Skip navigation

AGO bullish on attendance

KATE TAYLOR

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 8:25 PM EST 15/11/08

Revamped gallery, which reopens to the general public on Friday, hopes to avoid ROM missteps ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Joe Palooka from Toronto, Canada writes: Good luck to the AGO. I went by it yesterday and the design looks good - far better than the stupid "crystal" at the ROM.

    The problem with me about the AGO is the collection. It's second-rate. I have enjoyed much better collections at MOMA in New York, the SFMOMA in San Francisco and even the DIA in Detroit. If the AGO truly wants to be considered "world class" - and I imagine that it does - then it has to invest serious time and money into collecting great works of art. Henry Moore sculptures just aren't enough.
  2. Frank Godfrey from Canada writes: Joe Palooka, a place probably reaches significant stature when questions of being " world class " don't even arise ? Let's just banish this overworked term once and for all, at least as it applies to anything exceptional that this city achieves. As for the AGO's collection being " second rate ", how so ? Is it the collection itself that's second rate, or how it's presented, or what ?
  3. Tor Sandberg from Toronto, Canada writes: I couldn't disagree more with Joe Palooka. The layout, the restaurant and the art content of the AGO are to me one of the best in the world. I'll be going to check out the renovation today - very excited!
  4. d g from Canada writes: I am all for supporting the arts and would willingly continue to pay more for my family membership HOWEVER the AGO has to improve the quality of exhibitions...absolutely a must.
    The last real memorable one was the Whistler Monet exhibition....and the very small Warhol a couple of years ago.
    The AGO cannot compete with MoMA, the Tate etc with what they've been exhibiting over the last 10 years.
  5. Antonio Arch from Toronto, Canada writes: If the new AGO doesn't make you ecstatic, Joe Palooka and d g, then I don't know what will:

    A Frank Gehry design
    The entire Thomson Collection: Rubens and Bernini
    $270 million in improvements
    100 new contemporary Canadian pieces
    68,000 items in total

    How many other cities on this planet have museums like this?!
  6. Matthew Follwell from TO, Canada writes: I was REALLY dissappointed to see the cost of admission at the redesigned AGO had fallen in line with the ROM. While staff are quick to point out that Wednesday evenings are still pay-what-you-can, their previous policy of charging for special, travelling exhibitions and offering pay-what-you-can access to the permenant collection makes much more sense for the average patron. These policies only further separate art supporters and "ordinary Canadians" (as Mr. Harper put it). Please don't encourage this.
    It is short-sighted not to follow the lead of most major european (and even American) institutions and provide access to our wonderful permeannt collections which are supported in part by public funds and our tax-dollars.
  7. Woman of Reason from London, UK, Canada writes: AGO's new extension is not my favourite Gehry building, but I imagine that the budget was pretty limited and that he was constrained by the space he was dealing with. Its still an impressive building, especially for Toronto which seems to be particularly plagued by bad architecture and failed urban planning. It's also huge improvement over the former extension -- that hideous and cheap looking brown brick thing. And it puts that other monument to bad taste and failed ambition-- the aluminum siding clad Crystal-- to shame.

    I absolutely love the funky, OCAD box on stilts and I think that with the revitalized AGO that whole area of down town Toronto will really shine. Sadly, I have to agree with Joe Palooka. The AGO's collection is second rate. Nice building though.
  8. Alan Smith from Canada writes: Yes, for a city rife with bad to average architecture this is certainly a step up. How it's a step down from the garish, ostentatious, look at me Liberace of a building that is OCAD I don't know.

    As for the passing aspersion about poor urban planning, I'm not quite sure how one of the most liveable cities in the world, is deemed to be a byproduct of poor urban planning; unless by poor urban planning we simply mean architecture.
  9. Ben Sharp from T.O., Canada writes: Just got back from that huge, cold building at Queen's Park. The ROM cost me $60 $12 to park. At $72, it's a big cost. I find the new building quite ugly, and wonder why architects can make $300M buildings because they can talk a good spiel.

    I'm really hoping the AGO will at least impress architecturally, like have some relevance to me as a Canadian. The pictures of the wooden Galleria Italia look beautiful, and speaks to me and our country. The ugly crystal thing at the ROM - what does it mean and why should I care? Except that it defaces one of the most beautiful buildings in Toronto. This, I think, is why people say that Toronto has bad architecture and isn't really beautiful, although it is very live-able.

    I think that, given the hundreds of millions of tax dollars to help construct these buildings, every tax-paying member of Ontario should get 1 free pass to enter, no questions asked, no time restrictions, etc. That includes the COC. Oh, and clear signs for the washrooms when your son is wetting his pants would help, too...

    Agreed?
  10. blue sea from United States writes: I'll be visiting Toronto in early December and will count myself among the hundreds of thousands the AGO hopes will visit them. I can't wait to see the new gallery. By all rights it looks fantastic and will serve as a wonderful cultural landmark. Way to go AGO!

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top