Dear Portland Museum of Art, Your design sucketh. Sincerely, Marshall Astor
Recently I spent three great days in Portland, Oregon meeting with some artists for upcoming Angels Gate shows, most specifically Bean and Dan Gilsdorf, who are coming down to do the next Gallery A show, about which I am extremely excited, and I will no doubt write about more it the future. But on to the sucking.
I’ve become addicted to big museums lately - if only for the historical artifacts and decorative arts wings. Both Bean and Dan warned me and my traveling companion, Michele, that the Portland Art Museum is all cocked up at totally skippable. They told me about the contemporary expansion that is 80% rental hall and fundraising space and 10% multi-story, crammed art hallway. We probably weren’t going to go after their warning, but on the last day we were in town, neither Michele and I could resist - we had to know.
The Building(s)
I don’t think you can even begin to discuss the collection of this museum without first explaining the buildings in which they are housed. Some museums, like the excellently designed Asian Art Museum of San Francisco are defined by their collection and some museums end up having their collection defined by the limits of the buildings that house them. The Portland art museum is definitely of the latter species. The museum consists of two buildings, occupying the better part of a block, with an underground level that spans the footprint of both buildings and the connecting plaza between them. The main building, the Belluschi Building, was purpose built as an art museum, and the contemporary arts wing/building, the Mark Building, was converted over recently from a Masonic hall that the museum acquired in 1991 and converted in 2004.
The Belluschi building is a reasonably laid out art museum, with hallway spaces connecting to interconnected, themed rooms. There is a large special exhibition space in the center of the building with the bulk of the museum’s permanent collections wrapping around it like a U. The space has a maze-like quality, more so than other museums, but not so much as to be ridiculous. If this building has any great flaw is that it’s almost impossible to locate a restroom. There isn’t one in the entrance area of the museum, I ended up finding one in the basement after getting lost twice.
The Mark Building, also known as the Jubitz Center for Modern and Contemporary Art, is a disaster. It can only be entered by going into the basement area of the Belluschi and then traversing the underside of the plaza. This is despite the fact that the Belluschi building has a secondary entrance/exit that directly faces the Mark building. In fact it faces what appears to be an entrance to the Mark, doors and all. But those doors appear to be permanently roped off. That was how we first attempted to penetrate the Mark building. We walked around to the side, where two “regular guys who didn’t look like museum employees” were guarding the street entrance to the Mark. They wouldn’t let us in (which is fine as the bulk of the building isn’t open to the public) and pointed us back the way we came in a vague and uninformative matter. That was when we hit on the idea to go back into the Belluschi, take the elevator back down to the basement, and attempt to tunnel our way across the plaza into the Mark Building.
It should be mentioned that we were still confused as to the location of the Mark Building in general, as the map that the museum provides at the front desk in no way clearly indicates the relationship between the buildings, and the map (.pdf download)of the Mark Buliding/Jubitz Center only shows the part of the building that houses the modern and contemporary collections, and as the building is actually shaped very differently than the map indicates, it’s more than a little confusing. We were only really able to ascertain that the building across the plaza was the Jubitz Center by comparing the architectural facade of the building to the one shown on the map.
The only real indication on the map that the Belluschi Building is connected to the Jubitz Center is an arrow on the underground level of the map pointing to the mysterious “CMCA”. What the fuck is the CMCA? I’m looking for the Jubitz Center, not your employee used, internal acronym for the “Center for Modern and Contemporary Art”. Give it one name guys - is it the Mark Building, the Jubitz Center, the Center for Modern and Contemporary Art or the CMCA? If your going to lay out your buildings in a idiosyncratic and viewer-unfriendly way, you could at least decide on a stable descriptive moniker for your building.
Anyways, we got into the Jubitz Center, which I will now critisise further. The floorplan of the Mark Building itself is basically a box. The floorplan for the Jubitz Center is like a narrow strip of that box, on the side facing the Belluschi Building. A large percentage of the building, let’s say 80%, is offices and rental hall space, leaving what is basically a 30 foot wide hallway for the display of the modern and contemporary collections. A hallway which is further reduced by the presence of a massive staircase and sizeable elevator that pinches down the center third of the hallway to about 10 useable feet and the areas around the building hardware. The collections in the Belluschi museum were a bit on the cluttered side, but this arrangement actually creates a situation in the Jubitz Center where there is art obscuring art. As in there was literally a huge sculpture sitting about 3 feet in front of a painting. More on that in the collection section, though.
One of the other interesting artifacts of the building’s design is that there’s apparently an emergency exit/connecting double door between the ground floor of the Grand Ballroom and the fourth floor of the Jubitz Center. Sound from the event taking place in the ballroom carries right into the gallery - on the Wednesday morning we visited the soundtrack to that floor of the gallery was an evangelical Christian prayer meeting, which is just what I want to be listening to while I’m trying to focus on a really amazing piece of art in an environment that is already distracting. To add some irony to the situation, the door, if opened would open into a narrow space housing several works involving photorealistic male nudity, and the awesome homo-eroticism of a really nice Tom of Finland drawing.
The Collection
Note - PAM is one of those facilities that has a no photography rule, as they don’t want you snapping something on loan. Therefore there will be no photos, which further sucketh. I’ve never understood the purpose of these rules, and although I can see why museums will make their “special exhibitions” off limits to photography, I can’t see any reason why you can’t hold lenders to some kind of boilerplate “if you’re going to show in our museum, people may take pictures” language in the loan agreement. They’re only photos - the worst thing that’s going to happen is that more of the public might get to experience and fall in love with works they might otherwise never see.
Part the 1st - Modern and Contemporary/Jubitz Center - the brief rememberances of a viewer in a chaotic and confounding place
Despite the failings of the building, the Portland Art Museum has managed to collect a pretty solid blue-chip collection of modern and contemporary works. The biggest issue of the space is that they’ve got everything on display at once - it’s a disaster, that makes me think that they either built the Center too small, forgot to build proper storage space for the collection or that there’s a sad streak of “small city me-tooism” going on. I’m not one to drag my tongue over the modern era but one of the standout pieces of the whole collection is Eugene Berman’s Time and the Monuments, a late 1930’s surrealist work that prophesies the coming ruin of much of the history of Europe during World War II. Unfortunately, this rather large painting is displayed in a cluttered hallway.
The defining feature of the Jubitz becomes not the works it contains, but how it contains those works. The whole of the collection gives off an air of “name collecting”, which makes it a mix of great works and works which really have no function other than to check off yet another artist from some unseen “museum legitimacy” checklist. They have what must be the smallest and least interesting Clyfford Still that is out there, but they’ve got it crammed into a corner where it has no presence and serves no real purpose. It was so hard to look at the collection that I can only remember fleeting details.
I remember a beautiful sterling silver boar on a platter, tens of thousands of individual strands of silver giving it an elegant, bristly coat of boar hair - as beautiful as anything ever crafted in silver.
I remember almost tripping over this stainless steel cart that looked like a miniature work cart with four bondage restraints attached and a 18″ long steel pole with a handle that basically resembled a dildo. At first I thought some installer had left some weird jig (maybe to stabilise some sculpture while it was being mounted - I got no idea) out for me to trip over, as it was sitting on the floor in front of a painting in the most narrow part of the gallery. Then I realised it had a label, and therefore was really someone’s brilliant art, not the out-of-place sex toy that it appeared to be.
I also remember a sculpture in the form of a large wooden spindle, about 6 feet high and 10 feet long, sitting directly in front of a painting, to which it had no discernable relationship, but which it managed to completely block the view of.
I remember the great big Gilbert and George piece that’s both under-lit and seemingly misplaced in a stairwell.
I remember seeing my first Kenny Scharf sculpture/video piece in a long time - I still don’t see the purpose of him making physical objects - it only takes away from his work.
I remember feeling glad that the museum had a Tom of Finland out - more museums should be featuring his work.
I remember the comically large “out of order” label on a deflated Oldenberg piece. I have a feeling that I got more out of its situation as I saw it than I would have had it been working properly.
I remember the photography gallery which was also blue chip - what’s the deal with photos of William Burroughs? I’ve seen portraits of him in several museums now, is his face one of the definitive faces of the 20th century? Damn I miss him, he should have lived forever.
The best thing I saw in the Jubitz was a video exhibition by Pierre Huyghe called This is Not a Time for Dreaming, which is essentially a puppet show of the story of Le Corbusier’s Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts at Harvard University. It’s awesome and becomes sort of a meta puppet show at times, ending with an introduction by the narrator that’s exceptionally well written. The character design for the puppet Mr. Harvard, Dean of Deans has an Alien Queen/Darth Vader quality that’s suitably menacing and helps take the story just the right distance into allegory. There’s a great article about the piece by Christian A. Stayner for the Harvard Crimson, here.
Part the 2nd - Everything Else
There’s nothing wrong whatsoever with the collection in the Belluschi Building. It’s certainly a little more cluttered than I’d like it to be, but the space is well designed and orderly, and there’s some really strong features to the collection. It’s more of a collection of collections than anything else, which is good, as each room or series of rooms can focus on what it does best. There’s little relationship between the collections, but I didn’t mind.
One of the big surprises about the collection was the presence of an exceptionally good Japanese print collection, which originally began as an immense gift from the Ladd family, but has grown beyond that gift since. On display when I was there was a series of prints made in the early 20th century, after what is thought of as the “golden age” of Japanese printmaking. It was great stuff, all prints of dramatic scenes, in styles clearly descended from Ukiyo-e, but clearly influenced by European styles at the time.
There are several other galleries dedicated to Japanese objects, including a really impressive selection of folding screens, most notably a large screen depicting the arrival of either Spanish or Portuguese traders. The screen depicts in laser sharp detail the various activities of both the traders and the Japanese, trading, watching, a Japanese monk talking to a European monk. The other super eye catching thing in this part of the collection was an ivory carving of a man feeding little eels to ducks. At about 20″ high, it was a pretty big piece of sculpture and was carved with lifelike detail that must be seen to be believed. Never seen anything like it before and I’m pretty familiar with Japanese ivory carving.
Upstairs from the Asian collection, there’s a great collection of American and European art - the American section has a lot of Pacific Northwest landscape paintings, which is interesting, and there’s a great room filled with English silver, which has a really interesting collection of coffee and chocolate pots and gravy warmers. There’s an immense tankard in there that’s like a 18th century 40oz booze hammer - too bad it’s not interactive.
There’s a room with a whole wall of Madonna and child paintings, which is a great resource if you want to look at a very specific and narrow area of European painting, but I couldn’t really get into them when I was there. Maybe my Heb was in effect that day. Michele really liked them, though. There’s also a strangely placed room filled with Greek and Roman artifacts, including some tiny amphorae for holding oil that would be given to winners in gymnasium wrestling matches. Yesterday’s t-ball trophy is today’s priceless historical artifact.
The other side of the building is home to two collections, the Native American Art Collection, which is artifact heavy, and I got into more than I usually would, and the Arlene and Harold Schnitzer Center for Northwest Art.
I’m not a big fan of most Native American art, as I just can’t seem to care much about the aesthetics involved. But I have a special soft spot for the art of the Pacific Northwest, Alaskan and Arctic tribes. Something about the culture of the Pacific Northwest tribes says “we were on the right track, if only those pesky Europeans showed up we would have figured this whole civilisation thing out on our own, livestock or no livestock.”
I really liked the hats, masks and other ritual costumes from the Northwest part of the Native American Art Collection. My favourite was a “shark hat”. Basically a lifeguard style had carved from wood with a big ass shark going through it back to front. These guys invented the logo team hat! I like the line work, the attention to detail and the carving in all of the Northwest stuff, really. It’s definitely worth seeing. They even have a pair of Inuit snow goggles - one of my favourite practical inventions, ever, and right up there with welding goggles in terms of steampunk goggle fetish objects.
The Arlene and Harold Schnitzer Center for Northwest Art is pretty cool. Basically a collection of art focused on the Northwest, as the title indicates, it’s a pretty solid collection, although there wasn’t anything that sucked me right in. They had some of those crazy giant glass fruit that I saw at the De Young - I wonder what it’s like to wake up in the morning and be the “giant glass fruit guy”?
Finally, in the basement of the building is the Vivian and Gordon Gilkey Center for Graphic Art, which is devoted to printmaking. On display while we were there was a show of works from a Portland based Master Printer. One of the series on display really struck a chord with me - a series of 20″ x 30″ prints of circles based on notebook paper hole protector stickers, each one representing a prime number with the stickers arranged in a semi-ordered pattern. I love prime numbers. I love them more than it’s really healthy for a man to love numbers and I loved the prints. Lots of white space.
The main hall of the Belluchi was closed when we were there, they were installing an Egyptian exhibition. We did get to watch them lower a sarcophagus onto its pedestal, which was an impressive piece of gallery work, though.
Epilogue
So yeah, the layout of the whole museum is jacked up, but there’s some really impressive art there, but you’ve got to really work to experience it. If you’re in Portland I wouldn’t miss it, but go with a patient and sympathetic disposition. It’s the kind of place where an irritation can grow into a pearl of anger and frustration, and since they won’t let casual visitors perform the curatorial intervention that the modern and contemporary collections so badly need, there’s no real outlet for your frustrations.

















December 14th, 2006 at
i agree wholeheartedly- such a disappointment after the protracted hype
i would be interested in reading your thoughts on the “new” indianapolis museum of art which i feel suffers many of the same problems
December 15th, 2006 at
I haven’t heard about any issues with the Indianapolis Museum of Art. I know artists and educators who have worked with them on programming and they all had really good things to say.
I don’t see myself in Indianapolis anytime soon, but it’s definitely on my list of museums I’d like to visit. What problems do you see at the Indy museum?
February 15th, 2007 at
[...] I’m in love. I’ve had a lot of disappointing experiences in museum design lately. I’m still having trouble excising the disaster that is the Portland Art Museum out of my mind. I continue to be disappointed by the De Young Museum. Unlike bad art, bad museum design can’t be so easily undone, or stashed in the basement. Once you’ve built it, you’re stuck with it, you’re bound by all of the narrow minded board decisions that shaped it, the design by committee, whatever went wrong, it’s there, edified in polished concrete and whatever novel material was the flavour of the day, for the gristmills of generations of complainers. [...]
February 23rd, 2007 at
Your review places a disproportionate emphasis on the Jubitz Center, in effect damning the entire Museum’s design based on a single wing. I agree that the Jubitz Center is poorly designed and that the whole Mark Building has been awkwardly incorporated into the Museum complex, but for anyone who is from Portland, the Belluschi Building across the plaza is what we think of as “the Art Museum.” If you had been writing your review at any point in the last 70 years prior to the Jubitz Center opening in October 2005, this other building would have been the entirety of the Portland Art Museum. The Belluschi Building, which you heavy handedly lump together as “everything else” is actually comprised of three wings, the Ayer Wing – which was the original building that opened in 1932, the Hirsch Wing, and the Hoffman Wing. These portions of the Museum, in particular the original Ayer Wing and the Hirsch Wing, are simple, elegant, and straightforward gallery spaces that I think are excellently designed. If you’re going to review the design aspect of the Portland Art Museum, you should start with the Belluschi Building first and only then criticize the Jubitz Center and Mark Building.
April 11th, 2007 at
Okay, whew - so what a roller coast ride your review is of the Portland Art Museum! I was glad to see overall though you considered it worth a visit.
But you missed quite a lot of the context in your criticism.
The Belluschi building is remarkable as a museum structure when you consider that it was built in 1933 at a time when everyone else was building Beaux Arts and Art Deco; architecturally the Belluschi remains modern and timeless - and extremely well regarded in the architecture world even today. If your friends really recommended skipping the museum, they may not know a lot about architecture!
Portland Art Museum was the first art museum in the Pacific Northwest and has seemed to always have a real commitment to provided a solid survey of art to the community.
At a point in the Museum’s past the Belluschi was expanded for offices and the art college it started, now known as the Pacific Northwest College of Art and located downtown. When the Masonic Temple - (now called the Mark Building) was remodeled the museum picked up the office space in the Belluschi for galleries. I agree they are a bit convoluted and hope at a future date they are more aligned with the building’s core architecture but what a wonder to have all that additional art on view to the public!
Let’s remember, not everyone has a comprehensive background in art or has even ever seen a baroque painting or some of the early American Masters; Korean pottery; or Japanese printmaking. I think the museum serves it’s audience well with a survey of art, and as you point out with some very solid pieces.
As for the Mark Building/Jubitz Center for Modern and Contemporary Art - (sheesh, it’d be great if museum’s didn’t have to rely on donors or donors gave without desiring their name attached but such is life - personally I’m grateful to the Mark’s and the Jubitz’s). Let’s put this into context. First, I doubt anyone was supposed to be waving you away from the Mark Building entrance, because on the second floor is an amazing art research center dedicated and open to the public always (and yes, it’s got its own name - the Crumpacker Family Library). Sounds like you ran into people who were part of the group in the ballroom rather than anyone to do with the museum. Personally I have always found everyone at the museum extremely helpful, my first visit to the Jubitz Center for Modern and Contemporary Art (see why it’s nick’d ‘The Jubitz’ or ‘The CMCA’) I had a volunteer walk me over to the entrance to the Center personally.
So, The Mark Building. Please people, realize that what was built was a temporary solution, not a permanent one. The Jubitz Center occupies about all the space they could muster for it and leave the necessary room for the ballroom/meeting areas, library & offices that were an absolute must. Museum’s need revenue streams, and this looks like a good one - but they also need to have room to have their patrons and the public let their hair down and enjoy the art around them. They’re even doing lectures there, and in this space: to packed audiences. I am sure that if they had the budget they’d be happy to build a beautiful new museum but they didn’t have the luxury. They added the galleries and wanted to do, I suspect, what they could to bring light to each and every one of them - therefore the solution apparently was to build up along the side of the building bringing light to the modern masters inside. Why people talk smack about them having meeting spaces is beyond me, and should they just leave them dark unless they have an art related function? Yeah, it was unfortunate that you had to hear the crazy christians - though I do see a benefit of having people of all different backgrounds exposed to art, if only secondarily.
PAM has plans to expand the space, no doubt you can tell in all the art they do cram into the galleries and its probably fair to say that it’s cramming. But as someone who craves art, I can tell you I’d much rather see a brilliant sculpture three feet from a Frankenthaler than to see neither. You could move the ‘Time and the Monuments’ to a great wall in a larger gallery, but then where would you put the painting that it supplants? The solution to a less crammed place is to expand the galleries into the rest of the Mark Building (impossible for now), or cut the collection on display in half. For the space challenges they face I think the curator has done a tremendous job. Is the Jubitz a failure? Ultimately no, it brought out a tremendous collection which otherwise would have been wasting away in storage (well, wasting away for not having exposure to the public anyway!)
There’s another aspect to this though. The art envelopes you in a way that I haven’t seen at any other museum. Once I stood between - and just a few feet from - a Sol Lewitt sculpture, a Donald Judd sculpture and a Frank Stella painting (with a Roy Lichtenstein high above me): Glory! There’s a real intimacy in that, which shouldn’t be discounted.
If the Jubitz was touted as the solution to a collection growing beyond the seams of a structure, then yes it probably could be considered failure - but it has always been known that it was just the first few pages in a new chapter from a museum that has done quite well in serving the public.
‘Totally skippable?’ I’d say your friends Bean and Dan - in making such a comment - are the ones to be skipped, they sound like snobs.
Personally, I’m glad to hear you found in the end the collection worth a visit, and as a Portlander I hope you come back again soon.
September 16th, 2007 at
If you think the Portland Art Museum buildings leave much to be desired, you ought to visit the nearby Central Library of Multnomah County.
The library is extremely sad, in respect to its architecture, its size, and the terribly limited range of its contents.
I lived in Denver before, during & after the construction of that city’s beautiful Michael Graves-designed library, and the contrast between these two libraries (comparing EITHER their collections or their architecture, or even their websites) is nearly enough to make me return to Denver.
And of course, the Denver Art Museum has since expanded, creating what must now be a very exhilarating cultural center in Denver. But the new Denver Library, in my opinion, triggered Denver’s renaissance.
Portland desperately needs a new central library itself, but I fear that the libertarian ethos of the taxpayers in Portland makes this prospect unlikely in the extreme.