
ANON., 2001. The Jewish Museum Berlin [digital image]. Archilovers. Available at: http://www.archilovers.com/stories/2650/never-say-the-eye-is-rigid-architectural-drawings-of-daniel-libeskind.html [Accessed 12 December 2015]

SCHNEIDER, B., 2007. The Space of Encounter. In: Daniel Libeskind, Jewish Museum Berlin, Between the Lines. 5th ed. Germany: Prestel. P. 29.

ANON., 2001. The Jewish Museum Berlin [digital image]. Archilovers. Available at: http://www.archilovers.com/stories/2650/never-say-the-eye-is-rigid-architectural-drawings-of-daniel-libeskind.html [Accessed 12 December 2015]
DESIGN PROCESS
In a statement regarding his approach, Libeskind expresses the design for the Jewish Museum was based on ‘three conceptions that formed the museum’s foundation’:
First, the impossibility of understanding the history of Berlin without understanding the enormous intellectual, economic, and cultural contribution made by its Jewish citizens; second the necessity to integrate the meaning of the Holocaust, both physically and spiritually, into the consciousness and memory of the city of Berlin; third, that only through acknowledging and incorporating this erasure and void of Berlin’s Jewish life can the history of Berlin and Europe have a human future (Libeskind in: Libeskind & Binet, 1999, P.10).
This strong link back to the city the building sits within, has evidently influenced the outcome. In an interview with The Talks, Libeskind explains the importance of having an in depth understanding of the context surrounding a building; this history along with traditional aspects of a place can often be lost within design. When asked about the connection to his projects and whether they possess profound symbolism, Libeskind explains that projects cannot be designed with just new walls, windows or roof structures, as they are much more than just this. There is an element of importance, relating to history and education, through interaction within public buildings, which means they require much more than ‘walls’ (The Talks, 2014). This shows Berlin was beginning to be transformed from a broken city into a reunified capital (Doordan, 2001, P. 287).
The overall design for the Museum was based upon numerous concepts, from: Arnold Schönbergs unfinished opera, a list of deportees from the Gedenkbuch and the distorted configuration of the Star of David (Puglisi, 2008, P.130).
MUSIC & OPERA
Inspiration was associated with Libeskinds fascination with the unfinished act III of Schonberg’s opera Moses and Aaron: a play started in Berlin that was never finished (Libeskind, 1992, P.83). The silence of the conversation between Moses and Aaron, in Schonberg’s unfinished opera, is the reason Libeskind created strong connections to voided spaces with ended passageways (The Guardian, 2007). Through analysis, the predominant value of ‘history, music and poetry’ means Libeskinds style can be better understood, in particular with his use of metaphors and analogy that attribute to his designs (Puglisi, 2008, P.44).
‘Architecture is not just an intellectual or abstract exercise, it is an emotional experience just as music is (…) it has to communicate to the soul and everybody has to share it in a deep emotional way’ (Libeskind in: The Talks, P14).
LIST OF DEPORTEES
Libeskind requested a book, ‘Textual Dimensions’, in order to obtain the names of Jewish people that were deported from Berlin during the Holocaust (Libeskind, 1992, P.84). He also proceeded to plot the names of important figures onto a map of Berlin, to create an established spatial arrangement of Jewish life prior to WWII, a ‘foundation’ for the zigzag. Working alongside this form appears a ‘series of stark, empty spaces’ strategically positioned throughout the exhibition spaces (Puglisi, 2008, P.288); these are known as voids.
VOIDS
Furthermore, Libeskind expresses, ‘there is today no Jewish presence in Berlin as there was in the twenties and thirties’ (Libeskind, 1992, P.85). This quote suggests the key element was to ensure that this eradicated history was reopened and made visible; made apparent by not supressing history. These became apparent in the form of voids. Although figuratively invisible, these voids are then able to be indirectly experienced when physically within the space. The initial undisclosed idea of the invisible becoming visible is demonstrated through architecture (Libeskind, 1992, P.85-86), using the concept of voids to tackle invisibility of the Jewish culture in modern day Germany.
STAR OF DAVID
Researchers conducted a study in order to break down elements of Libeskinds design process through exploring his conceptual designs and diagrams. Throughout their research, they found that although Libeskind was influenced by a vast range of sources – the one constant element that remained was the zig-zag configuration (Dogan and Nerssian, 2012, P.16).
It becomes apparent that this renowned zig-zag shape actually derives from a previous design of Libeskinds, Line of Fire, a concept for an exhibition. This well recognised shape formed a basis for the floor plan of the design and according to Libeskinds design team, this configuration fitted well with the site and appeared to work for them (Dogan and Nerssian, 2012, P.18). However, the incorporation of the Star of David appears to be an afterthought used to justify, as such, the use of form from the Line of Fire.
In order to develop this design, the addition of the voids were added – this amends the ‘spatial configuration, the experience and meaning of the space significantly’ (Dogan and Nerssian, 2012, P.16). It is noted that these voids are used primarily to incorporate the essence of invisibility of the Jewish culture within today’s society of Berlin. Libeskinds design associate, Donald Bates, explains the use of a zig-zag configuration in conjunction with the voids creates a richer way of explaining the Jewish History as opposed to the zig-zag alone (Dogan and Nerssian, 2012, P.22-23).
Through extensive sketch development, Libeskinds drive for this was creating a method to give meaning to the zig-zag configuration. The design came together through the use of voids acting as a broken line through the zig-zag form (Dogan and Nerssian, 2012, P24). It appears that Libeskind put a lot of thought into attaching a meaningful concept to the shape of the floor plan, but it is questionable whether these design elements are apparent to the visitor until they are informed – does the feeling of voids automatically trigger a sense of emptiness? This will be explored in the next section through esoteric design.

Tansin Blankley, 2015

Tansin Blankley, 2015

Tansin Blankley, 2015
DESIGN PROCESS
Libeskinds concepts & designs
SUMMARY:
ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION