Critiques The critics of the Imperial War Museum North often comment on the exterior appearance of the structure with either praise or dissatisfaction for its simplicity and meaning. Jencks (2005) explains that Libeskind is ‘obviously trying to be iconic’ when referring to the concept of the shattered globes (p.38). Interestingly the use of the phrase ‘obviously trying’ implies that the Libeskind does have a drive to create icons similar to those done by Gehry although maybe not as successful. As rhetorical strength doesn’t always succeed, this leads to architects like Libeskind to focus too hard on becoming iconic. The concept becomes too obvious and lackluster.
Figure 15. Concept sketches of Imperial War Musuem, by Libeskind.
On the other hand, critic Jones (2005) praises and often compares it to Lowry, claiming it to be more successful because of its simplicity. He explains “it is more coherent as an object despite its dynamic plan; yet its curves and diagonals differentiate it dramatically from the horizontal and vertical backdrop of ordinary buildings” (N.p). This infers that because of the placement of the building it stands out whilst also being unique and complementary to the surroundings. In this way Libeskind creates a building that is iconic because of its ability to differentiate itself and stand out all while not clashing with the natural city landscape. In addition, Jones (2003) uses the metaphor describing the Lowry and Imperial War Museum North as the two cultural cherries on cake, similarly Hedgecoe & Whittle (2012) quoted a tourist visiting the area of Bilbao for the Guggenheim Museum and they used the same metaphor of cherry on cake when describing the museum. This also shows that both museums were revived positively because they improved the area culturally and were internationally recognised. 12.
