A stunning view from inside the Gatewood building lobby reveals a structure occupying an interior space and immediately sets up a myriad of relationships between inside and out.
Patrick Lucas, Interior Architecture professor at UNCG, and his students designed an experience that allows the viewer to become an insider on the uniquely creative and prolific Loewenstein years and be inspired by a close interaction with his and his students’ particular brand of modern design and philosophy.
It seemed that the exhibit designers were aiming to recreate what Loewenstein’s students referred to as “warm modern,” featuring interesting textures and blending of interior and exterior finishing materials. The lumber, pipe, perforated metal sheeting which created formulations of interior and exterior, closed and open spaces within the exhibit achieved this aim very well. The use of magnets to hang the signage was pure genius in its practicality and minimal interference with the exhibit aesthetic and readability of information.
The color choices and application, on the other hand, did not as exude the same kind of authenticity. While it is obvious that material choices were influenced by mid-century modern but brought into the 21st century, I still wonder if the wood might have been painted rather than stained since the pine only looks cheapened by the stain and since the color was neither as bold as the blazing oranges seen in the photos of commencement house nor as earthy or “woodsy” as their exteriors.
In the case of lighting in the space, less was more. I did not really notice the light, neither shadows nor glares. I noticed when stepping outside the gallery, the wonderful play of shadows on the floor, but while in the space, I think not noticing the light was actually a benefit since the content and even the structure of the exhibit was of greater importance.
The images in the exhibit were really the most brilliant story-telling device. In the section on the general history of modernism in design, the exhibit featured images of art and architecture that I had previously seen in texts or slides from class, but never up close and in such detail and vibrant color. For the first time, the architecture really started to come alive, and it was possible to imagine myself standing inside the picture plane looking at the monument before me.
There was so much information in so many different forms, whether it was pictorial, textual, graphic, animated, archival, or experiential. I returned to the exhibit three times and have yet to comprehend its breadth- which is both a blessing and curse. It’s a blessing for the creators of the exhibit who had a lot of ground to cover, a lot to say, and a blessing for anyone who really thirsts for a comprehensive understanding of mid-century modernism from macro scale (international importance) to micro scale (how UNC Women’s College students and UNCG Interior architecture students have been and will continue to be involved in the actual molding of their immediate environments).But it is also a curse for someone like me, who wants to read it all! Most people are probably satisfied to come in, grab a few bites and leave, but I find it somewhat overwhelming, and I’m lucky enough to be able to visit as often as I like! The exhibit is very successfully broken down into digestible parts, but it still feels like a bit too much.
The various media go a long way in communicating the feeling of looking at interiors and exteriors from an insider’s perspective. The photos, as I’ve mentioned, beautifully represent color and atmosphere, while the 3-dimensional models of the Commencement houses are brilliant for distilling the plans and sections while showing light effects or contemporary furnishings. I personally respond less enthusiastically to the animated visuals, especially since they only give a sense of structure and a hint of finishes, not detail. I also don’t tend to want to look at computers in exhibits unless they incorporate some sort of audio experience. I spend enough of my day on a computer that I find other media more exciting and compelling.
As one moves through the exhibit, there is truly a myriad of interactions between the architecture of the Gatewood building and the exhibit as well as relationships between the viewer and simulated interiors and exteriors, ceilings and floors, viewing surfaces and walls, and other people in the exhibit. The exhibit designers created a magnificent view of the exhibit from the outside. A structure on the outside links visually in one continuous plane to the inside.
The gallery space is divided up by structures that serve as partitions, wall mounts, or mini-dwellings. The viewer moves from many stages from feeling inside or outside depending on which way they turn. Take the area inside the right entrance to the gallery for example. You enter in, and moving to your left, you feel small in front of a large, long wall of images. Turn 180 degrees, and suddenly you are inside a structure, being held by two obtusely angled walls. But you see through the perforated metal so that you feel you are on the outside of some other space, glimpsing a moving light that makes you wonder what is inside the structure beyond the partition in front of you. So you navigate around the wall into a space with angled walls and ceiling- and you exit immediately realizing your best view is from outside. The visitor is constantly guided by information and by form.The flow of traffic is one of the most successful of any small exhibit I have ever experienced. A class of 60 people managed to move about, occupy, and interact with the space and with each other with ease; unlike the modernism exhibit we viewed at the Weatherspoon where there were frequently areas of congestion. I am amazed that there was even room for seating! The exhibit itself is a true testament how creative designers can truly break down a space and exponentially increase the functionalism of every square foot in way that is respectful of and inspiring to the occupant making them feel like they are a part of something bigger – on the inside looking in.
