Issue date: 2/4/10 Section: Arts and Culture

Photo: Garyjwood / Flickr" SRC="http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper404/stills/l7c020kq.jpg" > The Crystal is "a giant metallic zit" on the face of Toronto Photo: Garyjwood / Flickr

It is difficult to miss the Michael-Lee Chin Crystal. It pokes out of the ROM like a giant metallic zit, ready to erupt any second on unsuspecting tourists and shame-faced Torontonians. The Crystal has laid under a pile of hushed criticisms, waiting until the compounding grumbles of up-tight critics to finally infiltrate our national public consciousness. Without sounding too ominous, one might say that the time has come for Torontonians to wake up and realize that our city is under the threat of bad review.

In a December 27th Washington Post article, culture critic Phillip Kennicott announced that the Crystal was the worst architectural creation of the decade, surpassing even the many "Wal-Marts thrown up in the Aughts." Kennicott claims that Daniel Libeskind's addition to the ROM "surpasses the ugliness of bland functional buildings by being both ugly and useless." In what may be a misguided attempt at giving Toronto a European flavour, Libeskind has added to Toronto's tourism appeal. While a small (barely 700 words) article written by an American culture critic in a notable newspaper with a very large subscription in print and online says that the ROM Crystal was "ugly" may not seem like a big deal, beware the power of the word-of-mouth; it can sometimes turn our heads if only for a half-a-second. The spread of jaded criticisms, gaining momentum from within and abroad, will inevitably run amock.

Kennicott's view that Libeskind's addition to our national museum seem to go for shocking and Euro-chic rather than functionality may be valid. However, after speaking with a few people about the article, I came to the conclusion that while I don't like the Crystal saying it out loud seems anti-patriotic. In a post-9/11 world, where allegiance is best demonstrated by individuals partaking in various projects that emphasize "construction" for a "constructive future," voicing an opinion that impedes the forward momentum is rebuked as dead-weights holding back progress. In a race to patch up society with progressive and innovative landmarks where cities seem whole and intact, voicing anti-Crystal sentiments would appear to be more like Toronto-bashing than a critique of the building itself.

Constructive progress is not all bad, it certainly gets us as a society from point A to B. However, how we choose to progress must be questioned and architecture is a great place to start. For instance, Libeskind's addition to our cultural milieu is neither new nor original. As a professor of the Daniels Faculty of Architecture pointed out, Toronto is crawling with these edgy-chic buildings. The redesign of the AGO building by Frank Gehry is one of the most recent examples.

Continued...

Page 1 of 3 next >

Article Tools