Today we visited the Musee d’Orsay in the 7th arrondissement of France. It was a beautiful Second Empire-style building with ornate windows and a visible roof line. Immediately upon entering the museum and looking up, I was slightly confused. We were going to a museum I knew nothing about, and it looked like a train station. The airy space created by extremely high, vaulted ceilings, glass panels on the roof, steel framing and trusses, and a giant gold clock made me feel like I was in the wrong place. Even the amount of people walking around felt more like a train station than a museum! However, it was explained that Musee d’Orsay did in fact used to be a train station in the late 19th century and did not open as a museum until 1986. Adaptive reuse! yay! I was rather excited about the transformation of this space as I believe it is important to reuse older buildings (especially really intricate ex-train stations!) instead of mass-producing new structures and instating tear-downs. On the other hand… I had not yet formed a solid opinion on what I thought about this space as a museum.
As I mentioned, I love the adaptive reuse of spaces, but is turning a train station into a museum the right call? In my mind, the short answer is no. The high ceilings and natural light did not allow me to immerse myself in the history of the objects on display as much as other smaller and dimly lit museums have. The organization of the different exhibits felt very randomized and almost maze-like. It was hard to navigate the space as there are 5 floors with different staircases tucked away in several separate parts of the building. It honestly was an overstimulating environment and not really set up in the way that I personally enjoy walking around museums, especially when it is largely paintings.
On the other hand, the contents of the museum were amazing. From art-nouveau furniture to Van Gogh’s Starry Night Over the Rhone, there was an incredible amount of artistic objects that accurately told the stories of creative history from around the same time the train station was built at the turn of the century.
I really LOVED the art-nouveau style of furniture throughout the 3rd floor of the museum. Smith described it as bug-like which I think is a pretty accurate description. I really enjoy nature, and so when there is an architectural or interior design style that combines organic elements such as leaves, fruit, animals, and flowers, it is really appealing to me. The nouveau and craftsmen style furniture also match the impressionism and post-impression art pieces that are also located on the 3rd and 2nd floors of the building.
Monet has always been one of my favorite artists because of his beautiful, soft, vivid paintings. I know this is not an art or museum class, but I have taken a lot of art history classes at UMW and have found I have a strong appreciation and interest in art and the different representations of art through varying decades. So while today’s lesson in the Musee d’Orsay was slightly less architecturally based (and I do not really agree with how this architecture is being reused…) it was still such an educational and interesting visit. I am glad I got to go and experience some art that was different then what we have been studying thus far.
Oh! Also bonus, we say a portrait by Gari Melchers?!? That was unexpected and so cool! He is such a UMW guy! I sent an email to my old art history teacher who just retired this past semester, and I hope she is as excited about it as we were 🙂
It was so cool seeing Gari Melchers, a Fredericksburg legend, painting at such a large museum all the way across the Atlantic! Also, I completely agree that it was a very overstimulating environment. I’m usually big on trying to get to everything and read all the panels, but between the weird layout and the crowds of people, I was so find crash coursing it. Do you have any thoughts on what you think would have made better use of the space? The main thing I can think of is a mall. Curious to what your thoughts are!