[intro]Bloomberg’s Architecture Critic Against the Gardner and Barnes Plans[/intro]
The essay defies summary or simple quotation but on Bloomberg, James S. Russell makes a case that neither the Barnes or the Gardner museums are being well-served by their architects or their donor’s fanciful restrictions.
We need museums that don’t toe the art-world party line, but idiosyncrasy can go too far. I fear neither the Gardner’s addition nor the Barnes’s new home will free them of the unenviable dilemma of trying to save the collections while remaining true to their founders’ vision.
What’s so curious is that we honor donor intent but not artist intent. Long after the brief holder of these items is gone, the works are imprisoned to their arbitrary vision.