Courtyard @ The Getty. Los Angeles. Pilot Pen on paper. November 1, 2009

On Sunday November 1, I was graciously invited by students from my school to join in a field trip to the Getty Museum in Los Angeles.

On the way there, we watched a video about the design and construction of the museum, and the controversy between the architect, Richard Meier, and the artist, Robert Irwin. I had already been to to the Getty couple of times, but I was not fully aware of the ‘creative’ conflict which embroiled Meier, who thought he would have complete control of the design of the museum buidings and the entire site, and Irwin, who was engaged to create a sculpture for the site but then went on to propose – and be assigned- the design of the area now known as the garden.  Of course it was not just about the ‘architect’ and ‘the artist’, but all the key decision makers, from the Getty board, to the Museum curator. Through an exhaustive architectural tour and key insights on the project– by none other than Andy Spurlock, the landscape architect of Robert Irwin’s garden– I came home with many thoughts on the ramification of the Meier-Irwin, Architecture/Art diatribe.

Here are some of them:

1. Perception

The project does seem to have a split personality. Obviously the linear axis was important, nay, fundamental for Meier. Robert Irwin had an approach that, he said, would give importance to all of the views of and from the building, not just the main axis. So we see a difference of approach between a ‘ritual’ on the architect side (by no means indicative of all architects’ approach) and a ‘sculpture in the round’ approach on the artist side (not necessarily a typical or expected’ reading’ of a site from an artist’s point of view).  Are both approaches equally valid?

2. Here’s looking (back) at you, kid.

Both projects are self-referential. Perhaps Irwin is more so, as it ends looking back at itself.  Meier’s ‘triumph’ would have celebrated the view, but also, of course, the museum. I wonder how much ego figures in the equation , and, not knowing the artist and the architect personally, I can only speculate.

3. Letting Go.

The issue of control (or lack-of- thereof) was very painful to see, on the architect side. The ‘plaza’ or ‘triumph’ that Meier envisioned (albeit a very short one due to site configuration), can be seen as a period to his exclamation point, and Irwin stole that thunder. Did the project benefit from the diversity of Irwin approach? And–sounding like a reader’s guide– how so? Are we married to ‘unity of design’?

3.5 The spiral.

People who know me know that I am very partial to spirals. It struck me as really beautiful , and convincing, that Meier at the opening of the video mentioned how he wanted to create a spiral because that is a shape ‘which embraces’ the site.  Irwin too used a spiral. When I asked Mr. Spurlock about it , he said that, in fact, the spiral shape  Meier used was limited to a central  stairway.  I liked to think the two were more similar than they let on. On an unrelated note, Meier also said something really poetic about the color white. White reflects, contains, and becomes all of the colors around it. So in this setting the buildings change hue with the light of the day.  It is a magnificent sight, one which makes you realize that white, so beloved by the Modernists, is, after all, a lot more organic and sensual that one may think. Not cold at all.

4. Ambivalence, and Art/Architecture

I can see myself playing devil’s advocate (and his devil’s advocate), because I still have not decided what I think of the project, whether I ‘like’ it, or ‘buy’ it. It is a great, real example of the art /architecture dychotomy, of different design approaches, and of the challenges in trying to define artists or architects. Meier does have an art backgrounad and considers himself (also) an artist. My experience is that architects are artists when they want to be, but more often than not, they are proud to be architects. So don’t go calling them artists. As for me, as they say, it is an entirely different story.

Is Architecture art? I thought so. But Architects can be artists, whereas the opposite is not true. Artists do not have the responsibility of creating a human habitat, as Andy Spurlock said. But what about artists like Robert Irwin , who created sculptures which become part of the built environment, or urban landscape –to use  a trendy term? His responsibility is not – and cannot be- just aesthetic. So here the lines between art and architecture are blurred.

When I was in college, with an architecture degree almost under my belt and taking art classes to complete a fine arts degree, I composed a collage ‘Everyone can be an artist Not everyone can be an architect’.  Perhaps that explains some of it.

5.  I am probably adding to the mythology, or myth-building of the Getty controversy by these suppositions of mine. Andy Spurlock really needs to write his own version of the story:). He said something that still resonates with me, the idea, or the perception that  ‘Gardens are about change, landscape design is about predictability’.

This time around I did not have much time for drawing or photography, just the quick sketch above. Feel free to see my previous Getty work under the  ‘Photography’ tab.

What I did have time for, though, was  a wonderful, leisurely luncheon al fresco, lively conversation and a background of lavender mountains.