THE WHITNEY: BATTLE OVER A LANDMARK

A style war is raging in the art and architectural galaxy.

What started out in May as a polite debate concerning a proposed fanciful addition to the stark Whitney Museum has erupted into a fierce battle involving Postmodernist and Modernist architects, artists, preservationists, critics and just about anyone who now and then dines on the design stew that seems to be constantly simmering in this city.

The battle is expected to become even more heated in the weeks ahead as the Whitney seeks a host of needed approvals for its $37.5-million plan from the city’s landmarks and planning commissions and the Board of Estimate. Rockets packed with artistic rationalizations are being readied.

Those protesting the polychromatic pastiche addition designed by Princeton architect Michael Graves declare with passion that it is a defacement of the landmark Modernist museum, designed by Marcel Breuer and constructed just 20 years ago. The protests also have prompted criticism of the Whitney’s motivations and operations.

Among those protesting the design of the addition is architect I. M. Pei, who recently came under attack for his Modernist design of an addition to the tradition-encrusted Louvre in Paris. That Pei and such other generally conservative architectural icons as Edward Barnes would publicly question another architect’s design is quite unusual and is considered an indication of the emotion the proposal has generated.

Also in opposition are playwright Arthur Miller, former Metropolitan Museum of Art Director Thomas Hoving, artists Robert Motherwell and Saul Steinberg, sculptor Isamu Noguchi and critics Michael Sorkin of the Village Voice and Hilton Kramer of New Criterion.

Rallying to the defense of Graves and the design have been, among others, renowned architects Philip Johnson and Ulrich Franzen, architectural historian Vincent Scully and, to various degrees, various critics including House & Garden’s Martin Filler and the New York Times’ Paul Goldberger.

At issue is the fate of the current Whitney, located at Madison Avenue and 75th Street on Manhattan’s fashionable Upper East Side. Designed by Modernist master Breuer, it is a brooding Brutalist-styled building, distinguished by a dark-gray granite mass hovering over a bridge leading to the entrance. It is considered an architectural monument and, for many, the museum’s most noteworthy work of art.

The addition as designed by Graves would nearly triple the size of the museum by matching Breuer’s mass with a five-story pink granite structure to the south--tying the two together with a pink-and-gray-banded cylindrical “hinge”--and topping the entire concoction with another five high stories of distinctive architectural layering. Included would be a 250-seat theater, a library, a study center and offices, as well as new exhibition space.

The Postmodern design of the addition is distinguished by a blend of fanciful ornamental historical references, including palazzos, pergolas and various classical elements. The seemingly arbitrary mix is similar to what Graves incorporated in his designs of office buildings in Portland, Ore., and Louisville, Ky., and for which he has garnered considerable notoriety.

Graves has described his addition as an architectural composition, integrating the Breuer building into a larger, more reflective urban scheme. “We have attempted to use to our advantage the apparent contradiction of modernity versus a more figurative architecture,” Graves explains. “We believe our work reflects a particularly American spirit, one which combines architecture derived from traditional sources with the modern architecture of the recent past.”

Almost immediately after being unveiled the plans provoked protests, including a particularly sharp denunciation by Abraham Geller on the occasion of his acceptance of the 1985 Medal of Honor from the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects. Geller charged that Graves’ Postmodern design was an insult to Breuer’s Modernist philosophy, adding that it “crushed” and “smothered” the existing landmark.

There also were some sharp attacks by critics, particularly by Kramer (a “preposterous” and “lugubrious conception”), Sorkin (“a petulant, Oedipal piece of work, an attack on a Modernist father by an upstart, intolerant child, blind or callow perhaps, but murderous”) and Hoving, as editor-in-chief of Connoisseur (“a somnolent, squat, ponderous structure dipped in deja vu “).

Defenses have come from Goldberger (“The solution is . . . both daring and sensitive . . . both powerful and subtle”), Filler (“dignified . . . will add much to the cultural richness of a city that has always seemed oddly short of architectural masterpieces”) and Johnson (“Michael’s been very sensitive to his predecessor”).

The defenses did not deter a petition submitted to the Whitney and signed by Pei, Noguchi, Motherwell, Miller and hundreds of other artists and architects, declaring that the Graves design would “destroy a world-renowned work of architecture.” While recognizing the institution’s right and need to expand, the petition urged the trustees to scrap the Graves plan and develop a new one that would “respect the existing museum.” Joining in the protests were Hamilton Smith, who collaborated with Breuer on the building, and Breuer’s widow.

“I was very surprised and hurt by the opposition,” Graves says. “I never thought that this would ever happen in a city as savvy as New York; that those who take exception to my style would not be more understanding or at least be tolerant of what I was attempting to do in creating a ‘new’ Whitney, which is what my client, the Whitney board, wanted me to do.”

The debate meanwhile raised questions concerning the Whitney’s motivation in embracing Graves, who with his particular brand of Postmodernism has prompted controversy almost everywhere he has practiced. That the addition was to embrace a landmark by a Modernist and also be Graves’ first design in New York City flavored the expected stew.

With New York’s Museum of Modern Art recently completing an ambitious expansion, the Guggenheim planning a new wing and the Metropolitan seemingly constantly growing, the Whitney over the last decade has slipped somewhat in the always competitive art world. At the same time, it has been suffering serious budget and operating problems while being criticized for trendy exhibits and its branch museums in select lobbies of Manhattan office towers.

As expected when he was selected an architect for the addition four years ago, Graves has generated a substantial amount of publicity both pro and con for the Whitney, but publicity nonetheless--ink is ink in any galaxy. Once again the museum is being viewed as an avant-garde institution, very much on the cutting edge, a position that could prompt substantial new support.

When asked at a public meeting whether Graves had been the right choice to design the addition to the Breuer building, Whitney director Tom Armstrong answered: “We knew what we were getting. We wanted Graves.”

If a major goal of architecture is to express the institution for which it is giving form, such as high-tech style for an industrial plant, then Graves’ design seems quite appropriate. It certainly “reads” trendy, though there is a question of how it will age. Such pastiches are like flashy billboards and in time tend to bore, as has Graves’s Portland building. If the Whitney indeed wanted Graves, then it deserves to get him.

As for its effect on Madison Avenue, the street is very much an urban collage and should be able to accommodate the Graves design, as it did Breuer’s singular structure 20 years ago. The strongest aspect of Graves’ design is how it meets the street flush with retail space. And it is there on the wide Madison Avenue sidewalk where most people will experience the building, oblivious to the mass of architectural motifs above.

It is also on the street, and as the main entrance to the museum, that Breuer’s building dominates. While Graves’ design may mock the Modernist masterpiece, pressing down on it in an illegal grip of an overweight wrestler, the strength of Breuer’s building should persevere.

Of course, it would have been nice if there was no contest, and the Graves addition placed elsewhere and the Breuer landmark left to breath more easily. But in the hot art and architectural galaxy, heavy breathing is a healthy sign of life.