EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -moma.html
Reading this article, it is interesting to know that the Guggenheim was not always the bright white color with which we can observe it today, the original color used to be beige, and after the addition of the building that was made in 1992 they decided to change the color of the faÃƒÂ§ade (a decision that is not very respectful with the author of the work, I must say):
I have not found quality color photographs prior to 1992 but doing a little simulation with Photoshop, it should be something like this:
And deepening even more in the other colors that Wright had in mind for this famous museum, it is fun to imagine what the building would be like if Wright had decided to finish it in one of the other colors he studied:
Having seen the Guggenheim when new, I have a reference, and I have managed to find photos that I believe reflect the original color, which I would have called "sand." It's a warmer and lighter in value than your recreation above.
(We can remind ourselves that the color chart above may have been altered slightly, unintentionally, in the necessary transmission through various media ?)
I too believe it was a remarkable fault to choose a different color for the building, either in the 'nineties or more recently, following the restoration. I just can't imagine how that decision was reached. The cold gray-white color is . . . pick your adjective. Thoughtless, as I see it.
Sorry this image isn't larger . . .
https://www.guggenheim-bilbao.eus/en/ex ... -wright-2/
My only question is, was the exterior color ever applied to the interior? Was it the curatorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s preference for Ã¢â‚¬Å“modern museum whiteÃ¢â‚¬Â� on the interior which led to the exterior being repainted to match? WrightÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s painted masonry or concrete buildings, at least to my eye, appeared to be painted a consistent color over both the interior and exterior. Was the exterior color change an effort to have the interior and exterior colors of the monolithic structure match?
exhibited vertically rather than leaning back against the curving walls ("as they are when on the artist's easel," I believe Wright said)---and that the
interior surfaces should be white and not the (exterior) sand color Wright specified. Wright lost both of those arguments, as it turned out; special
brackets were made to support the paintings vertically and away from the walls, and those walls were white when the museum opened.
Oddly, none of this history appears readily to an online searcher. The exterior color remained as original for decades, however, and I don't recall
that particular argument being used in defense of the alteration when it finally occurred . . .
If so, what would be the effect of that---both aesthetically and from a conservation point of view ?
Do you recall---or is there evidence---that the ramp parapet was painted to match the exterior, at least at the beginning ? I don't recall, though I was there for one of the Artists' Openings. If so, when would that have bitten the dust ?
As to the controversies, they were a hot issue at the time and would have received plentiful coverage in the press. I find it odd---disturbing, even---that there is so little that comes to hand now.
The perimeter lights were always there, so whether the paintings were vertical or leaning, it wouldn't matter much. Since the walls are curved, even an "easel" configuration would have put the painting somewhat away from the wall. I think those lights were meant simply to mitigate shadows in the display alcoves. What is aggravating is that Sweeney did not even give the idea a try. He might have come around.
his work. I chalk it up to Wright's notorious if only occasional ignorance (ignoring) of client requirements in favor of his own vision . . . all arts but his
own being of lesser importance, in the grand scheme of things.
There really are times when we must defer to someone other than Wright---even on these pages.
It could be argued that Guggenheim shattered that notion for all time. Museums today take on all sorts of configurations without damaging the art on display. For that matter, the background of museums going back to the original (Louvre) were not obliterated by white paint.
http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka ... i2005.html
If the lighting is fluorescent, the artwork would be affected more than if it was incandescent, so lighting a museum properly is essential. Note that Guggenheim uses (or used) fluorescent lights. Sunlight is best, as long as it does not cast UV rays directly on the art.
There is also the matter of eye color. Blue-eyes perceive color differently from brown eyes. And that is beyond the control of the artist.