WAG | Inuit Art Centre Expansion

[Ando]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

You don't like carved rock? That is too funny. Let me guess..you prefer jello or vegetable art?

He's partial to those gold spray painted macaroni jars.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Actually I appreciate good art, rocks carved into silly animal shapes not so much, on the other hand some prefer kitsch...

and some prefer rocks carved by people who look more like you.

[Ando]

More exciting news about the Inuit Art centre.
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/lo...473484823.html

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Ando

Why? It's an Inuit Art Museum. The display cases hold Inuit art.

That's a maaaaaassive and EXPENSIVE building that

a) holds very little art
b) Isn't that visually appealling
c) Could hold way more, and greater variety of art while maintaining a sense of space and openness
d) Is super expensive

I know that carved wood and stone is very much inuit art. I was unsure it's limited to that. I'm sure ultimately it will have more elaborate things, but that remains an obnoxiously inefficiently designed building. Yes, museums and art galleries usually are, but not for such a specific niche. And for clarity, I don't demand a 4,000 CRU unit instead, just not something THAT indulgently wasteful.

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

You don't like carved rock? That is too funny. Let me guess..you prefer jello or vegetable art?

I'm assuming you're talking to skylarr but I also appreciate carved stone... very much so.

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

and some prefer rocks carved by people who look more like you.

Look man, i get where you're coming from, but it's a stretch to call someone racist in every post. I'm pretty sure he's fed up with the degree of government pandering here... ie bajillion dollars for some poor space usage.

[buzzg]

I've heard there will also be some moving around of existing galleries and spaces into the new building as well. Studio will reopen in the new wing, I think the shop might move, and existing galleries will be shuffled around.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

That's a maaaaaassive and EXPENSIVE building that

a) holds very little art
b) Isn't that visually appealling
c) Could hold way more, and greater variety of art while maintaining a sense of space and openness
d) Is super expensive

I know that carved wood and stone is very much inuit art. I was unsure it's limited to that. I'm sure ultimately it will have more elaborate things, but that remains an obnoxiously inefficiently designed building. Yes, museums and art galleries usually are, but not for such a specific niche. And for clarity, I don't demand a 4,000 CRU unit instead, just not something THAT indulgently wasteful.



I'm assuming you're talking to skylarr but I also appreciate carved stone... very much so.


Look man, i get where you're coming from, but it's a stretch to call someone racist in every post. I'm pretty sure he's fed up with the degree of government pandering here... ie bajillion dollars for some poor space usage.

Sorry, but you are really not making a lot of sense. You say that you hope the displays are more elaborate but it's unclear to anyone what your point is. It's an art museum that contains art. Art museums aren't generally elaborate, the piece of art is supposed to be the star. The Mona Lisa isn't surrounded by elaboration, it is just presented clearly for the viewer to appreciate. Perhaps you were hoping for a stuffed polar bear or dog-sled rides? Look forward to being in your next omnibus treatise telling us how it really is.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

That's a maaaaaassive and EXPENSIVE building that

a) holds very little art
b) Isn't that visually appealling
c) Could hold way more, and greater variety of art while maintaining a sense of space and openness
d) Is super expensive

I guess like art it's subject to everyone's own opinion, i think the building look great and will be a welcome addition to the architectural scene in Winnipeg.

[esquire]

I'm a little torn, on one hand the new WAG addition clashes a bit with the original building which has a very standalone sculptural character and in my opinion, slightly diminishes its impact.

On the other hand, it does fill out the block and defines the corner a lot better than what was there before. It's also a pretty nice building on its own. I suppose I just wish that they could have kept a bit of space between the two which would have ultimately benefitted both buildings, but I realize there isn't a lot of space to play around with.

[Wpg_Guy]

I much prefer the new inuit centre to the wag studio that was there before.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by Ando

He's partial to those gold spray painted macaroni jars.

Do school kids still do this kind of Art? We did that 40+ yrs. ago.

[GlassCity]

I think the new addition will complement the existing building and look great.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I think the new addition will complement the existing building and look great.

Agreed, everything in that whole area of Memorial Osborne really looks nice and cohesive except the Bay parkade. Big, grand buildings made of tyndall and limestone (or at least that style of stone).

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Ando

Sorry, but you are really not making a lot of sense. You say that you hope the displays are more elaborate but it's unclear to anyone what your point is. It's an art museum that contains art. Art museums aren't generally elaborate, the piece of art is supposed to be the star. The Mona Lisa isn't surrounded by elaboration, it is just presented clearly for the viewer to appreciate. Perhaps you were hoping for a stuffed polar bear or dog-sled rides? Look forward to being in your next omnibus treatise telling us how it really is.

Actually, I was decently clear, but your dislike for my post shouldn't get in the way of my clarity right. It's very simple; it's very underwhelming for the price tag. Sure the art is the star, and say what you want about the Mona Lisa but the Louvre, Hermitage, the various Guggenheims, etc are masterpieces as structures, inside and out. Sure, other art museums are not, but my complaint is that it's bland and expensive. Bland and fairly priced? I can get on board with that.

I'm not making any assumptions of what the actual art would be, that would be asinine. But the interior and even exterior don't reflect the need to borrow taxpayer money. It should be nicer.

Regarding the art world, this is somewhat unfamiliar territory, but a majority of my rants stem from either learned study, experience, and advice from experts. I make sure to speak about what I know, and I think I've presented myself appropriately as an art noob in this particular thread.


Art museums are nice, all around the world. Whether all the Guggenheims, the Louvre, Hermitage, etc... and yes there are dull ones. At this point you're just trying hard to disagree

Originally Posted by WpG_GuY

I guess like art it's subject to everyone's own opinion, i think the building look great and will be a welcome addition to the architectural scene in Winnipeg.

I think it's just a little too clunky/cold. There's a LOT of inefficiently used interior space that comes off as bland.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Actually, I was decently clear, but your dislike for my post shouldn't get in the way of my clarity right. It's very simple; it's very underwhelming for the price tag. Sure the art is the star, and say what you want about the Mona Lisa but the Louvre, Hermitage, the various Guggenheims, etc are masterpieces as structures, inside and out. Sure, other art museums are not, but my complaint is that it's bland and expensive. Bland and fairly priced? I can get on board with that.

I'm not making any assumptions of what the actual art would be, that would be asinine. But the interior and even exterior don't reflect the need to borrow taxpayer money. It should be nicer.

Regarding the art world, this is somewhat unfamiliar territory, but a majority of my rants stem from either learned study, experience, and advice from experts. I make sure to speak about what I know, and I think I've presented myself appropriately as an art noob in this particular thread.


Art museums are nice, all around the world. Whether all the Guggenheims, the Louvre, Hermitage, etc... and yes there are dull ones. At this point you're just trying hard to disagree



I think it's just a little too clunky/cold. There's a LOT of inefficiently used interior space that comes off as bland.

Not trying hard to disagree at all. As you admit in your post, you know little about the display of art. You made a throwaway comment that I merely pointed out made no sense. Then you tried to imply you were speaking about both the exterior and the interior when you made that comment. Rather than becoming clearer, your argument is actually becoming more convoluted. I'm guessing that you didn't use any of your "learned study, experience and advice from experts" on this one. So it's not a matter of me disliking your post, it was just the fact that it made no sense.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Ando

Not trying hard to disagree at all. As you admit in your post, you know little about the display of art. You made a throwaway comment that I merely pointed out made no sense. Then you tried to imply you were speaking about both the exterior and the interior when you made that comment. Rather than becoming clearer, your argument is actually becoming more convoluted. I'm guessing that you didn't use any of your "learned study, experience and advice from experts" on this one. So it's not a matter of me disliking your post, it was just the fact that it made no sense.

I made very clear my expertise is not here on this particular subject.

However, as with any building, it's visual engagement and experience always goes beyond the exterior and into the interior... especially when it's an art museum, where I'm guessing the art goes on the inside. Hell, maybe it could have been clearer? but it would hardly make "no sense".

I just hoped for more from such an expensive project, and at its cost, I suspect somebody is making a silent killing.

[Ando]

So the real truth comes out. You just don’t agree that government money should spent on the gallery. Isn’t it refreshing when you tell the truth? BTW, before you go besmirching the reputations of people involved in the project, you might want make sure you have some actual proof. Mindless accusations are unfair to everyone involved.

[1ajs]

keep it chill

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I think the new addition will complement the existing building and look great.

Really? Looks like a tumour on the existing art gallery. Wonder what the WAG's original architect thinks?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Really? Looks like a tumour on the existing art gallery. Wonder what the WAG's original architect thinks?

It's similar to the debate on the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. Some people hate the clash of the 2 styles, some people love it. No one's mind is gonna be changed here. But in any case, we'll have to see once it's actually built.

[esquire]

I want to like the addition but it doesn't strike me as a hands-down winner. There is a kernel of truth in what rrskylar is saying.