A look at our new and possibly improved NGA

Joyce Cowshead says:

08:31pm | 30/09/10

I,m sure the N.G.A. is a truly worthy institution,the pics. look intriguing and enticing,but…  aint there always a but…not the escape goat type butt…but the style of architecture titled as brutal, who in their right mind could design or name a building as brutal,I,d like to see it, but will the brutes be there,I hope not, anyway all buildings are floored aren,t they.

Toni says:

09:04pm | 30/09/10

I like the new look NGA but still prefer the National Portrait Gallery (which is located right next door). It is smaller and very unique for Australia.

ibast says:

08:44am | 01/10/10

I can’t comment on the new modifications, but the old gallery was an abomination of architectural self pleasure.  To make it worse, it was a terrible gallery space.

As to more aboriginal art . . . . yawn.

stephen says:

10:30am | 01/10/10

I only line up fer the sausage sizzle.
Nothin wrong with sport neither.
And as Tors might say…‘he’s only jokin’.

bobw says:

12:05pm | 01/10/10

Leo, this post has been up for almost 18 hours and not one single commenter has taken it as an excuse to hate on Canberra.  I call miracle - unless, of course, there’s been a lot of moderation going on.

I’m aware that I might have opened the floodgates here.

On topic, though, I rate the NGA building.  There’s something about the defiant concrete awfulness of the thing that’s quite magnificent.

Sam Chowder says:

12:35pm | 01/10/10

We’ve got quite a nice IGA near the traffic lights but not as nice as that one, didn’t see any fresh veg though.

David C says:

12:38pm | 01/10/10

i was there last Sunday, it is well worth the time to wander round. The outside areas of the NGA and the portrait gallery are very sparse though, its as if its deserted.
As for Canberra well thats a weird place isnt it? Lot of “mate of the dirt” types… lots of beards and loads of sandals (with socks)

Lucy says:

08:22pm | 01/10/10

I really like the NGA building, and while your description worries me, I’ll withhold judgement on the renos until I see them myself on my next trip to Canberra. 

My understanding of the old entrance that you describe as the ‘original’ was that it was not actually designed to be the real entrance at all.  Colin Madigan was quite angry that they changed the direction of approach to the gallery, and chucked a carpark where they did.  So what you believe was his original design is actually quite different in effect. 

I’ve been writing about Australia’s public art gallery architecture recently, and I find it really interesting when people remark that they find the NGA ‘really imposing’.  I always ask whether they find the AGNSW’s sandstone facade ‘imposing’, to which many people say yes, ‘but in a good way’.  Obviously Australians don’t mind imposing buildings, as long as they’re built of sandstone…