ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM
I didn’t like it. There, I said it. I did not like the Royal Ontario Museum.
With the famous architect (Liebskind) and the famous theory (deconstructivism) and the building budget (obviously huge), I had a sense that I was supposed to be liking the experience.
Yet, I didn’t.
Actually, for the longest time, I kept staring at places in the building where three shifting grid geometries overlapped each other. And I kept obsessing about the incredibly complex connections that this shifting grid fostered. The complexity of these intersections was humbling.
It took awhile, but I came to understand that the addition was constructed in a courtyard surrounded by brick buildings. So it was more or less a courtyard intervention, which then enclosed and connected with the existing fabric. So in that regard, I did enjoy the interplay in the interstitial space between the old and the new. I liked that.
It is just that once you were in the new galleries, I simply could not develop any enthusiasm for the sharply angular planes and the interior gallery spaces. The building certainly could serve as a museum of itself, and would likely have been far better without any art objects in in.
So I guess that’s my reaction. The building should simply be for what it is. And then patrons could simply go and admire the geometry, grids, ribbon windows and diagonal circulation.
Although I took many photos inside, I needed the images of floor plans on the web to help me decode the photos that I took.
And now that I think about it, the Royal Ontario Museum was the first Liebeskind building that I had been in. So maybe it is me without sufficient hipness and intellectual rigor.
Two thoughts on Backdrops and Libeskind:
In a Fine Homebuilding feature many years ago, two NY architects described their own home as “a quiet backdrop for their daily activities”. That thought has stayed with me as I happily toil in a neighboring professional field, where the best work is often least visible – by design.
Libeskind also creates backdrops, literally in his companion practice as a stage set designer. A thougtful and creative set design can elevate a ballet or opera to a truly memorable experience, but always in a supporting role. I visited a Libeskind-designed museum in Berlin nearly a decade ago, and recall an experience similar to yours in Ontario. The relentless inventiveness and aesthetic dissonance distracted from the museum’s solemn mission. I would like to ask Mr. Libeskind how he approaches the very different challenges and opportunities of the ephemeral (theater) and durable (built environment) architectural canvases.