Following are excerpts from NYTimes Architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff's MOMA review:
"the expanded museum is a serene composition that weaves art, architecture and the city into a transcendent aesthetic experience" - from the 2nd paragraph
"what the architect has done is to bind art, architecture and the city into a vibrantly powerful composition" - from the 11th paragraph
"There are those who were terrified that the garden, which has been expanded, would lose its intimacy. It has never looked better. The core of the original, with its scattering of weeping beech trees and its marble bridges spanning a reflecting pool, has been lovingly restored. To preserve its sense of scale, Mr. Taniguchi created a series of low terraces along its edges, giving the garden a degree of visual depth it never had and welding it more gently to the surrounding buildings. Two towering porticoes frame the garden on either side, giving it the feel of an immense public stage."
So... it's an intimate immense public stage?
The parts about "an aspiring young artist craving acceptance" and "art, in a democracy, is a messy, open process" made me cringe. Yuk! I'm still trying to understand what "it(the architecture) brings us closer to the art and sensitizes us to the world around us" means. I got confused because he had just been saying something about hypnotic effects and generous moments.
Why was this guy so hyped up? This was awful!
He loved it though, I probably will too. For a complete pan check out Charlie Finch.