The Zurich Art Museum has once again demonstrated how cultural institutions can mobilize resources while dragging millions of dollars in costs along the way. The museum has decided to relocate its renowned Giacometti collection, not due to water damage threats or the discovery of a better location, but simply because it sounds more dramatic from a curatorial perspective. The sculptures will be moved to the Chipperfield building, which critics have dubbed an expensive art loft where artworks are squeezed closer together.
The Giacometti sculptures were previously housed in the old Müller building, where they had received their own carefully curated space just a few years ago. According to the museum's official magazine, the sculptures were generously displayed there, showcasing all facets of the sculptural and painterly works. However, the museum now claims this arrangement was apparently too spacious for their new vision.
The institution is now pursuing a strategy of presenting the works in a changed format, combining them with artists who were spiritually close to Giacometti. Museum officials argue this approach is sensible for creating a broader art historical context. In reality, this means making room for Wolfgang Laib and the new ReCollect series, which requires displacing the Giacometti collection from its current location and shipping it to the Chipperfield building.
Director Ann Demeester, who was brought in by President and former Swiss National Bank Chief Philipp Hildebrand, claims the Chipperfield building is better suited for new contextualization with Surrealists and the Looser Collection. It appears the museum deliberately opened the building in 2021 without a clear concept, only to add expensive context in 2025. The museum boldly acknowledges that while the relocation will provide less exhibition space, it will enhance the art historical context – essentially adopting a philosophy of 'less space, more interpretation.'
What the Zurich Art Museum is conducting amounts to artistic Tetris played with taxpayers' money. The museum receives public funding, making such arbitrary relocations particularly costly and problematic. The institution should have acted more carefully and with greater foresight during the planning stages. This situation once again proves that having a cultural mandate doesn't necessarily mean knowing how to manage finances responsibly.
