The Pompidou Centre is one of those museums that you should have heard of, but probably haven’t. At least, that’s what it was for me. I was introduced to it by the most unlikely of sources – a Rabbi in Israel – and the context in which he mentioned it was quite interesting as well, but nonetheless irrelevant to our discussion here.
Centre Georges Pompidou, as it is known in French, is a museum in Paris, France. Now, if I were to finish with my introduction now, I would not quite do the museum justice. Why’s that? Because I left out one teeny, tiny fact. And what might that teeny, tiny fact be? It’s kind of built inside-out.
Inside-out? Yes, inside-out. What’s that mean? I hardly know the extent of it myself, my friends. But I can tell you that the piping is all on the outside so that if you were to pass by the museum, you’d think it’s just some kind of extensive scaffolding. It’s really quite an eyesore. Supposedly, the builders of the museum were protesting against the idea that art has to be a certain way. To that end, they built a museum that defies the idea that a museum has to be a certain way.
I guess I just have one question – would you go so far as to compromise aesthetic for the sake of “art?” I think that like ALL matters in art, the answer to that is entirely subjective. There’s a number of issues that can arise:
The Pompidou Center is not quite, shall we say, pleasing to the eyes
Who says that piping on the outside of a building is a compromise of aesthetic? Just because I think so doesn’t mean that it is unequivocally so for all others. On that note, is there even a standard of “aesthetic?” Sure, we’ve come to the conclusion that art has hardly any standards. But is aesthetic subject to the same terms? And maybe compromising aesthetic for “art” is essentially art? Like we said in class, being unafraid to push boundaries when following your “vision” is something that defines an artist. So maybe forgoing aesthetic is a part of that? Lastly, maybe museums DO have to be a certain way? I don’t know about anyone else, but I am a selective purist when it comes to architecture (selective meaning to say that sometimes I do find unconventional structures appealing here and there). I would be, and am, put off at the thought of a structure like the Pompidou Centre. I probably wouldn’t even enter the place, which you can say is my loss but then I’d have to ask you “what exactly would I be losing, pray-tell?”
All in all, the Pompidou Centre is an intriguing place. Like most post-modernist art, I am more fascinated by the debate it elicits than “it” itself. But maybe that’s all it’s there for in the first place. If there’s one thing I’ve learned this semester, it’s that I’ll never quite know how to settle that issue once and for all. (The fact that I am actually okay with that just proves how far I’ve come.)
The point of the is exactly the response you presented. Like the Bald Soprano and John Cage’s 4’33, it is about twisting your perception and making you think. Whether you think it is particularly lovely or not is irrelevant. The fact that it is not a pretty building and you wouldn’t want to go in there might just be exactly the idea that is trying to be expressed. We have these preconceived notions that beautiful art can only be found in nice places, making us ignore so many beautiful things all the time. By placing an art museum in an otherwise non-attractive building, the architect is giving us a strong reminder to not judge a book by its cover. That alone is enough of a reason to make a place like the Pompidou.
While Joseph’s point it valid, I do not think that this is the idea that the building’s designers had in mind. To me, it seems as though they made an inside-out building simply for the sake of being different. For the life of me, I cannot understand why designing a building that looks like it is perpetually under construction seemed like a good idea to them. This is a problem that I have with modern art in general. In the past, people used their creativity in order to innovate and improve the art world, and the world in general. Now, however, I feel that people are doing something different, not because it in any way adds to mankind or even to the art world specifically, but simply because its different, and different is considered cool. I can just imagine the building designers discussing their plans for this building: “Let’s make a normal building, only inside-out!” “Why would we do that? There’s a reason why traditionally plumbing and such things were placed on the inside of buildings. It looks nicer, and if you have a leak, the plumber won’t have to be hanging from the scaffolding to fix it.” “Yeah, but no one has ever made an inside-out building before. There is no real point to it, but it’s DIFFERENT!” “Sounds good to me, let’s do it.”
I think it’s ridiculous.