"Isn't it ironic... don't you think?"

And, I’m back. There seems to be yet another issue being faced by the CMHR in regards to their construction project, and I thought it was interesting.

Despite only breaking ground in April 2009, the construction efforts of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights have not been without (somewhat ironic) controversy. In June, Leigh Syms, a retired archaeologist and former curator for the Manitoba Museum, accused the CMHR of cultural insensitivity surrounding their treatment of First Nations heritage in the area. Apparently the new museum is being located on top of what Mr. Syms considers to be one of the richest deposits of First Nations artifacts in the province and he doesn’t think the museum’s 5-and-a-half month archaeological excavation of the site sufficiently preserved the wealth of artifacts present at the site. [1]

Interestingly, it is one of Antoine Predock’s design features that is providing museum representatives with their strongest defense against Syms’ claims – the entire museum will be built on piles. These piles will raise the majority of the building aboveground, reducing the pressure that will be put on the cultural layers of the site. So, while the remaining artifacts will be rendered inaccessible beneath the building, the theory is that they will not be harmed by the creation of the museum. [2]

I’m curious as to whether this consideration for cultural sensitivity played a part in Predock’s design plans or if his use of piles to preserve the underlying artifacts was just a happy side benefit of a purely cosmetic choice. Nothing in my research suggested deliberate action on his part (then again, nothing suggested that it wasn’t). And, if you consider some of Predock’s other architectural feats (specifically the Logjam House), you can see how he has used natural elements from the building’s surroundings to add to the aesthetic of the structure. So, I guess it’s entirely possible he may have taken the preservation of First Nations heritage into account as he designed the building.

One could hope, anyway.

Sources:

[1] http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/06/16/mb-museum-artifacts-human-rights.html
[2] Ibid.

The Rise of the "Starchitect"

This week in museology we briefly discussed the idea of the “starchitect” in response to mixed emotions surrounding Daniel Libeskind’s design of the Michael Lee-Chin Crystal addition to the Royal Ontario Museum’s (ROM) original buildings in 2007.

As I understand it, a “starchitect” is an architect whose work has made them a celebrity in their own right (Frank Lloyd Wright and Frank Gehry come to mind). The argument that has been made by some is that in seeking to hire these celebrity architects, museums are placing a greater value on the aesthetics of the buildings that house their collections and the publicity resulting from the attachment of a famous name to their project, than they are on the ability of the new space to function as a museum.

Oftentimes these new museums (or additions to existing museums) are visually striking creations of glass and steel, full of clean lines or sinuous curves. As a fan of modern architecture, I have to admit to finding many of these buildings both beautiful and intriguing. And I have been known, on occasion, to take planes, trains and automobiles just to be able to see the outside of one of these buildings. [Note: The photo to the right is one I took of Frank Gehry’s Dancing House in Prague – affectionately nicknamed the “Fred and Ginger Building”]

Unfortunately, architects are not museum workers and their designs often reflect this fact. One of the biggest criticisms of “starchitecture” is that while beautiful (or an eye-sore, depending on your point of view) they fail to take into account the practical day-to-day concerns of museum staff, such as excess natural light, heating and cooling, the feasibility of easily mounting paintings or displaying their artifacts, office space, collections storage, etc.

Considering the brouhaha surrounding The Crystal, I was curious as to the approach that went into choosing the design for the new Canadian Museum for Human Rights that is currently being built in Winnipeg. Upon a little research, I discovered that Antoine Predock’s design was chosen by “an international Architectural Review Committee (ARC) comprising architects, distinguished Canadian public servants and representatives of Friends of Canadian Museum for Human Rights Inc” (none of which are explicitly museum professionals). The objective set by the committee for the architects to guide them in their creations was for them to create “an inspirational building that achieves a complexity relating to the diversity of human experience.” If this was the only criteria that the architects vying for the job were given, then it seems that Predock’s design is a worthy choice – the building certainly looks complicated enough.

But where's the consideration of the building as a museum!? I realize that the CMHR is planning on focusing on technology-based exhibits as opposed to collections-based ones, but where's the consideration of light, or office space or any of the other countless concerns that I, as someone who has never worked in a museum, couldn't possibly fathom?

As the building is not due for completion until 2012, perhaps only time will tell how functional the space is as a museum. I’ll be interested to follow this museum as it develops.

Oh, and if you would like to follow the museum as it develops, be sure to check out the museum's website, where the progress at the construction site is taped 24/7 and then edited down to a 1 minute clip that is posted once a week. It's a bit like watching paint dry at the moment, but it'll be interesting to see the changes made to the site over the next two years.

Source of Quotations:

http://www.dexigner.com/design_news/1739.html