For my free days I decided to go to back to Tate Modern and see more of it and also the addition by Herzog & de Meuron. For me, I really enjoyed seeing more of the of the exhibits and interestingly one of the exhibits in Tate was also presented at the Werner center on campus. The exhibits was provocative words places on colored tiles repeated. The art piece was by Jenny Holzer. I thought it was cool to see both having the exhibits because I hold Tate to such a higher standard compared to the Wexner. Now I don’t know if this is controversial or not, but the addition done I think is almost a missed opportunity. In my opinion, I’m not a fan of additions that try to replicate the materiality of the original building. This is due to the fact that materials weather and when you try matching it with another material it never looks continuous. If I were to bring a person there who doesn’t know the history of the buildings I think they could clearly see that back part as an addition. The action creates a clear separation from the original and new. I wish that they just used a new material to pronounce it more instead. I guess one could argue that the tiling of the brick on the new addition is trying to present the contrast further. However, in my opinion it still is just unsettling seeing the the building as whole.
Tyler,
I definitely agree with the addition being a missed opportunity. I find that the facade is unique in their efforts to make brick glow, however, I think the addition takes away from the main and original part of Tate Modern. As you said, matching materials can be very difficult, and when it doesn’t match, I think it can look tacky. The addition is definitely intriguing, but I think the way it was constructed takes away from Tate Modern’s overall look in the space. The way the addition peeks out from behind the main building takes away from the original. So, I think, just as you said, someone completely unfamiliar with the building could tell that the addition doesn’t belong.
Tyler, I can completely agree that the try at a similar materiality may not have worked best for the building and it may have been better for them to try a different approach. I like the way you are thinking about the timeline of weathering of the material, as it’s an important and realistic part of architecture. It’s interesting to think about all of the different ways the addition could have been approached, how many ideas were put out, and how they came to a final decision. I wasn’t able to go to Tate at all, so seeing your post made me excited to hopefully go later today. That exhibit looks awesome, thanks for sharing!