‘Form follows Function’
The museological institution has long been a subject of ongoing controversy and debate among professionals across various disciplines. While a significant number of people view the museum as a static architectural object with a fixed design framework, those deeply involved in curatorial and design methodologies recognize its complexity and multifaceted nature. Contemporary museum work is dynamic in nature and must adjust the unfortunate divides between past and present to a rapidly advancing, imminent future.
Museums have always been more than mere repositories of art and artefacts, hence the intricate dilemma and aura of complexity around them; they are architectural reflections of cultural and societal values; museums are mirrors of civilization evolution.
Cabinets of Curiosities – Centuries of Unknowns
Human society evolves from individual needs to collective social needs; and from individual structures to broader social structures or orders. As a result, each period in history can be defined as a riser that has led us to the current contemporary community issues and dilemmas.
Hence, the architectural representation of contemporary museums is substantially disparate from the architectural representation of museums in the past as a direct result of societal changes.
The early 17th and 18th centuries saw the official birth of curatorial practices that physically manifested as cabinets of curiosities. These cabinets of curiosities were private display collections of the wealthy, who afforded to travel and collect items around the globe. Cabinets of curiosities were early museum manifestations but not in the sense museums are perceived and viewed today. These were private tiny rooms or small-scale buildings where the owner could showcase the opulent collection he so diligently accumulated and assembled. There were no deliberate curatorial intentions, resulting in chaotic and disorganised collections. The public’s access to these treasured artefacts was strictly limited to what the collector chose to present. So in that sense, the display remained concealed and strictly curated.
Cabinets of curiosities belonged to affluent and prosperous citizens acting as symbols of wealth and knowledge, inaccessible to the peasant population. During that era, the ‘museum’ was a very private and restricted domain.
As Enlightenment Ideas spread, so did the need for public accessibility to knowledge and culture. Cabinets of curiosities were the catalyst of public galleries: architectural spaces that ushered in an era of architectural design; an era of shift, where the museum began to be recognized as a public institution that required a specific design program, a distinct character, an architectural structure that fulfilled a certain social need.
The first public museums emerged from private collections of dynasties, rich avid collectors, monarchs. These were the infamous Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology in Oxford,
The British Museum, the Louvre, The Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna.
The transformation of these into public museums and the architectural evolution of the building itself reflects a broader movement towards democratising access to cultural heritage and public engagement with art and history.
This highlighted the importance of architecture and architects in shaping the democratic values of our society.
Past = Present?
In his essay ‘Programming’, from ‘Museums Vol.XXX’, Manfred Lehmbruck argues that:
‘…In the past, because of the generally authoritarian character of social structures, the countless political, social, and cultural components finally came to be concentrated in the fields of responsibility of a few persons and were represented in the planning process by only two individuals. These were qualified by their strong character and integrated personality to weld the many influences and trends existing in their environment into a more or less homogeneous intellectual structure and world order, according to whose laws they prepared, harmonised or rejected their various designs.’ (Manfred Lehmbruck, 1979)
He points out that the museum as an architectural building is driven by program, structure, and most importantly, created by a limited number of people, most commonly the commissioning authority, architects or program builders, and museologists. Together, they establish a criteria/a museum philosophy that is to be worked out jointly. He can’t help but draw a similarity to the past, when ‘…the original state of unity still existed between the client and the master builder who implicitly acted as a programmer.’ (Manfred Lehmbruck, 1979)
The Dual Realities of Contemporary Museum Architecture
Today, the museological institution seems to be progressing and aligning with the prevailing democratic, liberal values of our society. Art is accessible and openly displayed, while the museum is transparent. Open art parks, digital museums have emerged. Art seems to be everywhere. Architecture collaborates with everyone to offer design solutions that seemingly enhance transparency and empower everyone.
But is this truly so?
The emergence of freeport museums, doner museums, and even digital art museums limit the public access to certain categories of art. Viewers encounter only the curated art selection deemed worthy by museums’ decision-makers. Architects are tasked with designing intricate workflows and circulation solutions that ultimately conceal art from the public view. In the case of freeport museums, storage architecture conceals over 1.2 million artworks belonging to wealthy collectors, shielding them from financial institutions and public scrutiny.
Digital art displays, while appearing accessible, conceal significant pieces through IT architects’ coding and virtual environments. Even traditional museum practices obscure the processes involved in handling and displaying artwork.
Considering these factors, is museum architecture so different from the past? Can architecture truly be seen as fostering accessibility and transparency, or are architects unknowingly contributing to a facade of democracy while perpetuating hidden controls?
If so, how can architecture propose more transparent building solutions that will accommodate both the hidden and the seen, making the hidden more publicly accessible?
References:
- Lehmbruck, M. (1979). ‘Programming’, in Museum Vol.XXXI, no.2. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
- Macdonald, G.F. (1987). ‘The future of museums in the Global Village’, in Museum no.155 Vol. XXXIX, no.3. The Netherlands: UNESCO
- (1599) Ferrante Imperato, Dell’Historia Naturale, the earliest illustration of a natural history cabinet. [Illustration]. Available at: https://www.sothebysinstitute.com/news-and-events/news/cabinets-of-curiosities-and-the-origin-of-collecting/ (Accessed: 13 July 2024).
- (1655) Frontispiece showing the interior of Ole Worm’s museum in Museum Wormianum. [Illustration]. Available at: https://collections.reading.ac.uk/special-collections/2020/05/12/a-cabinet-of-curiosities-ole-worms-museum-wormianum-1655/ (Accessed: 13 July 2024).
- The Ashmolean Museum. [Photograph]. Available at: https://www.beyondships3.com/oxford-essentials-2.html (Accessed: 13 July 2024).
- The British Museum. [Photograph]. Available at: https://www.headout.com/blog/british-museum-london/ (Accessed: 13 July 2024).
- (1948) United Nations Assembly. [Photograph]. Available at: https://www.christianpost.com/voices/why-uns-universal-declaration-of-human-rights-is-powerful-tool.html (Accessed: 13 July 2024).
- Geneva Freeport. [Photograph]. Available at: https://alchetron.com/Geneva-Freeport (Accessed: 13 July 2024).
- Artwork hidden in wooden crates at Geneva Freeport. [Photograph]. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-38167501 (Accessed: 13 July 2024).
- Jaiswal, S. (2023) Geneva freeport – alchetron, the Free Social Encyclopedia, Alchetron.com. [online]. Available at: https://alchetron.com/Geneva-Freeport. (Accessed: 13 July 2024).
- Cotruta, C. (2024). Detained Mona Lisa. [AI generated image]
