ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY & ANALYSIS:

In the opening section to their book, Psychology and the Built Environment, Canter and Lee explain that ‘the boundaries of environmental psychology are as diffuse and undefined as its short history’ (Canter and Lee, 1974, P.10). However, more recently Bonnes & Secchiaroli, Environmental Psychology, have discussed the notion of egocentric design, where architects are perceived as designing for their personal satisfaction and not for the needs of the user (Bonnes & Secchiaroli, 1995, P.6). This is an interesting theory, which has been targeted to numerous architects; a TV broadcast by Tom Dyckhoff, criticises them of being subject to a ‘demand for flashy buildings [that] turned architects into artists paid to deliver economic regeneration with spectacle’ (‘Leisure’, 2011, 25:11 sec). He continues, ‘The Jewish Museum here in Berlin should matter a lot because it’s about the holocaust, but it comes from a similar school to the Guggenheim so it suffers from some of the same problems’ (‘Leisure’, 2011, 25:56 sec).

 

EMOTIVE DESIGN & ANALYSIS:

In 1966, Maurice Broady developed a theory labelled architectural determinism – a term used to express that the environments of buildings can alter human behaviour. However, this idea was soon critiqued; Golembiewski (2014) claims this phrase encouraged renowned architects ‘to make all kinds of outlandish claims’. Instead, he believes:

 

                  The psychological effects of architecture are difficult to prove, but difficulty doesn’t dilute the value                         of a building that hits the right notes and creates a sense of awe. Each building type has different                           functions, and for each there’s an imperative to use the building to help create an optimal mood,                             desire or sense of coherence, security or meaning (Golembiewski, 2014).

 

More recent findings than Broady suggest that architects engage in a process of decision making which coherently impacts the way in which the target user may ‘think, act or respond’ to the design of the space (Brauer, 1974, P. 105). In relation to Libeskind, this suggests he is likely to have made preconceived decisions regarding the emotions he intended to trigger within the Museum. The end design can be vital in influencing our mental feelings, spaces that move us have been designed in that particular way: with care. For example, a space that has been designed with poor lighting and plain walls gives the illusion of imprisonment (Libeskind, 2015). Also, in correlation to Brauers theory, Libeskind stated:

               

                  As an architect, it's my responsibility to make a personal connection -- not just with the physical                             environment but how it triggers our memories and emotional responses (Libeskind, 2015).

 

Brauer categorises architectural design decisions into two distinct categories: firstly, what the architect believes to be the typical or correct way users should behave and feel; secondly, a design based upon personal experience (Brauer, 1974). However, a critical issue regarding the first assumption is the lack of scale to gage typical human behaviour or perception, individuals will have contrasting values on a preferred environment, in particularly when discussing a subject as specific as the holocaust. This approach would be better applied to housing concepts, whereby basic essentials are rather consistent. In contrast, Brauer explains in a later chapter, the potential solution to overcome these issues is flexibility: this allows for a way of dealing with differences (Brauer, 1974, P. 107).

 

ESOTERIC DESIGN & ANALYSIS:

The term esoteric has been used on various occasions to evaluate the Jewish Museum. Within New Directions in Contemporary Architecture, Puglisi describes the Museum as ‘inspired by the Hebrew mysticism, the work of Libeskind has a cryptic and esoteric aspect’ (Puglisi, 2008, P.45). This underpins the theory that Libeskind intended for his work to be understood purely by a small proportion of visitors with a specific interest or knowledge in the field of architecture. In support to Puglisi, Doordan also defines Libeskinds approach as esoteric, something Libeskind himself has described as defying ‘rational explanation’ (Doordan, 2001, P. 288). This poses the question of whether there is a link between the designs of the Jewish Museum disregarding an obvious explanation, in the same way the story of the Holocaust does.

On the contrary, British philosopher Roger Scruton believes that Libeskinds architecture, along with others, are designs that are ‘pretentious gobbledegook with which to explain their genius to those who are otherwise unable to perceive it’ (Winston, 2014).