My ex-girlfriend contrasted the architecture of this site with that of the Whitney. Whereas with the Whitney, upon entering the building, the first impression is that of openess. For instance, a glass wall in the lobby gives you view of the sculpture garden. Needless to say, the resulting sense of freedom works in concert with an implied freedom of expression one would hope the institution is there to promote. With the SFMOMA, however, there are absolutely no visual cues as to the actual function of the building or what it contains. She pointed out that the catwalk beneath the apex of the building was a detail it had in common with prisons. I found that a bit of a stretch, but I did find it eery that there were “windows” in the photography gallery that were ceiling high but no more than a few inches wide that looked down on the lobby. This allowed you to view anyone entering the building while remaining concealed – exactly the type of construction used for arrow-slits and murder-holes in medeval fortresses. The implied function of the building (and let me stress that I commenting only on the psychology of the architecture and not the intent of the SFMOMA staff, curators, or donors) therefore is not to share art with the public, but rather to safeguard it from the public. Stand in the lobby and you’ll see what I mean.
The absence of a sculpture garden is particularly lamentable as a number of the sculptures on exhibit look forlorn and lost in a space that paintings and other works inhabit quite comfortably.