4grand
Active Member
You're right. A great restaurant. Apparently they're trying to build an expansive garden on the roof of the ROM that it overlooks to the south.
Maybe they have already started. I was there last in November.
You're right. A great restaurant. Apparently they're trying to build an expansive garden on the roof of the ROM that it overlooks to the south.
Maybe they have already started. I was there last in November.
smuncky
Senior Member
urbandreamer
recession proof
16 July 2008 photo update
I noticed they're ripping up the pavement in front of the ROM today: wtf?
I really like this view from Prince Arthur: (taken today, urbandreamer)
I noticed they're ripping up the pavement in front of the ROM today: wtf?
I really like this view from Prince Arthur: (taken today, urbandreamer)
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
ud:
Perhaps this is it, from a Hume article on Bloor Street Revitalization:
http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=823&page=15
AoD
Perhaps this is it, from a Hume article on Bloor Street Revitalization:
http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=823&page=15
AoD
khris
Senior Member
Well at least their mismatched slats have a pattern. Ours are just random and ugly.
smuncky
Senior Member
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
They've suspended the world's largest Pterosaur cast above the Hyacinth Gloria Chen Court.
Mustapha
Senior Member
Reading the Dewdney article above reminds me of when as a child there was much more to see in the ROM. Rows upon rows of patinaed glass topped cases of watches and clocks, firearms, gems and ancient coins.
I didn't have this experience again until I recently visited the Natural History Museum in London UK. To a lesser extent the British Museum and the Maritime Museum in Greenwich still have 'old' galleries where you can experience old school museum displays.
Sometimes I am too opinionated here at this forum but I must say that the ROM stewardship is better at cocktail parties and new wings than their proper mandate.
I didn't have this experience again until I recently visited the Natural History Museum in London UK. To a lesser extent the British Museum and the Maritime Museum in Greenwich still have 'old' galleries where you can experience old school museum displays.
Sometimes I am too opinionated here at this forum but I must say that the ROM stewardship is better at cocktail parties and new wings than their proper mandate.
Benc7
Active Member
Browsing through the many posts in the ROM thread, I'm wondering; has there been any official response/explanation/law-suit over the mismatched cladding? The only thing I've read was a third or fourth-hand quote of a remark from some one stating that the cladding would "fade" into uniformity over time. Well, I can't see that happening.
Apologies to all if this question has already been answered
Apologies to all if this question has already been answered
MetroMan
Senior Member
^ It was Thorsell himself, who trying to abate concerns brought up by the media, said that with time, the cladding's colour would even out.
Is it true? I don't believe so... unless you count dirt collecting and uncleaned on the cladding as a way to even out the colour
Is it true? I don't believe so... unless you count dirt collecting and uncleaned on the cladding as a way to even out the colour
Mongo
Senior Member
I think that it's a case of not wanting to admit there's anything wrong with the cladding, because doing so would be to open the door for a flood of criticisms about the entire expansion project.
I have kept quiet about the ROM expansion project, because I wanted to wait until it was more or less complete before publicly stating an opinion. But I think that enough time has passed to state that in my opinion, this entire project was a ghastly mistake. The entire focus was on flash, with no thought given to usability (or, apparently, fit and finish). The same amount of money spent on a more conventional design would have certainly provided several times more usable floor space for exhibits than this design does.
I also agree with the Dewdney column about the design of the exhibits. The old-style cabinet displays were much more informative. Diorama and other "modern" displays look nice, but allow for only a fraction of objects on display, compared to older exhibit designs. This is a very important consideration. With cabinets, the full range of variation of a given type of object can be shown at once, as compared to a handful of representative examples with the current displays. They are not as flashy, but almost anybody with a significant interest in a given topic would prefer cabinet displays, in my opinion.
I have kept quiet about the ROM expansion project, because I wanted to wait until it was more or less complete before publicly stating an opinion. But I think that enough time has passed to state that in my opinion, this entire project was a ghastly mistake. The entire focus was on flash, with no thought given to usability (or, apparently, fit and finish). The same amount of money spent on a more conventional design would have certainly provided several times more usable floor space for exhibits than this design does.
I also agree with the Dewdney column about the design of the exhibits. The old-style cabinet displays were much more informative. Diorama and other "modern" displays look nice, but allow for only a fraction of objects on display, compared to older exhibit designs. This is a very important consideration. With cabinets, the full range of variation of a given type of object can be shown at once, as compared to a handful of representative examples with the current displays. They are not as flashy, but almost anybody with a significant interest in a given topic would prefer cabinet displays, in my opinion.
wyliepoon
Senior Member
^ A nice point about the exhibits, Mongo.
It's especially true about the Chinese exhibits. I still remember the old T.T. Tsui gallery, which was very well laid out and informative (with several well-done video displays on Chinese history- commentary was provided in English, French, Cantonese and Mandarin), which was followed by the Yuan-Ming-Qing Dynasty exhibits (containing a large display of a court official's house), with the Ming Tomb (properly aligned) in between. The Bishop White temple paintings were put in a room where they were reverently displayed as though they were in a temple. Everything was put in a very chronological order.
Today's Chinese exhibit appears to be much reduced in area. The chronological order of the exhibit is no longer there. The Ming Tomb is no longer aligned (with one gateway and some statues no longer shown). The Bishop White paintings are no longer reverently displayed.
I love the new ROM, but there are aspects of the old ROM that I miss, and that I think was better than what we have in the post-Renaissance era. The Egypt exhibit is probably the best remaining example of a well-done pre-Renaissance exhibit. I'd like to see that exhibit stay for a very long time.
It's especially true about the Chinese exhibits. I still remember the old T.T. Tsui gallery, which was very well laid out and informative (with several well-done video displays on Chinese history- commentary was provided in English, French, Cantonese and Mandarin), which was followed by the Yuan-Ming-Qing Dynasty exhibits (containing a large display of a court official's house), with the Ming Tomb (properly aligned) in between. The Bishop White temple paintings were put in a room where they were reverently displayed as though they were in a temple. Everything was put in a very chronological order.
Today's Chinese exhibit appears to be much reduced in area. The chronological order of the exhibit is no longer there. The Ming Tomb is no longer aligned (with one gateway and some statues no longer shown). The Bishop White paintings are no longer reverently displayed.
I love the new ROM, but there are aspects of the old ROM that I miss, and that I think was better than what we have in the post-Renaissance era. The Egypt exhibit is probably the best remaining example of a well-done pre-Renaissance exhibit. I'd like to see that exhibit stay for a very long time.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Alas, Mongo, you've got it backwards. The previous emphasis was on dioramas ( remember those dinos in their fake fibreglass "environments"? ), but the renovated ROM puts the objects themselves centre stage. The Dinosaur and Mammals galleries in the Crystal are good examples - there are more old bones on display than ever.
There's an article in the current ROM magazine that explains how this new approach was applied to the display of the Islamic collection on level C3, for example. When she spoke at the ROM Colloquium this February, curator Lisa Golombek explained that, "dioramas prejudice the message" - and this approach, of placing emphasis on the objects themselves, has been taken in the renovated Museum galleries and those still under renovation in the heritage buildings.
In the renovated wings, over 30 per cent of the objects on display in the Chinese galleries are new or haven't been seen before, there's a new Chinese architecture gallery, and new gallery for temporary exhibitions of Chinese artifacts. As a result of the space liberated by the construction of the Crystal, the Gallery of Japan has been expanded, and a new Korean gallery added.
I think that removing the historically inaccurate pseudo-Chinese timbered ceiling in the Bishop White Gallery, and replacing the "devotional' atmosphere by letting light in, should be seen as part of the same approach - of allowing the objects to speak for themselves. Curator Klaas Ruitenbeek has pointed out that the previous processional effect created by the placement of the Ming Tomb objects in the old Terrace Galleries was, in any case, historically inaccurate.
The addition of the Crystal has liberated space in the 1933 wing for a proper installation of the Canadian First Peoples collection, most of which was in storage for a generation.
There's an article in the current ROM magazine that explains how this new approach was applied to the display of the Islamic collection on level C3, for example. When she spoke at the ROM Colloquium this February, curator Lisa Golombek explained that, "dioramas prejudice the message" - and this approach, of placing emphasis on the objects themselves, has been taken in the renovated Museum galleries and those still under renovation in the heritage buildings.
In the renovated wings, over 30 per cent of the objects on display in the Chinese galleries are new or haven't been seen before, there's a new Chinese architecture gallery, and new gallery for temporary exhibitions of Chinese artifacts. As a result of the space liberated by the construction of the Crystal, the Gallery of Japan has been expanded, and a new Korean gallery added.
I think that removing the historically inaccurate pseudo-Chinese timbered ceiling in the Bishop White Gallery, and replacing the "devotional' atmosphere by letting light in, should be seen as part of the same approach - of allowing the objects to speak for themselves. Curator Klaas Ruitenbeek has pointed out that the previous processional effect created by the placement of the Ming Tomb objects in the old Terrace Galleries was, in any case, historically inaccurate.
The addition of the Crystal has liberated space in the 1933 wing for a proper installation of the Canadian First Peoples collection, most of which was in storage for a generation.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
There are certainly a number of approaches in how to display artifacts in a museum, and the attitudes and ideas that support these different approaches have been under great debate by museologists.
I much prefer the objects being put "centre-stage" as Urban Shocker aptly describes their presentation, but I do understand how some people can miss the "settings" - such as dioramas - that provided some form of visual context.
Objects in museums have always been removed from their origins and originating context. Stage-setting, inappropriate or inaccurate decoration or other such decoration can actually get in the way of what the specific work of a museum. Part of the removal of such set creations is an effort to get back to that focus.
It's like going to an art gallery and expecting to have each painting explained to you in detail. You are then no longer seeing it; you are being told what you should experience.
I much prefer the objects being put "centre-stage" as Urban Shocker aptly describes their presentation, but I do understand how some people can miss the "settings" - such as dioramas - that provided some form of visual context.
Objects in museums have always been removed from their origins and originating context. Stage-setting, inappropriate or inaccurate decoration or other such decoration can actually get in the way of what the specific work of a museum. Part of the removal of such set creations is an effort to get back to that focus.
It's like going to an art gallery and expecting to have each painting explained to you in detail. You are then no longer seeing it; you are being told what you should experience.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
The ROM continues to rotate the folding screeens in the Gallery of Japan: the two new ones are Chinese-inspired, very bold graphically with decisive brush strokes and a gold wash - my favourites so far. The screens are displayed for several months and then, when they're tired of the light, they're taken away and allowed to lie down and rest in a darkened room. Sometimes, I know how they must feel.
In the Gallery of Canada: First Peoples there's now a touch-screen thingy with quite a lot of information about Paul Kane - comparing his field notes for Indians of North America with the book, for instance.
In the Gallery of Canada: First Peoples there's now a touch-screen thingy with quite a lot of information about Paul Kane - comparing his field notes for Indians of North America with the book, for instance.