By the way, if you buy the Ambassador-level ($125) membership at the Cleveland Museum of Art, you get reciprocal admission at MOCA.

 

 

Ooooooo, that's good to know. My lady and I are thinking about which cultural venue to become a member of for the time being as the kids have outgrown the Science Center and such

 

Yes good to know, although TBideon and CLE618 would hate that!

It's not that I don't enjoy art at all... I just don't enjoy walking into a magnificent building that had been highly anticipated, only to find that only one or two small floors actually contain art. The CMA is massive and has much more to offer, and it's free. Just not my cup of tee at the MOCA.

MOCA is really for going to a particular show that you want to see, not for going to check out some artwork in a more general sense.  You might go if they have a retrospective of a certain artist who's work you like, or a certain genre of art you are interested in, for example I went to MOCA in its old space to see a display of architectural renderings from contemporary design firms.

^Yep, thus their modus operandi of not being a 'collecting institution'.

'Museum' of Contemporary Art is a bit of a misnomer.

How so? I'm pretty sure works of art are kept and displayed there in a building, so it holds pretty true to the definition of museum.

 

mu·se·um  [myoo-zee-uh m]  Show IPA

noun

a building or place where works of art, scientific specimens, or other objects of permanent value are kept and displayed.

Because the works are not 'kept' there.  They are displayed and, when the exhibit ends, they move on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunsthalle MOCA is a "kunsthalle". CMA is a "kunstmuseum". Thanks, Germans.

^ yep. moca is rotating exhibits, not a permanent collection. like the new museum in ny for example.

 

It's not that I don't enjoy art at all... I just don't enjoy walking into a magnificent building that had been highly anticipated, only to find that only one or two small floors actually contain art. The CMA is massive and has much more to offer, and it's free. Just not my cup of tee at the MOCA.

 

Agreed. I went to MOCA with my wife and we both thought admission was high for what it was. You basically have this beautiful building and have to travel up to the top floor to really see anything. We were in and out in less than 40 minutes. I've seen more works on display at much smaller galleries.

 

The building itself is beautiful and I love that it's there. I just wish it had more usable square footage (yes, it's bigger than the old MOCA but doesn't really feel like it).

It's not that I don't enjoy art at all... I just don't enjoy walking into a magnificent building that had been highly anticipated, only to find that only one or two small floors actually contain art. The CMA is massive and has much more to offer, and it's free. Just not my cup of tee at the MOCA.

 

Agreed. I went to MOCA with my wife and we both thought admission was high for what it was. You basically have this beautiful building and have to travel up to the top floor to really see anything. We were in and out in less than 40 minutes. I've seen more works on display at much smaller galleries.

 

The building itself is beautiful and I love that it's there. I just wish it had more usable square footage (yes, it's bigger than the old MOCA but doesn't really feel like it).

 

Everything Ive read said its smaller than the old space.

All you have to read is the square footage to know it's double the size...

I think the gallery space is smaller, this is from a Litt article

 

the old MOCA had roughly 9,500 square feet of gallery space, enough to hold several different exhibitions simultaneously. According to a spreadsheet provided by the museum, the new building comes close to 9,000 square feet of display space -- a virtual wash.

 

The catch is that the 9,000-square-foot number holds only if you consider the museum's vertiginous, 1,365-square-foot atrium and a 308-square-foot lobby on the second floor to be gallery space. If you don't, the space that's entirely dedicated to art amounts to 7,300 square feet -- 20 percent less than at the museum's former home.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2012/11/despite_minor_flaws_mocas_new.html

Check out Farshid Moussavi's website.  It's all MOCA flash on the splash front page right now

 

http://www.farshidmoussavi.com/flash/index.html

I stand corrected.

It's worth noting the new facility also offers much better space for performance art, music, film, etc., so even though the gallery space hasn't grown, it's still quite an upgrade functionally (even aside from the increased visibility and neighborhood benefits).

MOCA Cleveland's building wins LEED Silver rating for environmental performance

 

By  Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer 

Follow on Twitter

on May 13, 2015 at 2:00 PM, updated May 13, 2015 at 2:01 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – The new Museum of Contemporary Art building is certainly beautiful. It is also now officially green.

 

MOCA's building, designed by architect Farshid Moussavi of London, and built in 2012, has achieved a Silver rating from the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED system, short for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2015/05/moca_clevelands_gemlike_buildi.html