I forgot to mention earlier that when I was in New York last August,
Janice and I went to see the Freud exhibit at the Jewish Museum, so I had
a chance to see the controversial addition.

I guess I'll mark myself down as "astonished".  Yes, there is some slight
difference in the stonework, but the thing is just amazing.  Nobody in the
Midwest would ever go to this kind of trouble.

Had a section of the original facade been damaged by some casualty, and
been reconstructed at this level of quality, I think we all would have
called it a successful repair.

Of course, the interior is a whole other issue.  When I first saw this
building, years ago, I was dismayed to see that the interior had
apparently been gutted.  Maybe this time I was on different floors, but
there appeared to be a lot of original interior fabric left.  However, I
don't doubt that a lot of historic material was lost in renovations done
in connection with the addition project, and I don't pretend to defend
that.

But as to the exterior -- seeing it in person makes it clear to me how
abstract and philosophical the debate is.  People who think like Herbert
Muschamp -- who are alarmed when a classical column on a new structure is
not undermined with the requisite "irony" -- hate this addition not
because it is badly done, but because it is impressively well done (at
least to my naive Midwestern eyes).

Not that I have time to repeat this debate all over again.  All previous
responses from all parties on this subject are hereby incorporated by
reference and acknowledged with sincere thanks and respect.  All apologies
for everything are tendered in advance, except to Mr. Muschamp.  Let's
just agree to disagree.

---
Lawrence Kestenbaum, [log in to unmask]
The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com