Big Daddy said:
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".
Click to expand...

Because i know approximately 100x more about art than i know about architecture. i am a very interested amateur when it comes to my opinions of architecture, and a professional when it comes to my opinions about art. Which is why my posts are NEVER about architecture, but only EVER about art, design, and aesthetics etc.

I have never once commented on this Gehry scheme or the previous iterations, and i have no interest in doing so. i have my own opinions as to whether those warehouses should be sacrificed or not, and i wouldn't dream of weighing in here with those opinions. i am happy to leave it up to people with far more invested in urban planning, and the field of architecture itself, to have that debate.

The only reason i weighed in here was because of the repeated mischaracterizations of the stature and significance of Mirvish's collection, and the repeated efforts of one member to label other members of UT as 'art haters' because they didn't agree with him.
 
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.
Click to expand...

You aren't presenting any facts...just your anonymous, unsubstantiated opinions. One thing that is a fact, is that the art world is extremely fickle. What you couldn't give away 5 years ago, is the hottest thing going now. So please don't say interest in art is static, because there couldn't be a more absurdly wrong statement.

The art world highly manipulated. David Mirvish isn't just an astute art dealer/gallery owner as well as collector with 50 years experience.....he's a highly successful showbiz guy....he knows a thing or two about promoting something.


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

This is a list of "active" collectors. Most of Mirvish's collecting is behind him...he's amassed his collection over the last 50 years....very carefully and methodically. He's not a Russian oligarch showing off his billions by buying art he knows nothing about.

This is what you are passing off as proof of your self-professed prowess in the art world????

Sorry, but I'll stick to my knowledge and have a little faith in a known entity...David Mirvish.
 
freshcutgrass said:
What you couldn't give away 5 years ago, is the hottest thing going now.
Click to expand...

And yet another completely ridiculous, empty calories, completely pulled out of thin air, thing to say.

Look, the point is that NO ONE at any point in this debate has presented a shred of evidence that the Mirvish collection is as important as you claim. Where is the evidence? List the works. List the values. List the provenance. List the art historical materials where the artists are discussed. List the exhibitions where the work was exhibited. List the critical reactions to those exhibitions. You've presented nothing. Do you even know what's in the collection? Excuse me if I don't take the "world class" claim seriously. Because all your doing is spouting Mirvish promotional bumpf.
 
And you, deep, are merely the flip side of the same coin.

Let's stop the debate over the value of the collection in this thread please. It's pointless to go on without getting into the specifics of the works, and this thread is not the place for that. Start a new thread for that in Out and About or another more appropriate sub-forum.

Further debate over the value of the collection in this thread will be deleted.

42
 
interchange42 said:
And you, deep, are merely the flip side of the same coin.

Let's stop the debate over the value of the collection in this thread please. It's pointless to go on without getting into the specifics of the works, and this thread is not the place for that. Start a new thread for that in Out and About or another more appropriate sub-forum.

Further debate over the value of the collection in this thread will be deleted.

42
Click to expand...

agreed. i was getting a headache anyway.
 
bmiller said:
He hit the nail on the head in that article.
Click to expand...

He did indeed. The dramatic lessening of gallery space is one thing, but the bigger issue is how the new design meets the street... and in that regard I agree fully with JBM. I'm hoping that subsequent revisions will show more verve, because otherwise it will indeed amount to a squandered opportunity.
 
The discussion thus far makes it clear that project is very much a work in progress still - and the podium in particular. It would be kind of interesting if Gehry use some aspect of the original wood beam motif though.

AoD
 
From all accounts, there will be changes, and many of them. After approval is hopefully given, we should see some additional flare added. The base needs plenty. It is about as boring as can be, but the models are not any where near the final product.
We can only hope.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The discussion thus far makes it clear that project is very much a work in progress still - and the podium in particular.

AoD
Click to expand...

This seems to be a point that is lost in so much of the "debate." What we've had all along is a work in progress. It still is a work in progress. If anything has been lost, it is a previous work in progress.

Given the location of the proposed gallery space, it's not entirely clear at this point why it could not be expanded somewhat. That would be a choice of the owner and proponent of this proposal, not necessarily because of an absence of potential space.
 
argus said:
This seems to be a point that is lost in so much of the "debate." What we've had all along is a work in progress. It still is a work in progress. If anything has been lost, it is a previous work in progress.

Given the location of the proposed gallery space, it's not entirely clear at this point why it could not be expanded somewhat. That would be a choice of the owner and proponent of this proposal, not necessarily because of an absence of potential space.
Click to expand...



I think you should give up on this "work in progress" idea. From here on the changes will be minimal - the once grand proposal has been hobbled and will resemble simple condo towers atop old warehouses. Some victory.

Best stated by John Bentley Mays:


"In the plan served up in 2012, the three towers hit the ground in a storm cloud of colour, light and colliding planes. Effectively crafting this juncture of the shaft and the street is always a problem for tall-building architects. And the solution Mr. Gehry proposed in the initial version – packing the bottom with as much dramatic punch as possible, making the ground level wonderfully exuberant and urbane – was surely brilliant.

Now, 18 months later, the base has turned into so much banality. The artistic inventiveness that Mr. Gehry is expending on the tower shafts completely disappears as the buildings near the ground. They come to rest, not, as before, in a moment charged with urban excitement, but on what appear to be the dull, blockish hulks of the old warehouses rescued from the wreckers.

If the current design passes muster with Toronto’s political officialdom – we could know the answer as early as next month – and if it is built out without further tinkering, the verve and civic animation of Mr. Gehry’s previous work will be largely lost. As compensation, a few unimportant beams and bricks from yesteryear will be saved – remnants that future generations can gaze at as they try to figure out why Toronto never got an astonishing skyscraper by Frank Gehry."
 
Last edited:
argus said:
Given the location of the proposed gallery space, it's not entirely clear at this point why it could not be expanded somewhat. That would be a choice of the owner and proponent of this proposal, not necessarily because of an absence of potential space.
Click to expand...

You're right, it's all about finding the long-term economic model to pay for the operating costs of the museum. Mr. Mirvish has stated in the past that he doesn't want government intervention or money to help pay for it, as that gets political and can be taken away at any time.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top