Oursorrof begins his review of the Whitney's current expansion scheme designed by Renzo Piano with the two previous ideas for an addition: first by Graves in 1984 and then Koolhaas in 1994. It's funny how dated they look whereas the Whitney, dated, seems to have its shelf life extended by the attempts at building onto it.
Oursorrof's technique is more of a review than what we came to expect to Muschamp. His style is more about explication than anything akin to the metaphorical polemics and referential gymnastics of Muschamp. He runs through the history of the additions by saying that the last twenty years brought four directors and two schemes that ranged from the "bold to the grotesque." He singles out the Graves scheme as being a "pastiche of pseudoclassical references." He calls the Rem Koolhaas scheme "promising" and remarked that a design that looked like it was going to devour the existing Breuer landmark would not looked upon as "inappropriately aggressive."

Piano's approach by contrast is more respectful... A copper and aluminum skinned tower linked by a transparent staircase to the existing building. The base has the entry/circulation approach that Piano stole from Cedric Price in the 1960s and used to much acclaim in the Pompidou Center. He sees the aim of the design as being to placate the preservationists and community leaders who have stymied the Whitney's expansion plans in the past."

Oursorrof really begins to show his ideé fixe when he questions whether the Whitney has lost its nerve. He warns, "great design is never cautious; it cannot arise in a climate of fear." He chides the powers that be at the Whitney, "If the city is to get the full benefit of Mr. Piano's talent, the Whitney will have to grant him the freedom to follow his ideas, wherever they lead."

That is both scary and inviting. That's the path to the future. Mr. Oursorroff is actively showing the way.

What do you think?