Should a Great Art Museum Be Single-Level?

The proposed single-story design for the new LACMA building, which straddles Wilshire Boulevard.Atelier Peter Zumthor & Partner/LACMA

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.

This is a little offbeat, but I’m curious about something. The LA County Museum of Art wants to demolish its old buildings and replace them with a single large building. Progress has been slow, of course, and various things have happened to reduce the planned floor space of the new design. The easy answer to this would be to add a second story to the building, but apparently this runs afoul of LACMA director Michael Govan’s aesthetic desires:

“I’m a big believer in horizontal museums,” he said [a few years ago]. “All the great museums for me are horizontal.”

I’m not a big museum person, but I’ve visited plenty of them. The Met has multiple levels. MOMA has multiple levels. The Tate Modern has multiple levels. The Louvre has multiple levels. The Guggenheim in New York has multiple levels (sort of). The Prado has multiple levels. The Hermitage has multiple levels. The Van Gogh and the Rijksmuseum have multiple levels. The Vatican Museums have multiple levels. The National Gallery has multiple levels. The Art Institute of Chicago has multiple levels. The Getty has multiple levels.

I’m actually a little unsure I’ve ever visited a single-level museum. So I’m throwing this out to the hive mind. What is Govan talking about? Why does he think all the great museums are horizontal?

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.