I found it very disconcerting to be looking at 17th-century Dutch paintings and to turn a corner and see a South Asian sculpture, modern photography or whatever else was installed in the next space. There just isn’t enough context because of the way it is presented. To me, this concept of presenting the art in a “non-hierarchical” manner is just ivory tower academic nonsense.
I also really disliked the gallery layout. The way the gallery spaces flow into each other makes it near impossible to keep track of where you are, where you’ve been and where you might want to go next. It was both maddening and exhausting. I don’t want to go through a museum holding a map or with an app open on my phone. I want to be able to walk from gallery to gallery, following some discernible theme. Instead, the art seemed to be presented in an almost random order.
Stephen Greenberg, Santa Monica
..
To the editor: Having visited the new David Geffen Galleries recently, I came away with a desire to return soon — to find a new “path” and to see all the art that I missed. You can’t see it all in one visit. There is no one route. “Wander” is the name of the catalog and is the perfect term for the experience. Wonder is what I experienced. “What is this? Where is this from? Who made this? Why is this grouped with these other objects? What’s in this niche over here? Look at this view!”
It’s a trip. I found it delightful. The concrete provides a non-intrusive setting for a fascinating collection. I’m no critic, but as a native Angeleno, I am proud of this new cultural addition to our unique, creative city.
Laura Owen, Marina del Rey
..
To the editor: We should all be grateful to the many donors, including taxpayers, for the generous contributions to the new LACMA building. But the exterior signage honoring David Geffen is an eyesore. It distorts the unity of the facade, misleads tourists by not announcing LACMA and makes the building a temple to one person.
Patrick Frank, Venice
..
To the editor: While reading this article about our new David Geffen Galleries, I got the impression that the architect, Peter Zumthor, was more interested with people experiencing his construction as a creative piece of art rather than the individual pieces of art in the museum (“‘L.A. has changed me,’ says architect of LACMA’s divisive David Geffen Galleries,” April 16). It’s as though he’s saying, “So what if there’s not enough space for everyone to see all of the art? I want them to wander through my creation and appreciate it. So what if they get lost? After all, my building is the art that is to be appreciated here, not its contents.”
His quoted statements do not inspire me to visit the museum. Museums aren’t designed or created for people to be impressed by the building itself, but rather the art that’s accessibly displayed for people to see, enjoy and linger over.
At least in what made it to the article, this architect never mentions how his building complements the art that resides in this museum. I hate that the powers that be acquiesced and approved this insult to our art collections.
Linda Bradshaw Carpenter, Los Angeles
