The Lucas Museum’s Better Way: A Lesson in Civic Engagement and Artistic Vision

The recent opening of George Lucas’ museum has sparked a debate about the value of mass culture, the future of Los Angeles, and the legacy of its founder. While some have criticized the project, it’s worth examining what makes the Lucas Museum stand out from other museums, including LACMA’s new David Geffen Galleries building across town.

The Lucas Museum, located within Exposition Park, has been designed with a deep understanding of its surroundings. The building itself is an extension of the park’s natural landscape, featuring a rooftop garden that provides expansive views of the city while retaining controlled light within the interior gallery spaces. This thoughtful approach to design complements the existing park and serves as a model for future urban development.

In contrast, LACMA’s new David Geffen Galleries building has been criticized for its sprawling, inefficient design. Floor-to-ceiling windows may have seemed innovative at first, but they have proven to be a logistical nightmare in practice. Visitors often struggle to see artworks due to glare or reflection challenges caused by the windows’ placement.

LACMA’s hardscape expanse is equally uninviting, with its stark, freeway-underpass-like design that seems more akin to a dystopian urban nightmare than a welcoming public space. The building’s layout appears to prioritize style over practicality, resulting in an overwhelming and disorienting experience for visitors.

The Lucas Museum takes a thematic approach to curation, grouping artworks by narrative rather than chronology or geography. While this can lead to some confusing moments for visitors, it also allows for unexpected connections and associations between seemingly disparate pieces.

At LACMA, the curatorial approach is similarly radical but in a different way. The museum’s decision to abandon traditional chronological and geographic frameworks has resulted in an incoherent experience for visitors. Without clear beginnings or endpoints, it’s difficult to navigate the various art historical periods on display.

The Lucas Museum’s commitment to narrative is evident not only in its curation but also in its design. The building itself tells a story of California’s varied terrain and regional vegetation, drawing visitors into a rich topographical storytelling experience. This approach stands in stark contrast to LACMA’s more obtuse presentation of art.

If George Lucas were to join the LACMA board, bringing his contrarian voice and artistic vision to bear on the museum’s design and curatorial decisions, it’s possible that they could course-correct the museum’s problems and create a more engaging experience for visitors.

The Lucas Museum serves as a model for how museums can engage with their communities in a meaningful way. By creating thoughtful, inclusive spaces that reflect the values of their surroundings, museums can foster a deeper connection between art and audience. LACMA would do well to follow this example and prioritize civic engagement and artistic vision over mere spectacle.

As Los Angeles’ cultural institutions look to the future, it’s clear that there is much to be learned from the contrasting approaches of these two museums. While the Lucas Museum stands out as a beacon of good design and curatorial practice, LACMA remains stuck in a quagmire of inefficiency and confusion. The museum world would do well to take notice and follow the Lucas Museum’s lead in creating spaces that are both beautiful and functional.