A significantly reduced project in every way is not a win - and only a few would believe that saving old warehouses was worth the trade off by giving up an 80 plus story tower and the majority of a potential world class art gallery.
 
A Gehry project of this scale is a win regardless. Number of buildings ranks low in my scale of import, in comparison to the overall quality of the project - and besides, Id take real buildings over renderings and lofty marketing claims any day.

AoD
 
Last edited:
*The proposed 86 floor tower has been increased to 92 floors.
*The 82 floor tower has been retained
*the 84 floor tower has been eliminated.
*The architectural design of the previous 3 towers have been eliminated and replaced with a different architectural design on the remaining 2 towers.
*the 6 floor "Cloud" podium is eliminated
*the 60,000 sqft gallery has replaced with a 9000 sqft space (the original gallery plan is eliminated)
*POW retained intact and unchanged (needing added business so it doesn't sit empty for weeks at a time)
*Anderson Building the victim of a facadism (or as Mirvish calls it..."the Toronto solution")
*Whitewear Building remains fully intact, with the Gehry "jewel box" gallery space added to the rood, and most likely a full restoration of the rest of the building.

*The real question is....Does Tim Hortons get retained!!!!!?????



I guess rather than a grand gallery in Toronto, he will send his art to various galleries around the world. People won't have to come here to see it.

Another key loss.
Click to expand...

Probably the biggest loss of all the losses of the previous proposal. But in art-hating Toronto, meant little in the first place and won't register as a loss at all. Given all the nattering over who will pay for the lightbulbs...plenty of people are glad it's gone.
 
Last edited:
^ i guess it is all about height - I feel for Mirvish - after all he did to try to bring something world class to Toronto - such a waste of time.
 
We can't win the "height" war, we're not even in the game.

We should be striving for quality and uniqueness - although we're not currently in that game either.


But, when it comes to old warehouses....we have a good shot.
 
I wish people would stop with the SERIOUS overvaluing of the value of Mirvish's art collection. It's a good to very good collection of post-war abstract painting. Full stop. We aren't talking Van Gogh, Manet, Titian or Goya here.

In and of itself, it could never be the basis of a 'world class art museum'. Certainly not one that is 60,000 sq ft. As i have already mentioned--there is extremely limited interest in the kind of paintings he collects (collected), and they could never, in and off themselves, be the basis of the crowd-pleasing blockbuster shows that small museums need to regularly mount in order to survive in today's climate. This is an immutable fact.

I hate having to go over this very simple point, but people keep talking as if they know something of the matter, when they quite clearly don't. In the form it was initially proposed, the museum would have been looking for a big bailout from the city/province within 5 years.
 
^Hey, I happen to love the minimalism (harks back to '60s modernism) and hyper-slenderness of 432 Park, and would love to have something similar here in T.O., but to each his own.
 
thedeepend said:
I wish people would stop with the SERIOUS overvaluing of the value of Mirvish's art collection. It's a good to very good collection of post-war abstract painting. Full stop. We aren't talking Van Gogh, Manet, Titian or Goya here.

In and of itself, it could never be the basis of a 'world class art museum'. Certainly not one that is 60,000 sq ft. As i have already mentioned--there is extremely limited interest in the kind of paintings he collects (collected), and they could never, in and off themselves, be the basis of the crowd-pleasing blockbuster shows that small museums need to regularly mount in order to survive in today's climate. This is an immutable fact.

I hate having to go over this very simple point, but people keep talking as if they know something of the matter, when they quite clearly don't. In the form it was initially proposed, the museum would have been looking for a big bailout from the city/province within 5 years.
Click to expand...

Can't say I agree at all and fail to grasp the reason for your vehemence. Your assurance that Mirvish could never mount a blockbuster show of his works flies in the face of reality. If the AGO can flog Bowie gak and get good attendance, I don't see why Mirvish's collection couldn't fetch similar interest. It's all about the sex appeal you inject in the marketing. It should be obvious by now. Put the sizzle in there and you'll sell the steak (or the hot dogs, it doesn't matter which).

As for the other artists you mentioned, your reverence for them is fine, but it's just a subjective thing. The fact that they're long dead doesn't make them superior to more contemporary artists. You're certainly welcome to feel as confident as you clearly do, but your opinion is simply that - an opinion.

Talking "facts" when talking about art is a dubious game.

Edit: sorry to pull this thread off-topic, but painting is something I feel passionate about.
 
Last edited:
Lenser said:
Can't say I agree at all and fail to grasp the reason for your vehemence. Your assurance that Mirvish could never mount a blockbuster show of his works flies in the face of reality. If the AGO can flog Bowie gak and get good attendance, I don't see why Mirvish's collection couldn't fetch similar interest. It's all about the sex appeal you inject in the marketing. It should be obvious by now. Put the sizzle in there and you'll sell the steak (or the hot dogs, it doesn't matter which).

As for the other artists you mentioned, your reverence for them is fine, but it's just a subjective thing. The fact that they're long dead doesn't make them superior to more contemporary artists. You're certainly welcome to feel as confident as you clearly do, but your opinion is simply that - an opinion.

Talking "facts" when talking about art is a dubious game.
Click to expand...

As i said, there is extremely limited interest in the kind of paintings that Mirvish collects. There is nothing you or anyone else can do to change this fact. Trying to wish it away by vaguely waving around statements like "I don't see why Mirvish's collection couldn't fetch similar interest. It's all about the sex appeal you inject in the marketing" are nothing other than fact-free musings based on no information.

Art is a market and a business, and if you don't think the value of different artists and genres of art is measurable in market terms, you don't know anything about it. The struggle that art museums go through to draw visitors is relentless and unremitting, in part because museum attendance has been declining for decades.

As for the Bowie show, you've got it exactly backwards. That show was brought to Toronto, for one reason: to generate necessary revenue for the museum. Attendance at the AGO was off THIRTY PER CENT in 2011, and coming off a string of box office disappointments, The AGO needed a guaranteed money maker and the Bowie exhibit was it.
 
thedeepend said:
As i said, there is extremely limited interest in the kind of paintings that Mirvish collects. There is nothing you or anyone else can do to change this fact. Trying to wish it away by vaguely waving around statements like "I don't see why Mirvish's collection couldn't fetch similar interest. It's all about the sex appeal you inject in the marketing" are nothing other than fact-free musings based on no information.

Art is a market and a business, and if you don't think the value of different artists and genres of art is measurable in market terms, you don't know anything about it. The struggle that art museums go through to draw visitors is relentless and unremitting, in part because museum attendance has been declining for decades.

As for the Bowie show, you've got it exactly backwards. That show was brought to Toronto, for one reason: to generate necessary revenue for the museum. Attendance at the AGO was off THIRTY PER CENT in 2011, and coming off a string of box office disappointments, The AGO needed a guaranteed money maker and the Bowie exhibit was it.
Click to expand...

Nice to hear I got it exactly backwards! Then again, that's your opinion, much as you'd like to pretend otherwise. Yeah, the AGO has been busy tapping into popular culture - it's been forced to do so for the past several years, as have many similar institutions. Again, marketing can spin all kinds of magic; you maintain there's nothing Mirvish can do to popularize his collection, whereas I maintain you've already made up your mind with a concocted value judgement. That's your problem, not mine.

News flash: art is indeed a market and a business but it's also and a bunch of intangibles and ephemeral stuff all conflated together. If you believe otherwise, bully for you. I don't buy into the reductivist mindset you represent. It's like saying that the M-G proposal is worthless if it doesn't value height and massing above all else. Applying a narrow set of criteria for judging the project might provide a useful yardstick for opening up discussion, but may I remind you that this is a public discourse, one that involves art, engineering, popular culture, height fanboys, engineers, urban enthusiasts, Fordist tax-payers and art haters - the whole messy gamut. As yet, no one gets to claim the throne for the magisterial act of judging what's good and bad about the project - just as no one gets to claim with certitude that Mirvish's collection is unimportant.

You can, of course, try.
 
thedeepend said:
I wish people would stop with the SERIOUS overvaluing of the value of Mirvish's art collection. It's a good to very good collection of post-war abstract painting. Full stop. We aren't talking Van Gogh, Manet, Titian or Goya here.

In and of itself, it could never be the basis of a 'world class art museum'. Certainly not one that is 60,000 sq ft. As i have already mentioned--there is extremely limited interest in the kind of paintings he collects (collected), and they could never, in and off themselves, be the basis of the crowd-pleasing blockbuster shows that small museums need to regularly mount in order to survive in today's climate. This is an immutable fact.

I hate having to go over this very simple point, but people keep talking as if they know something of the matter, when they quite clearly don't. In the form it was initially proposed, the museum would have been looking for a big bailout from the city/province within 5 years.
Click to expand...



How on earth do you know any of this? "In and of itself, it could never be the basis of a 'world class art museum'." Think much of yourself?

What inner secrets do you know that Mirvish and other art aficionados don’t. Perhaps he should have consulted with you before considering buying these art pieces? He must feel foolish not to have done so. Do tell, save him and all of us from some embarrassing gallery fiasco.


"People keep talking as if they know something of the matter" - no, of course we don't - but clearly you do - please enlighten us all with your "knowledge" of "the matter".
 
Lenser said:
Nice to hear I got it exactly backwards! Then again, that's your opinion, much as you'd like to pretend otherwise. Yeah, the AGO has been busy tapping into popular culture - it's been forced to do so for the past several years, as have many similar institutions. Again, marketing can spin all kinds of magic; you maintain there's nothing Mirvish can do to popularize his collection, whereas I maintain you've already made up your mind with a concocted value judgement. That's your problem, not mine.

News flash: art is indeed a market and a business but it's also and a bunch of intangibles and ephemeral stuff all conflated together. If you believe otherwise, bully for you. I don't buy into the reductivist mindset you represent. It's like saying that the M-G proposal is worthless if it doesn't value height and massing above all else. Applying a narrow set of criteria for judging the project might provide a useful yardstick for opening up discussion, but may I remind you that this is a public discourse, one that involves art, engineering, popular culture, height fanboys, engineers, urban enthusiasts, Fordist tax-payers and art haters - the whole messy gamut. As yet, no one gets to claim the throne for the magisterial act of judging what's good and bad about the project - just as no one gets to claim with certitude that Mirvish's collection is unimportant.

You can, of course, try.
Click to expand...

On this list of the Top 200 Art Collectors in the world you will find the word 'Toronto' repeated 3 times. Have at it.

http://www.artnews.com/2012/06/26/the-artnews-200-top-collectors/
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top