The end of the spirit of '68? The anti-Beaubourg? A product of its times? A techno-monumentalist Blockbuster? The Vuitton Foundation, inaugurated in Paris at the end of October 2014, became the object of all the praise of the great national publications. Still, the foreign press has shown itself more nuanced and critical …

Beyond the La Manche, at a time when "French bashing" gains momentum, The Telegraph was laudatory this time around. An unusual sympathy! Jonathan Glancey, in the October 24, 2014 edition, saw in the Vuitton Foundation, "Paris's most exciting new building in a generation."

On the other hand, the tone was more measured in The Guardian, where, dimensionally, the Vuitton Foundation quickly takes on the appearance of a monogrammed bag "that a rich parent would have brought you from a duty free shop. Yet, the neighborhood does not seem to have appreciated it."

Rowan Moore, in The Observer, for the first time, was flattering. "Gehry is often decked out in the horrible 'starchitect' title. In fact, he is compared to those celebrities who sign their projects, which are as grandiose as they are vain, by using a style that is immediately recognizable, and without taking into consideration function, the context, the meaning or even the budget. And so we have, in the case of Gehry, a totally unjust appreciation," he writes.

In order to defend the architect, Rowan Moore affirms that even though it happens that Frank Gehry crosses the line, his best projects have always been "generous" and designed according to a "strong attention to the way they are constructed."

With the praises said and done, the criticism can eke themselves out. He also asks himself, "The question with the Foundation is to know which of the two, the serious architects or the signature, has won." Then, he responds, "The construction was massive. It incarnates the coalition of two brands – LV and Frank – and it resembles, after all, the work of a starchitect."

Without beating around the bush, Edwin Heathcote in the Financial Times saw the same confirmation in it. The Foundation is a "blockbuster," a super production, an "architecture of spectacle, in spirit closer to the Grand Palais or the Eiffel Tower than a museum," he writes.

The building, 43 meters high, is "one of the most imposing R+1s in the world." It is also "one of the most captivating." "Despite structural acrobatics, the interior of the building barely seduces; it is not really at the level of a kept promise. The hall, institutional, is diminutive. The circulation is bland and disappointing," he affirms.

The most interesting, according to Edwin Heathcote, "is certainly not the interior" but the "network of terraces and passageways that allow the visitors to circulate across the entire building without ever having to go back."

The critique is even more vigorous in Switzerland. Christophe Catsaros, Editor-in-Chief of the architectural review Traces, denounces in the November 16, 2014 edition of Le Temps a "parachuting object," without vision, without function, "which shines with all the vulgarity of the intentions of its financiers."

"The virtuosity pushes to the extreme the indecency and seesaws without warning into bad taste," he writes. In addition to a "funerary" project that signals the death of art, Chrisophe Catsaros critiques a design that "lacks generosity," the same which "makes it so that the patron contributes to nothing other than self-flattery."

For his part, Hanno Rauterberg, for the German daily Die Zeit, asks himself why the Vuitton Foundation, after all, remains so "conventional." "What could Bernard Arnault like in this architect? The photogenic forms – that is well understood – but also the efficacious publicity that Frank Gehry buildings assure," he writes.

"So, Bernard Arnault has certainly invested a lot of money … but, also strange is that such a large museum was inaugurated without a single surprise. The collector did not make use of his liberty, that of breaking with convention. It does not expose anything new and rests on its laurels … Yet, we are dealing here, perhaps, with a new power for money: an art that already bores and that is nothing other than the scarf of a wealthy gentleman," he concludes.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung denounces in the cultural pages a "techno-monumentalism" where "the deconstruction makes for decoration."

"Public museums … should now align themselves with the agenda of private institutions. Our era will leave no space for state museums, thus giving the advantage to private museums, whose flattering collections will be the self-portraits of some triumphant entrepreneurs," says Niklas Maak in the October 25, 2014 edition.

The same confirmation is found in The New York Times, where Doreen Carvajal puts the Vuitton Foundation in a long list of projects born of private initiatives: Renzo Piano's Centro Botin in Santander, or even Eli Broad's museum in Los Angeles designed by Diller Scofidio & Renfro.

Also, Edwin Heathcote summarizes well the symbol that constitutes the project of Bernard Arnault: "It would be difficult to find such a good example as the LV logo shining at the entrance of the building to illustrate how power, wealth and property have imposed themselves since the opening of the Georges Pompidou Center."

What is the most interesting criticism of this building? What are your thoughts of The Vuitton Foundation's building? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Original article, originally published in French, here.

Credits: Data and images linked to sources.