A Closer Look at the Cleveland Museum of Art

The recent reopening of the Cleveland Museum of Art's original building reaffirms the splendor of this 1916 Neoclassical landmark, designed by Hubbell & Benes, and showcases to very good effect some of the museum’s great works of art. After a three year absence, it is wonderful to be able to view this grand building and the core of the museum’s world-class collection. At the approximate midpoint of the museum’s huge $350 million expansion and renovation, it is possible to praise some of its features, criticize others and continue the dialog that has helped to shape this mammoth undertaking.

The good news is that Cleveland is so lucky to have one of America’s great art museums and that its magnificent 1916 marble temple remains the centerpiece of the facility. Many of the galleries have been carefully restored and the relatively uncluttered displays set in galleries with rich background colors have never looked better.

One of the most controversial aspects of this project was the decision to reconfigure one of the original building’s key spaces, the indoor brick-lined garden court, and convert it into a gallery. The other was to attach a new connector wing to the east end of the original building, obscuring to some degree one of two previously intact elevations of the original building. Finally, the rehabilitation program leaves in place several questionable 1950s modernizations of the original building, including the covering on the interior of the magnificent north windows on the principal floor, apparently sacrificed to create more wall space in the northern galleries, and the loss of the Holden Gallery, a delightful historicized setting for the display of artwork from this important collection that was a signature space of the original building.

From a preservation standpoint, the loss of the indoor garden court is perhaps the most troubling, as it was designed to contrast with surrounding galleries, with its brick-lined walls, western arches, and recessed floor. And while this space had been altered over the years such that a certain amount of its original character was lost, and the museum has justified its conversion by claiming that it is best used as a gallery, preservation could have been given greater consideration. It may have been possible to convert the space into a painting gallery without such drastic alteration by retaining the brick walls and original skylight. Brick indoor courts such as this were iconic features of turn of the 20th century American art museums. As Harlem author, architectural historian and former Clevelander Michael Henry Adams notes “High bright and cool, after the relative darkness and mystery of the rotunda, the court was a refreshing warm weather oasis. With organ music, bird's songs, a plashing fountain and architectural fragments amidst lush foliage, it beguiled weary workers and soothed bored suburbanites, helping to make all better attuned to the realm of art. During the dead of winter, with cold winds and snow squalls blowing outdoors, inside, palms, gardenias and other, mostly blooming plants, made the court into a magical winter garden. Its linage extends straight back to Isabella Gardiner's court in Boston and its example helped to inspire related spaces at the Cloisters, the Frick Collection and the National Gallery of Art. One is left to wonder if future generations will judge this act much like the decision in the 1950s to gut and reconfigure the wonderful ground floor auditorium in this building.

The east connector is perhaps not as inconspicuous as described by architect Rafael Vinoly in the public presentations, yet it is narrow and glassy and one is greeted by the magnificent Jonathan Goldsmith doorway, now installed within the original building. One is still left to wonder if this connector was so essential to the museum’s operation that it justified compromising the original east elevation. Perhaps the biggest disappointment in passing from the original building via the new east connector is the noticeable drop in care and attention to detailing. The glassy connector exposes at eye level a very ordinary gravel rooftop of the new east wing’s lower level. The new east galleries are rather plain and have windows facing East Boulevard. Apparently it was not possible to reopen windows in the original building, but okay to introduce them in the new galleries. The corridors and especially the escalators have a drab, ordinary feeling, not up to the expectations evoked by contemporary galleries of other art museums, such as those by I. M Pei, Frank Lloyd Wright, Richard Meier or Frank Gehry.

The new center of the reconfigured Cleveland Museum of Art is the proposed giant atrium, to be built in the coming years. Hailed as a grand soaring glass space, the atrium would span the entire length of the original building, exposing its north elevation by removing a 1958 wing, albeit within a glassy interior volume. Yet, a space like this, built of glass and soaring higher than the original building, might not be the most responsible solution in an age of renewed concern for energy conservation. The practical drawbacks of such a feature are several. First, it would preempt a delightful outdoor space, the current garden, with its mature trees and attractive landscaping. In the summer, this is one of University Circle’s finest spots. The question is whether the atrium would be as special as this space is now. The second concern is the impact on the original building, not only through attachments and structural modifications necessary for its construction, but also whether its soaring cable elements might mar the splendor of views from the south. Finally, in terms of sheer volume and its glass construction, this space promises to consume more energy than the 1916 building.

Now seems like a good time to examine the next phase of the museum expansion project. It might make very good sense to retain the present wonderful outdoor space and eliminate or reduce in size the proposed atrium. Perhaps elements from the 1958 and 1984 wings can be salvaged and renovated rather than torn down and rebuilt.

When the museum’s expansion project first began in 1999, the public was invited to a wonderful series of presentations at which opinions and suggestions could be voiced. The initial plan, which would have covered over the 1970 North Wing by architect Marcel Breuer, was scrapped in part because of public comments and the opinions of experts such as critic Ada Louise Huxtable, as voiced at these events. At the very least, new public sessions could provide some reassurance that the museum is carefully considering issues like energy costs as its moves forward. It might incorporate some good ideas for gallery installations. Perhaps it might consider building back the Holden Gallery and reopening windows in the original building. It might consider installing period rooms, as other American art museums have done. A series of late 19th century period interiors, recalling spaces from lost Euclid Avenue mansions, could dramatically showcase the artwork that the owners of these mansions donated to our museum at a time when Cleveland was the nation’s sixth largest city and home to one of a handful of great art museums in the nation.

From Cool Cleveland contributor Steve McQuillin stevemcquillinATaol.com
(:divend:)