Blanton Museum of Art

In the latest issue of Arts & Antiques there is a little article about the new Blanton Museum of Art at the University of Texas at Austin. This caught my eye primarily because UT is my alma mater. But, after reading the article, what struck me the most was how modest the architecture of the building is. Apparently, UT bucked the trend of turning the building itself into a modern work of art. Instead, the collections inside define the museum not the design of the building. About the architecture, the article states, "What it lacks in architectural surprises (the design compliments the campus's Spanish-Colonial Revival leitmotif) the building makes up for in a pleasing flow of classically conceived galleries that serve the collection well."

I was taught that an art museum's primary mission (whether it is said or not) is the conservation and preservation of its collections. I fear some of the newly built museums (see below) jeopardize the safety of the museum's collections in that the construction does not necessarily lend itself to sound function. Virtually every museum I have ever known struggles with finding the finances to simply keep the roof from leaking. The cantilevered, butterfly trussed roofs of many of today's designs spell l-e-a-k to me. And wouldn't the expense of fixing a leak in new-fangled architecture be more costly than fixing a leak in a standard roof system? Where are the spending priorities?

In contrast to the Blanton article, I read an article in Art in America announcing the grand opening of  the Akron Art Museum's new 63,000 square foot addition. This article was all about the building and not about the art inside. That bummer me out a bit because I was reading Art in America and not Architectural Digest. I literally chuckled out loud when I read that the intention of the architecture was for it to "affirm the progressive character of the museum's program and bring it into the public sphere." Shouldn't the programming itself affirm its progressiveness rather than the museum’s architecture? Just a question.

Another example of architecture being placed above the collections is the new Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston. After all the hoopla leading up to its grand opening earlier this year, my interest was peaked. Luckily, I was able to visit in May and was all set for a great experience. Didn't happen. Not only was it situated poorly among a jumble of dirty parking lots (which took some strategic navigation just to reach an opening in the lot's chain link fence and eventually find the front door), the best views of the building were from its backside which hangs over the water. Then, when I finally made it inside, I realized I was looking at the architecture more than the exhibits. Once I focused on the art, I found the collections did not live up to the architecture.

The conventional wisdom about museums is that they should be handmaidens to their collections inside. But the lessons of new landmark museums like the Akron Museum and the ICA is that architecture defines the institution and creates a sense of elevated cultural importance. Once inside, visitors expect the contents of the building to be special and elevating. Apparently, the quality of the architecture can prepare visitors for the "experience of art." This is true, but I don't wan t to hear the ICA or Akron Museum crying about a shortage in their general funds after spending like they did to get their new building.

So, I applaud my alma mater for resisting the urge to spend buckets of money on some over-the-top, crazy designed building and focus more on the art inside and its programming.

Don't get me wrong though… The Blanton Museum is quick to make the audacious claim that it is the largest university museum in the country. That is soooo Texas.