In Denver, Artists Embrace Libeskind’s Controversial Museum Addition
Three years ago, the Denver Art Museum (DAM) expanded into a titanium-clad addition by Daniel Libeskind, which, typical of the architect, features a dramatic series of jagged outcroppings and angular interiors. The new building has quickly become a symbol of the Mile High City, but a number of critics have balked at its asymmetrical galleries, arguing that they are poor spaces in which to display art. Now the DAM is confronting those criticisms with an exhibition, opening tomorrow, titled Embrace! The show’s curator, Christoph Heinrich—who was recently named the museum’s new director—invited 17 artists from around the world to, yes, embrace the museum’s unique design and use the architecture itself as a canvas for their work. Here’s a look at what several of the artists came up with.
.
Photos: Jeff Wells/courtesy the artists and Denver Art Museum
Nicola López’s printed images react to the architecture with lines that snake up, down, and around the walls, delicately consuming the space. The prints were inspired by steel beams and girders, plastic cables, industrial waste, and assorted construction and technological debris.
Lawrence Weiner believes that snippets of language can be just as powerful as a painting or sculpture. Here, his words are found in the stairwell of the DAM.
Matthew Brannon’s large vinyl wall murals cover the wall between the second and third floors.
In one of the smaller galleries, Russian-born Dasha Shishkin’s installation uses the angled walls and low ceiling to create depth and help her tell a story.
John McEnroe’s plastic sculptures hang from the ceiling of the DAM.
Shinique Smith balances street art and fine art using garments, wire, spray paint, and other objects collected from museum volunteers and docents.
Berlin-based Katarina Grosse used an industrial spray gun to cover a four-story slanted wall, drawing attention the building’s unique structure. Fun fact: During installation, the wall had to be sealed in a plastic bubble to protect the museum from spray paint.
Kristin Baker’s architecture-inspired sculpture is made of paint on steel underpinnings.
Finally, Rick Dula (show here with his work-in-progress) takes an industrial approach with this inside-out view into the second-floor hallway. His to-scale installation reminds viewers of the gritty construction process.
All work © the artists, 2009. Titles, from top: Nicola López, R.A.W.; Lawrence Weiner AS TO BE IN PLAIN SIGHT; Matthew Brannon, Last to Know; Dasha Shishkin, Dying Christ Rushed To The Hospital (You Are Going To Need My Help, Sweetheart); John McEnroe, The Bathers; Shinique Smith, Twilight’s Compendium; Katharina Grosse, George; Kristin Baker, Dihedral Barrage; Rick Dula, untitled work in progress
Blog feed
Newsletter
Twitter
BACK TO TOP
Amazing!
Somehow these artists managed to make the building look even WORSE than Libeskind’s ham-fisted and underwhelming excuse for a design.
Comment by Loreanna — November 13, 2009, @ 6:22 pm
screw comment #1. people who complain about the formations of museum interiors are Extremely seldom artists.
the spaces are interesting, and bring people to a more disinterested state of mind, which is good for the artist. i can’t say that i’m a fan of each artist’s work on display here (nor should i have to be), but i still see the benefit in modern museum formations.
if people need more formal placement of their work, then bring in some partition walls. new art shouldnt be forced to conform to old standards.
Comment by atom — November 14, 2009, @ 10:27 am
The pretentiousness of the “art” on show manages to match the pretentiousness of Libeskind’s galleries. It is a perfect storm of bullshit colliding with ignorance to create an intellectual vacuum masquerading as “transgressive” design.
I can’t wait to miss this show.
Comment by Elvin — November 16, 2009, @ 12:35 pm
It is not saying much that the “site specific” installations rise to (or rather descend to), the dubious occasion of being on show in the Hamilton Wing. From what I can see it just reinforces the prevailing knowledge that Daniel Libeskind’s awkward and self-conscious design is just not conducive to the presentation or contemplation of artwork. The whole becomes much less than the sum of very weak parts.
Comment by Yomi Kursawi — November 16, 2009, @ 6:33 pm
In better museums, the architecture is subordinate to the art it houses. This special exhibition is a tacit admission by the museum that Daniel Libeskind’s over-wrought and contrived architecture has failed in its role of accommodating the collection. This is one of a long line of Hamilton wing exhibits that will do nothing to enhance the material on show. But if you come to embrace Daniel Libeskind’s ego, you will be well catered for.
Comment by Jared — November 17, 2009, @ 9:57 am
I love the opportunity for conversation between art and architecture, divided factions of humanities whose boundaries are blurring by the day. Responsive art and architecture is and the dialogue created should be a wonderful experience for everyone!
Comment by Erin — November 17, 2009, @ 9:51 pm
I grew up in Denver. I left the state of Colorado to pursue my college education in Architecture/art. Colorado lacked both an accredited college which could issue a BArch 5 year degree as well as an art and architecture culture that was robust enough for an aspiring student. On top of that to put it mildly when it came to art and architecture Denver was A*S backwards. Cowboys and sunsets are not art. Neither is the Cherry Creek Art festival. This museum and the art work in it are serious progress. I am very proud that Denver has come this far. Did I come back to build suburban sprawl? NO, there still isnt enough culture there but this is a big big step in the right direction.
Comment by jeff — November 17, 2009, @ 10:38 pm
This reminds me of the Zaha Hadid exhibtion a few years ago at the Guggenheim which was a full frontal assault on Wright’s building. Art will always happen within the context of space. Site specific (or site contrary) design is something we should always have in mind when placing objects in the world. I haven’t been to the Denver museum, but I love seeing an art and architecture work as a polemic like this.
Comment by Daniela — November 17, 2009, @ 11:03 pm
Jeesh!!! Who writes this stuff? “conversation between art and architecture”, “divided factions of humanities whose boundaries are blurring by the day”, “Frontal Assault”, “polemic”,…..
It’s assinine. You can dress it up in any cliched academic jargon you like but it still translates as “bullshit”, “bullshit”, “bullshit”. The sum of bad, amateur-hour “art” and a hopelessly clumsy architectural setting manages to be even less than any one of the constituent parts. Please make a note of it.
Comment by Gavin Kimble — November 18, 2009, @ 12:32 pm
yeah, more square rooms for square people! if art can thrive in a dilapidated subway tunnell why cannot it challenge a beautiful angular environment? true, the academic jargon is mainly bullshit, but anybody who pretends to “know” better is just as pretentious! open your mind and welcome/enjoy diversity for once.
Comment by alex — November 19, 2009, @ 9:36 am
This seems like a failed attempt at rescuing the enormous investment of time and money that went into the creation of this building. Denver needed and got a somewhat interesting urban sculpture that has at least a couple of interesting angles you can glance at while driving by, but, as a building, it only gets worse as you approach and even more disappointing as you enter it. The art work does nothing to achieve the goal of the exhibition, which was to redeem the dizzying and claustrophobic interior spaces finished with a cacophony of standard building materials that resemble the aftermath of an earthquake. The work is as uninspiring as the building itself, a fact makes this curatorial exercise become a work of art of sorts, exposing and emphasizing the awkward and limited capacity of this museum to have any kind of dialogue with works of art.
Comment by Ricardo — November 19, 2009, @ 10:06 am
Throw a disorganized pile of scrap metal on a vacant site and call it a “museum”. Get a bunch of pretentious losers to fling shit at the walls and in the corners and call it “art”. Is this what the creative world has sunk too?
Compare this excresence with, for example, a Giacometti on display in Renzo Piano’s DeMenil Museum, or with a Rothko displayed with dignity at MoMA. The simple fact is that Hamilton Wing is a disaster. No attempt to EMBRACE it will do anything other than transfer Libeskind’s cooties to the exhibitors. Anyone who wants to pretend that this is exciting or stimulating is welcome to keep fooling themselves.
Comment by Roy G — November 20, 2009, @ 11:40 am
I was kinda hoping that one of the artists would do this amazing performance piece which would culminate in blowing the whole ugly building to smithereens. Oh well …… maybe next year.
Comment by Marshall — November 22, 2009, @ 5:09 pm
I can’t wait for the day when art museums and galleries recognise architecture as an art form and have the guts to exhibit their buildings “naked”.
Comment by sadie — November 27, 2009, @ 3:30 pm
The interior of the new wing to the Denver Museum does look like a funhouse or The Mystery Spot in Santa Cruz, California which distorts perception by all the tricks used by Libeskind. I am not sure how this will benefit any piece of art, particularly wall hanging pieces. Hanging any piece at an angle not used by the artist will distort the colors, because light will strike the surface at an angle not seen by the artist. Also the perspective, or plays on perspective, of every wall hung piece will be distorted. Even if this space is used only for sculpture, the distortions of the walls will effect the perception of every piece place therein, as they do at the Mystery Spot.
Comment by MJ Stephens — December 3, 2009, @ 3:51 pm
I guess it depends on what you go to art to experience. If you want your museum experience to rival a trip to Six Flags, you are in business in Denver.
I grew up in Denver, and still visit regularly. I was just back in fact, and saw the promo info for this show (I wasn’t up for another trip to the museum itself). I just don’t understand how utterly cheap and provincial the museum’s press is. It matches the building, and by the looks of this, the art in “Embrace!” (nice title - look out MoMA). Denver has a great new museum tho - David Adjaye’s new-ish Contemporary. THAT is a great building.
Comment by mct2911 — January 11, 2010, @ 7:32 pm