ARCHITECTURE & THE ANALYSIS OF ARCHITECTURE

‘Architects have little political or economic power to change the bigger situation, but in their art they can express the facts, articulate variety and strive for the difficult whole’ (Jencks, 2011, P.159).

 

The initial opening of the Museum in 1999 seemed to attract a vast amount of visitors to the building, in particularly to encounter the empty architectural shell, prior to any exhibition content being displayed. The idea behind this was because ‘the building should be able to tell a story with whatever exhibitions are in it’ (Croll, 2015). This remained the case for almost two years, portraying Libeskinds confidence on relying purely on the structural elements and the space to act as an informative piece of architecture; somewhat already appearing to be ‘more important’ than the exhibitions to be displayed (Puglisi, 2008, P.129).

 

Jencks expresses a compliment to Libeskind by describing the Museum as ‘one of the few to make a convincing work of architecture from this catastrophe of modernity’ despite other forms of modern architecture failing to do so (Jencks, 2011, P.91), this is supported by Mueller’s findings portraying over 200,000 people visited within its first eight weeks of opening (Mueller, 2006).

 

With regards to critique, Dyckhoff uses a comparison to Disney to portray his views:

 

                Thousands come here, but to me it is just like Stonehenge, everyone snapping about. If Disney had                       designed a theme park for the holocaust, this would be it. And that’s the problem, it’s the architecture                     that’s the draw not the serious content. What we need is a place to connect us to our common history,                   what we’re getting is an ever more thrilling stage set that does nothing for us but excite our appetite for                 novelty (‘Leisure’, 2011, 28:12 sec).

 

Another critic, Jacobson, uses the word unremitting, to describe Libeskinds form and routes. Jacobson creates rather negative, yet sarcastic, opinions on the Holocaust Tower denoting the experience as ‘our own little Holocaust moment (…) knowing all about what it is like to be incarcerated by the Nazis’. In contrast, Jacobson acknowledges the Garden of Exile as a success in comparison to other ‘architectural installations’ (Jacobson, 2007). Mueller expands onto known criticism, stating the Museum has been criticised for the building over powering the museum collection, along with typical simplistic form, which have been compromised by paragraphs of words in a mainly wordless building (Mueller, 2006).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MUSEUM CONTENT & THE ANALYSIS OF CONTENT:

Jacobson mentions that some admirers of Libeskinds Museum wish the building was the museum itself, exempt from the exhibition space it doubles up as – a view he recognises himself. The Stairs of Continuity are used by Libeskind as the final architectural manipulation before the visitor descends into the exhibition space. As Jacobson argues, the architectural style of elongated slits continues throughout this space, but is it heavily inundated with artefacts (Jacobson, 2007). Should there be one or the other? In contrast, Libeskind knew there would be a need to house artefacts from the onset, it would be fair to say he was confident in his ability to ensure the architecture worked alongside this; thus discounting the idea of an ego-centric designer, as previously mentioned.

 

ARCHITECTURE AND CONTENT TOGETHER & THE ANALYSIS:

Museums usually provide the visitor with an understanding of its typology through its content and displays alone; in contrast, the Jewish Museum attempts to tackle this approach through architecture as well as content. Elements such as the voids allowing significant natural light into each exhibition space begins to show how these can work together. W. Micheal Blumenthal, former director of the Jewish Museum from 1997-2014, also supports this combined take on museum architecture by stating that ‘Daniel Libeskind’s extraordinary architecture challenges everyone (…) to rethink the role of the museum in society’ (Libeskind, 1999, P.9).

Jencks then goes on to note that many of these types of galleries are a way of post-modernism reacting to ‘fading memories’ (Jencks, 2011, P.91). Is it possible that Libeskind would agree with Jencks for the reasoning behind taking an opportunity to make people mindful of the past; whether this be through an outstanding display of exhibits or through a zinc edifice? In retrospect, regardless of the reasoning, it was designed to bring a specific subject into the limelight.

 

COMPARABLE ELEMENTS:

The Imperial War Museum North, Manchester (2002), also a strategic design of Libeskinds, sees the war torn earth depicted by gentle curves in both plan and elevation (Jencks, 2011, P.216). His recognisable deconstructivist style has been used intrinsically in the majority of his designs; the exterior of The Extension to The Jewish Museum being an exception. To support this, Libeskinds design for The Crystal, Toronto (2007) uses his famous deconstructivist style window slits, harsh material and angular forms to create a design that has strong references to the interior and exterior of the Jewish Museum. Does the use of repeated forms and materiality that are common aspects to his concepts provide an argument to suggest Libeskind is solely an ‘ego-centric’ architect creating designs for his own benefit with an added justification of form through ‘a manipulated Star of David’ or ‘a peeled orange’?

To counteract this argument, following on from the completion of the Jewish Museum, Libeskind has proceeded to design buildings with a strong connection to tragedies and is consequently referred to as the ‘signature architect for Jewish Museums across the world’ (The Guardian, 2007). It is possible this is down to the way he chooses to express history through architecture.