Method Versus Madness

Regardless of how elegant the design is, $200 million to $300 million is a lot to spend on a curatorial whim, yet so far this is the only argument the Los Angeles County Museum of Art has offered for building a new museum (“Methodical Process, Radical Result,” by Suzanne Muchnic, March 3).

As a LACMA member for several years now, I find the current facility works better than ever with the recent improvements to the plaza and park.

It has its quirks, but is far more user-friendly than such mazes as the Art Institute of Chicago, the Met or the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

Not that LACMA is asking for input from patrons (isn’t this the kind of thing that should be put to a vote?), but here’s my two cents’ worth: Open the skylights in the Ahmanson Building and the walled-up portals on the east and west sides of the atrium to let in natural light as the original design intended. Next, build a new parking structure on the vacant lot opposite the Anderson Building with a pedestrian sky-bridge over Wilshire Boulevard, then tear down the existing garage, close Ogden Drive and extend Hancock Park to Fairfax Avenue.

Those are improvements that I’d donate money to.

DALE KUTZERA

Los Angeles

*

If LACMA director Andrea Rich says the five architects were asked to join the museum’s five buildings and three tried and failed, when they decided on architect Rem Koolhaas’ maquette, why weren’t the others given the chance to come up with a new building?

Frank Gehry outright refused to do a remodel, but a whole new building might have interested him.

Why are there not three or four artists on the selection committee?

How are they going to expand the building in the future should they acquire collections? MOMA went up. I don’t see how you can add floors on this plan.

LACMA lost out on the Hammer, Simon, Gilbert and even the Hirshhorn collections because the board of trustees was shortsighted. This one is also.

MERLE S. GLICK

Los Angeles

*

On July 29, 1992, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art said goodbye to Earl Powell III, better known as Rusty or the man who had made LACMA’s stature rise.

Now, a decade later, Andrea Rich is bringing LACMA beyond the Powell years. Rich is positioning LACMA to surpass New York City’s art museums’ collections and Chicago’s old “architectural style” museum buildings.

Rich, along with MOCA and the Getty, has positioned Los Angeles to become a world-class art center.

CAROLE WADE

Century City

*

As a 51-year-old native Angeleno, I have experienced much of what is good and not so good about Los Angeles.

While reading your piece on Rem Koolhaas’ radical plan for LACMA, I became aware of a breathless optimism gathering within my being--filling me, and reminding me, that I too have a billowing place filled with light and air and treasures. Brava to Andrea Rich and all those who will make this dream a reality for the people of Los Angeles.

WENDY THYNE PACHTER

Studio City

*

I applaud the committee’s selection of Koolhaas’ magnificent vision for LACMA. It is long overdue, and will be an object of pride and beauty for our city. But it doesn’t quite go far enough.

The Japanese Pavilion has always been a visual thorn in the side of LACMA, as evidenced in the aerial photo on Page 80. It is totally out of harmony with the existing structure. How discordant it will be juxtaposed with the new building is beyond comprehension.

Why not include a plan to make the Japanese Pavilion more artistically compatible with its new neighbor and still enable it to retain its singular integrity?

JOYCE HELFAND

Arcadia