During our stay here in Panama City, Panama, we rode bicycles to Frank Gehry’s Biomuseo. And we want to report that this is our favorite Ghery building that we have visited so far. The building makes a very powerful connection to the environment. Even when you were inside amongst the exhibits, there was never a loss of connection to the exterior. And after 10 years of use, it was holding together well.
This caused us to wonder which Ghery buildings we have visited. These include:
-Guggenheim Bilbao
-Museum of Pop Culture, Seattle
-Piex (Fish), Barcelona
-Dancing House, Prague (exterior only)
-Stata Center, MIT (exterior only)
-Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto
-Chau Chan Wing Building, Sydney
-Weisman Art Museum, Minneapolis
-etc.
So here is a question: when is it appropriate for the museum building to be better than the cultural exhibition it houses? For this was certainly the case in the Biomuseo: the exhibits paled in comparison to the geometric dynamism of the building. And as we think back, most museums by star architects are better than the culture / art that the building houses. Our recent visit to The Prince Philip Science Museum in Valencia was almost embarrassing: the science exhibits looked like they were done by amateurs compared with the stunning surround of Calatrava’s exhortation. Another example: the Museum of Pop Culture is a more coherent cultural statement than the meager artifacts that the museum houses.
The free architectural expression of the Biomuseo seemed as if it had grown. Steel I beams are brought down in clumps: you felt like you were in the rain forest under the tree canopy. Which we are sure was Ghery’s intent.
