The Denver Art Museum deflects a hot summer day

The Daniel Libeskind-designed addition to the Denver Art Museum, which opened in 2006, doesn’t count as “new” anymore. It seems to have settled into its home near the State Capitol building, dug in, maybe, because it reminds me of an armadillo, bronze-plated and glowing in the sun. It has that peculiar snout, though, a sharp geometric foray into space and toward the original Denver Art Museum building over a busy Denver street. But otherwise it seem perfectly suited to the hot summer day in Colorado on which I visited it – its blocky facets deflecting the heat, its low aerodynamic profile slicing through the hot wind, its situation in the plaza that Libeskind created for it roomy enough to allow its heat to radiate and disperse without warming its neighbors.

So, yes, I approved of the new building from a sculptural point of view — it also reminded me (and my wife — thanks Megan!) of a Stealth bomber. And I like the metaphor: art stealthily and lethally undermining a crude, car-choked American metropolis. But I had two questions in mind for the new DAM: 1) Would the aggressive architecture detract from the art inside, impose itself too much, and 2) how would it “fit” into downtown Denver as an urban design proposition. One visit and a little Googling isn’t going to answer those, but that’s not going to stop me from taking a stab at them… oh no.

The weird angles and facets (not SO weird, really, not Gehry weird, anyway) do present some challenges to the curators. What they suggest, though, is a way to make the experience of the art more intimate: Use the markers of those angles to construct a series of mini-galleries inside. Sometimes that doesn’t work all that well. We suspect that a little Clyfford Still exhibition has been shoe-horned into an impossible space, for example. But sometimes it works brilliantly — an impromptu gallery of small 20th century paintings that might have been lost in the hub-bub of more, well, demonstrative pieces, but in this context leads to deeper reflections about them as individual paintings and the way they connect to art currents in general. Landscapes from the Age of Impressionism had a similar effect — lots of little alcoves to consider the buttery colors of John Singer Sargent, say, or the single sinuous Renoir in the show.

The fourth floor, where the big modern and contemporary works will hang out, was closed for installation when I was there, so my primary concern wasn’t answered — how would those angles work with gigantic paintings so large they are subversive? Or messy sprawling installations? Sculpture? With anything that might “fight back” against the setting Libeskind has designed? I don’t know, but the magnificent towering public spaces in the building suggest an accommodation might be made.

Looking outside the museum — and the eye is drawn back to it, over and over — the plaza that Libeskind has created for his building and the 7-story Gio Ponti-designed North Building (1971) neatly ties the two together and embraces the Denver library (and its Michael Graves post-modern addition), too. With two separate buildings, there’s going to be some confusion at the museum, inevitably. Visitors should remember that the DAM’s excellent Native American collection is still in the North Building. I also noticed that some condos had sprouted nearby. Denver isn’t a walkable city, by any means, but its new close-in developments give it hope, and this cultural district (the performing arts center isn’t too far away and the capitol building is very close) is a good hub for a great urban neighborhood — I would want to live nearby, anyway.

Back to Clyfford Still for a moment, because of the local connection. Not Still himself, though his association with eastern Washington was long enough and close enough to claim some comradeship. It’s amazing how many of the AE heroes had deep Western roots. But Denver will be the home of a new Clyfford Still Museum, scheduled to open in 2010, and its designer is Allied Works and Brad Cloepfil. Those designs are on display in the Libeskind building in the Still exhibition (and by the way, the older Stills remind me of older Carl Morris paintings… which isn’t THAT amazing). At first glance, I thought that maybe the much smaller and plainer Still museum was going to be a casualty of Libeskind’s Big Architectural Gesture, but on reflection I think Cloepfil’s solution to a difficult set of problems is astute — a fairly straightforward rectangle, deftly detailed with textured and resurfaced concrete, and tall enough at two stories for Still’s big drip paintings, but still intimate and somehow “hand made.” It won’t fight the Libeskind, and it will be a a good place to see portions of the 2,400 artworks in Still’s estate after his death in 1980.

Any Scatter readers out there with a different take? I’d love to hear it!

6 Responses to “The Denver Art Museum deflects a hot summer day”

  1. Ben Waterhouse Says:

    I haven’t been to the DAM yet, but I did visit San Francisco’s de Young Museum last week for the first time since the building opened in 2005. I was really impressed with how well the somewhat unusual architecture served the exhibits inside, and how well the curators have distributed their permanent collection through the building. It’s a model of an innovative structure that actually works for the art, unlike the Guggenheim Bilbao or, I suppose, the DAM.

  2. barry Says:

    Ben, thanks for the comparison! I like the collections the de Young houses — American painting plus African, Oceania, textile and other crafts, graphic art, etc. — none of which would be at adds with that building, which IS pretty alluring all by itself. I didn’t mean to imply that the DAM wasn’t GOOD for art, necessarily, but it does take some thinking to make it work. But the caveat: I saw it on one afternoon, one set of shows, etc…

  3. Peter Blankenstein Says:

    we (Thea and I visit also the Liebeskind Jewish museum in Berlin.This Denver building gives the city much more architectural expression and is a real highligth. When you look from the opposit angel , you just will see a combination from an old and a modern building which is more spectaculor then the Berlin combination.

  4. barry Says:

    Peter, thanks both for visiting Art Scatter and the comparison! We toured the Denver museum with Peter and his wife Thea, and his photograph is the one above. So thanks for that, too!

  5. Mark O'Neill Says:

    How different it looks on a hot summers day, than in the winter when I visited it. I saw a reflection of the mountain peaks, literally “nature turned on its side”.

    I agree that Denver is not a “walkable city”, and that detracted from my experience visiting the museum since I had to walk across a bunch of streets to get to it. There is not much an architect can do about that, though, and the building uses space well by jutting out over one of those roads I crossed.

    I feel there is some fatigue now about the sprouting of many shiny oddly-shaped buildings around the world, with some being gimmicky and some working well. I am in two minds about which category the DAM fits into. I have discussed this on my travel blog with pictures I’ve taken of other roughly comparable buildings around the world.

  6. Barry Johnson Says:

    Mark, That’s a great collection of photos on your blog! And I know what you mean about the ambivalence toward DAM — is it more “architect fatigue” or does it actually work? I think I need more visits to determine the answer for myself…

Leave a Reply

a Portland-centric arts and culture blog