There is no better way to begin a semester of architectural study in New York City that to address head-on the most emotionally and politically charged decision presented, in recent days, to the architectural community: the scheduled demolition of the American Folk Art Museum by The Museum of Modern Art. “A Conversation on The Museum of Modern Art’s Plan for Expansion” was held at the New York Society for Ethical Culture on January 28, hosted by The Architectural League of New York, the Municipal Art Society, and the American Institute of Architects NY Chapter. And I was fortunate to be in attendance.
(American Folk Art Museum. Photo by Luke Erickson)
Touted as a “public” event (for members of the hosting organizations only), it was a somewhat social gathering of the architecture and art communities. And yet a cloud of despair, apprehension, and in some cases, outrage, hung over the group. From the woman whose shirt shouted “NO!” in neatly applied tape lettering to the whispered conversations with tilted heads and emphatic glances, each attendee seemed to understand the significance of this architectural “State of the Union.”
The presentations opened with an overview of the MoMA’s reasons for expansion that was given by Glenn Lowry, the director of the Museum of Modern Art. Following that introduction, Liz Diller of Diller Scofidio+Renfro detailed the process and rationale for decisions made by she and her design team and the conclusions they had come to with respect to the fate of the American Folk Art Museum, designed by Tod Williams & Billie Tsien (notably not in attendance). A panel of gathered experts took the stage to discuss the responsibilities of MoMA to public interests, and its obligations to preserve and protect architecture. Of the entire group that spoke at the event, these individuals gave the most pointed, blunt, and occasionally emotionally-charged remarks. Everyone had an opinion. Even those whose voices were limited to the question cards passed out prior to the event ensured that their voices were heard with the various factions applauding at opportune moments.
In the end, the final question posed to the panel was perhaps what the entire event should have begun with: Does MoMA consider architecture to be an art? And if so, does it not have a responsibility to safeguard and preserve architecture?
Glenn Lowry responded to the question, stating that the MoMA does not recognize architecture as an art that is to be collected. In his own opinion, he said, architecture is intimately tied to a building’s function, and when that function is no longer supported, the responsibility to preserve it as an object is unreasonable.
On most accounts, I agree with Mr. Lowry’s assessment of architecture. And yet, I can understand the discomfort and unhappiness with the MoMA’s decision. Although the American Folk Art Museum and the MoMA are private entities and can utilize their buildings however they choose, a city feels a familial connection to its museums and cultural institutions. Intentional demolition of such a building is painful and presents all of the largely theoretical but very real questions about architecture. We, as architects, treat buildings as permanent entities. We feel a sense of ownership over our designs. But in reality, we hold no ownership over the physical building that results from our design. Should we collect architecture as we do art? Or better yet, can we call architecture art? We have already begun this collection of architecture through historical preservation and landmarked sites. But what constitutes “historical?” And who is given the final word in determining the cultural and historical value of a building? What is an architecture firm’s responsibility to its client when it disagrees with a planned demolition? And what of its responsibility to architecture? Should Diller Scofidio + Renfro have refused the commission to protest the demolition of the building? Would other firms have taken a similar stand?
As someone still sheltered by the walls of academia, these questions have begun to emerge as I study architectural precedents and visit landmarked buildings. Although I have little ability to engage in the conversations that were held last evening, you can be sure I will be spending time in front of the American Folk Art Museum, pondering these questions and formulating my own opinions and practical beliefs of the profession of Architecture.