Given a vote, I'd vote for the current Barnes way over any of those, particularly the first one which tries to much to be an art statement of its own, and one that looks like the Kennedy Center (and lots of other 60's buildings) with the addition of a sod roof, which makes no sense for the Barnes which is not seen from above, or even that all glass thing.

But of course architecture is always very subjective. Think of the now famous glass pyriamid by Pei at The Louvre which caused a huge uproar. Has any museum every been built (particularly with "modern" architecture which has pleased everyone?

Incidentally, I visited the Bilboa museum in Spain by Gehry, just after it opened. Looking way up from inside we saw a lot of windows that were just filthy -- streaked with bird droppings and the rain which just make the droppings run. We were told that it was a big problem. The only way to reach that glass (permanently sealed) was to bring in a huge crane and lower someone from above to clean them -- a HUGE expense and something they were working to figure out an alternative to. So even award winning designs (and many HATED that building) have their issues.

I am not familiar with the various proposals, nor have seen any models of them, but a glass enclosure, perhaps similar to this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mksfca/...7633240960481/ would have permitted an echo of Mrs. Barnes' horticultural endeavors:

"his wife was very much into horticulture and the gardens were, in a way, supposed to be complementary to the art work indoors as there was also an educational program developed for the gardens."

I guess this is where you're losing me aqain Michael. The new Barnes went to great lengths to emphasize the garden and outdoor experience. That was much of the purpose of the new facility -- including the use of natural stone rather than steel and glass to also add to the "naturalness" and "environmental" experience. No, they didn't build a glass structure where you are looking directly out into the gardens all the time -- but then that would have NO relation to the gardens at Merion either.

The new Barnes DOES echo or compliment the art collections inside quite a bit like the old one did. But having an open glass pavilion as you're suggesting would be a totally different concept from the original relationship of garden and art!

Meanwhile a full three year program for students of horticulture continues in a MUCH EXPANDED program with the new Barnes. So, I'm really not sure what the "beef" is about that.

By the way, Michael I think you used the wrong link. There are several pictures on that link, but the only glass enclosure picture there is one totally upward to the sky, so I have no idea how that would relate to Mrs. Barnes horticultural elements. But ironically in that group of pictures there is ONE which does show a relationship between building and lovely landscape -- but that's the last one and yes, it IS of the new Barnes. So that's why I'm particularly confused by your link if it was to suggest a better way to related the museum to landscape design.

<i></i>

It would let light in. The picture of the new Barnes is outside both buildings and does not provide any relationship to the Barnes collection, only to the new building.

What relationship did the OLD Barnes have to the landscape other than as a compliment? As I've said I was never there, but from all accounts there was almost no way to see outside at least during the day from the rooms with the collections as the screens and draperies were kept drawn. In fact, one change is that the new Barnes does have an indoor garden to add to the relationship of horticulture and art -- again, something the old Barnes did not have. The way I understand it, the new Barnes makes a very similar relationship between building and landscape -- which the old one did -- and was a major priority in the design of the new facility. I'm thinking you're trying to make it be something that is totally different from what it WAS or what it IS-- like seeing the gardens while looking at the art?

And as we've already discussed, the new Barnes already lets LOTS of light in -- controlled however, not just one huge glass enclosure which would be a nightmare in many ways for an art collection.

I was not arguing that the Barnes collection itself should be under glass. I am simply stating that another solution to the hangar (bigger than the collection building is my impression) could have existed. But you can't have it both ways, either technology can control the influence of natural light or it can't. You argued that it can, and you are right, as evidenced by the Fondation Beyeler museum in Basel (http://www.antiquesandfineart.com/ar...rch02_g_lg.jpg ) which uses natural light for its main floor exhibition rooms.

I am prejudiced because I tend to agree with <u>The Art of the Steal</u>, and I see the present set-up (no matter how much more convenient for tourists) as payback time by the descendants of the original Philadelphia art coterie that Barnes railed against. I view the long-term future of the integrity of the collection skeptically.

Other glass structures:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mksfca/...57623705654880

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mksfca/...57623200372490

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mksfca/...57623094971409

You're right that you can't have it both ways. Here are people screaming because its not just like the old place. Meanwhile the collection rooms ARE just like the old place, and here you are wanting to totally change them by putting them in glass structures. If you think people are upset now, can you imagine them if the collections were thrown into those glass structures? I thought tou were merely talking about the entrance or auxiliary rooms, or the exterior architecture, but you really now seem to be saying the actual exhibition rooms would be better with more change!

<i>Meanwhile the collection rooms ARE just like the old place, and here you are wanting to totally change them by putting them in glass structures</i>

Somehow you overlooked my first sentence. I am speaking of the modern envelope, not the structure that holds the collection.

As for the picture of the Fondation Beyeler, it was just an answer to your comment "not just one huge glass enclosure which would be a nightmare in many ways for an art collection." as a general principle, not as something that should be applied to the collection itself.

Whatever arguments you offer, I do not think that you will be able to convince me that I should find the hangar acceptable, and it takes a lot of space.

Well, Michael I didn't miss that statement at all -- that's why, as I said, I THOUGHT you were talking about the "envelope" until you started talking about the light ON the collections which somehow made no sense to me unless you meant change the actual structure of the display rooms.

And no, I don't expect you or anyone else to change the like or dislike of a particular architectural concept. That's how architecture works. I only tried to point out that many of the things you were mentioning as being missing were exactly the things that AREN'T missing with the new design, but actually very important components that were foremost in the planning and design. But that doesn't mean you have to like it. Architecture, like art, is very personal.