Comments on: LACMA’s Loneliest Galleries

By: Deborah W.

Deborah W. — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 05:42:34 +0000

An unfortunate aspect of architect William Pereira’s design in the early 1960s for LACMA was extending a good portion of the museum’s floor space to a third and fourth floor. Most major museums throughout the world have virtually all their square footage confined to a main level and one level above that. But that easier-to-navigate concept was upended in the 1960s. And that was true to an even greater degree since the 3rd and 4th levels of the Ahmanson building originally represented a much larger percentage of the total floor space of the museum.

More recently, matters haven’t been helped by the continuing stop-and-start, inside-and-outside layout of the museum, with the Japanese Pavilion physically separated from gallery space to the west, the new Broad building separated from gallery space to the east, the Hammer building separated from the Ahmanson, the Bing building separated from the Hammer and the Ahmanson, and the former Robert Anderson building (and, by the way, why was that donor’s name removed in the first place?) separated from gallery space to the north and west.

And, of course, there is the former May Co building that sits all alone, way over towards Fairfax—but that’s excusable since that building was never designed to be a part of LACMA to begin with.

Moreover, the new special exhibitions building isn’t going to help matters, since that building will be separate from the new Broad building, which, in turn, is separate from…and here we go all over again!

All of this discontinuity has been exacerbated by LACMA’s inability to raise enough money to fill in the gaps, to refine and complete the spaces between the various buildings, particularly the former (and originally fully outdoor) plaza in the middle of the Ahmanson, Hammer and, now, American art wings.

With that in mind, the original idea in the 1990s to tear everything down and start from scratch becomes even more of a stretch (or more absurd) since, again, LACMA already has faced enough of a struggle in generating adequate funds to make the existing campus more cohesive, efficient and attractive, much less outright imposing and impressive.

By: Gerald

Gerald — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 22:11:31 +0000

The problem with the Ahmanson is that you can’t see into the third and fourth floor. LACMA needs to build a grand staircase going up from the second floor to the third and from the third to the floor. When you walk into the Ahmanson from BP Grand Entrance you see the spider, when you walk underneath the spider you see the photography gallery, when you walk up the steps you see German art on one end and arts and crafts on the other. And as you move in either direction you see even more art that pulls you in either direction. But you can’t see into the third and fourth floor and if you take the elevator, what greets you when the doors open is an empty wall. Even the materials you receive when you purchase a ticket don’t point you to visit the third and fourth floor. And how is it that Rodin and Monet are between Egyptian, classical paintings, and glass works and not with impressionist and post-impressionist works? Why have rooms that have four doors where are is in the corners, not the center? The Japanese building suffers from similar issues of access.

By: Evan

Evan — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:53:46 +0000

The Ahmanson Building as a whole is really sadly under-visited. I usually spend minutes staring at these giant doorways from Assyria (I believe) and marveling at the distance in time and space from when they stood as part of a palace, to me looking at them in a museum…and people usually walk right past them, looking for a bathroom.