How can can contemporary museums redefine monumentality? Based on SANAA's 21st Century Museum by Mona Islami

HOW CAN CONTEMPORARY MUSEUMS REDEFINE

MONUMENTALITY? BASED ON SANAA’S 21ST CENTURY MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART IN KANAZAWA

Noora Alhashimi Melina Varbanova Dominika Komisarczyk Mona Islami

Politecnico di Milano School of Architecture, Urban Planning and Construction Engeneering 053001 - Contemporary Architectural Design Theory Prof. Amra Salihbegovic

HOW CAN CONTEMPORARY MUSEUMS REDEFINE MONUMENTALITY? BASED ON THE CASE STUDY OF THE 21ST CENTURY MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART IN KANAZAWA

Noora Alhashimi Melina Varbanova Dominika Komisarczyk Mona Islami

A.Y. 2021 - 2022

ABSTRACT The role of the museum has long been perceived as an emblematic landmark with qualities of monumental architecture. It was often associated with large scales and other emblements of the importance. Nevertheless, the 21st century architects have found several ways to reinvent the relationship between museums and their surroundings, ultimately reshaping their iconography Thus, this essay aims to explore how 21st century museums can redefine monumentality. As a case study, the 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art in Kanazawa, designed by the architectural office SANAA by Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa has been selected as it exemplifies these contemporary tendencies. To understand the building’s transformation of monumentality, modern architectural theories such as Giedion monumentality, Rowe’s transparency, and Schultz’ existential spaces were employed as tools of reflection. This was implemented through studying the museum’s design determinants, its architectural expression and intentions, as well as the heterotopia generated within the space. Moreover, this was cross referenced by Eastern theories such as Murakami’s Superflatness to gain a better understanding of the building’s experiential qualities in relation to its social and cultural context. Other methodologies included the architects’ own interviews and publications related to the building, as well as the authors’ own analysis of the available drawings of the building. The results of these analyses revealed a careful focus on the curation of a unique user experience and a seamless continuity with the external context, by which a new, subtle monumentality is achieved, thus redefining the portrayal of a museum in the context of cities today.

Contents 8-13 Introduction 14-21 Six Determinants of Architectural Form 22-27 Architectural Expression 28-37 Heterotopia 38-43 Experience 44-45 Conclusion 46 - 48 List of Figures 49 Bibliography

Figure 1 - 21st Century Museum, Aerial View Source: Rethinking the Future, no date.

INTRODUCTION

In the past, museums were often cast as emblematic landmarks tied to place. Such notions of monumentality were frequently associated with a grandeur of scale and meticulous opulence, such as the infamous Louvre, the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art, the British Museum, and countless others. Their imposing architecture aimed to signify their importance against the backdrop of a city. However, more recent architectural explorations have defied the idea of a dominating monument as a social and cultural focal point. Instead, the 21st century has seen architects challenging what constitutes as a focal contemporary museum in an urban context, prompting a reconsideration of the role of a museum in relation to its users. To interpret the contemporary portrayal of a museum, it is imperative to understand previous theories that challenged users’ perceptions of a cultural site. One theory introduced by architect and theorist Sigfried Giedion was his 1943 text, Nine Points of Monumentality, in which he presented monumental architecture as the manifestation of a collective societal force presented through the built form. Citing the importance of vast site planning, materials of great spans and similar preconditions, Giedion suggested that monumental buildings could attract communal activities and create new urban centers (Giedion, 1945, 50). However, his proposal also suggested that in recent years there had been a presence of “devaluation of monumentality” (Giedion, 1945, 48) because architects had failed to express the spirit of a communal force, resulting in empty shells that interrupt the city and detach from its inhabitants. As a result, other theorists sought to consider architecture as a psychological experience rather than viewing form alone. For example, architect Christian NorbegSchulz’s 1971 book, Existence Space and Architecture, called for the study of architectural space as a concretization of existential space (Schulz, 1971, 37), which would consist of having a deeper understanding of what paths and domains mean to people in space. Similar to this is Colin Rowe’s concept of Transparency, which had readapted Schulz and Giedion ideologies into a contemporary setting. Rowe and Slutzky reconsidered transparency in their essay published firstly in 1963 in Perspecta with a second part following in 1971, and lastly as a book in 1997 (Rowe and Slutsky, 1997). They identified two types of transparency; literal transparency, derived from the physical reality, and the other being a phenomenal transparency which is derived mentally. The later one is not achieved through the material transparency, but through the relation of compositions which inspire different unseen connections and meanings. Although Giedion previously 9

underlined physical transparency as a link between a user and their awareness of space-time (Lee and Kim, 2018), Rowe demonstrated that transparency could also be phenomenal, where numerous spatial fields could be implied to one’s consciousness (Rowe and Slutsky, 1997). In this sense, experiential transparency could be used as a tool for multi-faceted communal spaces. Although many of these ideas were founded in the west, paralleling theories of space also stemmed in the East, such as the Japanese concept of Superflatness. Originally founded by Japanese artist Takashi Murakami in 2001 as a combination of pop culture and traditional Japanese artistic movements such as Nihonga (Avella, 2004), the term transferred into architecture as a unique way of perceiving space through varying dimensionalities. Superflatness, in the terms of architecture, was described by Dave Beynon as “suggestive of a sensibility that derives its aesthetic qualities from a mixture of Japanese traditions and western architectural lineages” (Beynon, 2012). Ultimately, the amalgamation of such ideologies paved the way for a reconstruction of monumental architecture as seen today. This is evident in the city of Kanazawa, the capital of the prefecture Ishikawa in Japan (Britannica, 2018). Located on the Sai River, the city is known for its preserved architectural heritage as it was one of the few Japanese cities relatively unaffected by air raids during World War II. Today, the city is a central commercial hub for the Ishikawa Prefecture and boasts a traditional handicrafts industry, which renders it a major tourist destination (Campbell and Nobel, 1993). Moreover, the city is home to a rich artistic hub, which initiated the need for a central and iconographic art museum after the 1980s (Kanazawa21 Press Release, 2004). The resulting building was the 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art, Kanazawa, completed in 2004 by the Japanese architectural firm SANAA with architects Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa. Focused on the themes of collective intelligence, consciousness and coexistence, the museum departs from the previous understanding of monumentality by introducing an experiential intention of space through a simplified form, rooted in its urban settings and users. This essay will discuss how contemporary museums can redefine monumentality through the lens of the 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art, Kanazawa through four chapters: Architecture determinants, Architectural expression, Form and space, and Aesthetic experience.

Figure 2 - 21st Century Museum, outdoor view Source: August Fischer, May 2018

Figure 3 - 21st Century Museum, Floor plan Source: Arquitectura Viva, no date.

Figure 4 - 21st Century Museum, Zoning Map Source: Kanazawa21, no date.

Figure 5 - 21st Century Museum, Elevation and Section Source: Arquitectura Viva, no date.

THE SIX DETERMINANTS OF ARCHITECTURAL FORM

SIX DETERMINANTS OF ARCHITECTURAL FORM

Located in the downtown of Kanazawa, the museum’s site is surrounded by streets which gives it a sense of openness that is additionally emphasized by the creation of a public park around the building. According to the existing context, the architects resisted designing a main entrance or primary façade. As Kazuyo Sejima stated, the choice of a circular plan and a circular façade was a way to erase its monumental presence - “avoiding a main entrance makes it less monumental, less of a building. It can dissolve into the surroundings” (Costa, 2017). The museum is free to explore from multiple points of entry, developed through the circular form of the plan. The park around the building is used as an exhibition area linked to the museum. The organization of the plan itself mirrors the environment it is located in - the city. Corridors act similarly to streets converging onto piazza-like open spaces as courtyards while exhibition galleries are the blocks (Domusweb, 2005). Although the museum maintains human scale and does not seem as monumental in terms of it, the building becomes a focal point through its form, plan and its connection to the surrounding open space. According to Sejima, the circular form wrapping around the building is informed by considering the act of circulating through space as a kind of freedom, where paths are fluid and dependent on each user (Reisner, 2019, 32). This encourages an interactive experience between the artwork and visitor, while also allowing the space to adapt to multiple situations, such as being a transitory space or a permanent resting enclosure. Moreover, as an art museum, the division of the fragmented exhibition rooms allows the control of each space to facilitate specific conditions in relation to the exhibit at hand. This frees the artist from the constraints of abiding by the museums’ overarching lighting or thermal qualities, thereby not limiting the presentation of their personal artworks. and accessibility, depending on the artwork on display. As seen in the adjacent figure, the rooms themselves when removed from context are designed purely for their functional use in the most practical shape: a polygon (Costa, 2017, 3). Furthermore, when categorized into public, private, and ancillary spaces, one can comprehend the pragmatism of this division of space since it allows multiple scenarios to exist at once without confounding with each other as they are each contained within their own mass. This variety prevents the closure of the entire building if one exhibition were to be modified, as users can freely roam in the voids between and maintain the other communal functions of the museum, such as the library and gathering spaces (Grima, 2005). This flexibility of form also allows the circulation spaces to morph into gathering spaces over time, creating adaptable public spaces.

Figure 6 - 21st Century Museum, Design Development Source: Arquitectura Viva, no date.

There is a presence of a strong connection between the museum and the region because, due to the above stated fact that the dispersal of volumes, pathways, and multiple entrances, the building could be seen as a representation of a city itself. Furthermore, the transparent glass shell almost eliminates the barrier between external and internal space, amalgamating them into one another. On the other hand, the concept of natural light further complements the approach towards the redefinition of monumentality in the design of contemporary museums. The series of volumes, from which the building is composed, possess different levels of opacity and height, as some of them have an open skylight and others little to no natural light at all. Moreover, the full transparency of the glass shell allows the penetration of light to the center of the building, while the skylights further create natural variations. On the other hand, the inner courtyards, fully illuminated by the natural light, play the role of public spaces that serve as social hubs. Therefore, the use of natural light creates a variety of spaces, provoking contradicting feelings, which move away the focus of the museum from the form towards the journey of experience. Moreover, the glass curtain that demarcates the point of transition is more of a convention than a real boundary and makes architects’ striving for transparency of the building exceedingly noticeable (Domusweb, 2005). It allows for the integration between interior and exterior and emphasizes permeability of the design. These decisions express creators need to reinvigorate people’s sensibilities towards their direct, physical surroundings (Idenburg, 2009). The white color of the walls and the reflective surface of the chosen materials maximize the lightness of the spaces within the museum (Costa, 2017). Furthermore, the use of slight sections in the building structure (slender columns, thin flat roof sheet) as well as the hidden piles within walls and glass panels without visible frames, additionally emphasize the immateriality of the solution. The preliminary design of the building as a graphic concept is transitioned to the full-scale museum (So-il, 2002). Unique to the spirit of the 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art is also its humble kindness in scale, which allows an informal dialogue with the user, therefore creating an approachable, spirited social hub. This alone diverges from other eras of museum design and presents an architectural work of its own time. The building deters from high-rise Western monumental predecessors and instead roots itself into the Earth to meet the inhabitants of a space at ground level, embodying an Eastern ideology of collectivism (Kanazawa21 Press Release, 2004). By integrating an abstract idea of collectivity within the design through a literal circle, the building expresses an essential part of the Japanese identity. Therefore, it becomes a legible space to users, providing a comfortable and familiar atmosphere that mirrors its visitors’ culture. Moreover, the 21st Century Museum portrays a spirit of its time by encapsulating current urban patterns through its polygon forms; a historical reference frozen within a contemporary circular frame where the present meets the future. What is ultimately established is not only a relationship with the physical environment but moreover a tether between the building and its cultural values and identity.

ENVIRONMENT

OPENNESS

[Create and add here one diagram that would illustrate an idea of related characteristic in the context of a selected case study. The image must be abstract and simple, made with a single colour, preferably black and white] Diagram 1: According to the existing context, the architects resisted designing a main entrance or primary façade. As Kazuyo Sejima stated, the choice of a circular plan and a circular façade was a way to erase its monumental presence - “avoiding a main entrance makes it less monumental, less of a building. It can dissolve into the surroundings” (Costa, 2017).

FUNCTION

MEDLEY

Diagram 2: Here, the pragmatic division of the building into public domains, private offices, courtyards, and exhibition spaces is expressed to reveal the abundance of diverse activities that can exist in one space for maximum flexibility. Moreover, the circular space ties these functional zones into one orchestrated ecosystem: a medley of all kinds of spaces.

REGION / CLIMATE / LANDSCAPE / NATURAL LIGHTING

BRIGHTNESS

Diagram 3: The concept of natural light plays a major role in the re-definition of the monumentality in the museum. The series of volumes, from which the building is created, possess different levels of opacity and height, as some of them have an open skylight and others little to no natural light at all. Furthermore, the full transparency of the glass shell allows the penetration of light to the center of the museum, while the skylights further create natural variations.

MATERIALITY

TRANSPARENCY

Diagram 4: The glass curtain that demarcates the point of transition is more of a convention than a real boundary and makes architects’ striving for transparency of the building exceedingly noticeable (Domusweb, 2005).Furthermore, the use of slight sections in the building structure (slender columns, thin flat roof sheet) as well as the hidden piles within walls and glass panels without visible frames, additionally emphasize the immateriality of the solution. The preliminary design of the building as a graphic concept is transitioned to the full-scale museum (So-il, 2002).

PSYCHOLOGICAL DEMANDS

CONCEALMENT

Diagram 5: As the museum tries to highlight the art objects within, it becomes one itself. Unknown to them, the way the visitors interact with the museum changes how they will experience the galleries. The plan defragmentation, the play of light, and material choice dim the visitors’ awareness of borders and inspire them to interact more freely within the museum. The flow of the circular space and use of glass blur the inner division while the different corners allow playful shadows to enter. The visitors continuously encounter different viewports and different paths of visiting the galleries, creating endless ways of circulation within one space. Paradoxically it can be said that the museum hides the more it reveals itself.

SPIRIT OF TIMES

DE-CENTRISM

Diagram 6: The building’s departure from previous monumental scales deems the spirit of its time, where the building focuses on integrating a society together rather than expressing a hierarchy. In meeting them on the ground, the museum sets a contemporary example for the characteristics of future places of gathering, making it also ahead of its time.

ARCHITECTURAL EXPRESSION

The main thoughts the architects aimed to express were the 3 C’s: Consciousness, Collective Intelligence, and Co-existence (Kanazawa21 Press Release, 2004). In terms of co-existence, this has been deconstructed through an absence of hierarchy in the building’s composition, where the low, sinking disk offers an atmosphere that is de-centric. In this way, the building reevaluates the idea of iconography as it remains subtle and camouflaged with its surroundings. For consciousness, the 21st Century Museum expresses this through its ambiguity of space, as the variety in size and shape of the masses inserted into the main circular volume become fragmented objects of interpretation. Alongside this, the circle bonds these individual moments together, creating an interplay between positive and negative space (Leardini and Lo, 2020, 5). Such an interplay forms a phenomenal and physical transparency that stimulates users to initiate multiple experiences within the same location (Rowe and Slutsky, 1997, 41). Ultimately, this generates collective intelligence as the building becomes worth revisiting due to its multiplicity, which is symbolically emphasized through the accessibility of a round overall shape.

thought ambiguous space to stimulate user awareness

symbol

referant

circular form lightness of materials playful masses

flexible, accessible spaces non-defined journeys light-controlled galleries

Diagram 7 - Ambiguity of space created through de-centric masses connected by a thin roof sheet

Diagram 8 - Superflatness ideology expressed through an axonometric section

The architectural expression of superflatness is likewise deeply explored in the Kanazawa Museum. Opposed to the ideology of monumentality, where the iconography of form is of great importance, in the contemporary museum it is deliberately chosen not to define three-dimensional outlines and rather to blend all spaces into one fluid plane. This flattening of planes, seen in the adjacent figure through the single storey masses further connects with the user at eye level. This also informs the transparent materiality of the building as well as its lightweight, seamless structure, where the tectonic frame does not emphasize the volumes but rather hides within them. Therefore, the structure is neutralized - “subsumed in the surface” , and “the apparently randomly arranged planar forms create a sense of space that is uncannily virtual — space as an assemblage of planes” (Beynon, 2021, pp 3). In effect, no hierarchies are expressed in the building’s architecture, thus contradicting with predecessing monumental centres. The monumentality of the 21st Century Museum is thus not about the visual iconography of the building from a distance, but rather redirecting the focus onto the firsthand inward experience of the building for a memorable experience.

HETEROTOPIA

Another way the 21st Century Museum has redefined the monumentality of museums is its embodiment of Heterotopia, or the ability to create multiple spaces, in contrast to singular monuments of the past (Foucault, 1987). The greatest characteristic in achieving this is the museum’s lack of a locus, or a central guiding force. Instead, the building embodies an aleatoric design where space is malleable, and to be determined by the participant. As previously discussed in the building’s architectural expression, this is most prevalent within the circular public space that wraps around the clustered private exhibition rooms, acting as a transformational realm. Here, the building’s transparent quality comes into full effect. The diagrammatic outlines of the exhibition rooms alter a user’s depth perception when viewed from the negative circulation space whereby each angle grants a different perspective (Idenburg, 2009). It is imperative to note that transparency is achieved not only through the physical glass of the building, but by its spatial organization. Upon restricting rooms into rectilinear grids, the transformational routes between them are able to expand and contract as one passes by, thus revealing several layers to the building, triggering a phenomenal transparency. This is simultaneously coupled with the use of Superflatness, which contradicts the notion of transparency since a Superflat aesthetic manipulates depth perception. Therefore, there is also a heterotopia of juxtaposing ideologies within the building, yet they work in tandem to serve the building’s overall monumentality. The Superflat style of the minimalized masses grant the feeling of a unified space, but the transparency of the transformational circular field lets users decide the direction they want to give importance to. Ultimately, this creates spaces within spaces that change over time as visitors’ behaviors within the building change. SANAA’s key principle in achieving this was perceiving the building as an organism rather than a complex and viewing the building as a static addition to a dynamic, constantly moving environment (Reisner, 2019, 34). Thus, there is a possibility for endless diverse configurations of the museum, and it is this adaptability to change that ensures its permanence in the city.

Diagram 9 - Configurations of spaces within spaces: People-led clusters

Agency of movement depending on each user defines their spatial experience

Juxtaposition of private and public spaces existing within the same realm Perceiving the Museum as an organism or a cell that changes over time

As stated in the interview with Kazuyo Sejima conducted by Yael Reisner, the primary intent of the design was focused on creating the sense of the layered interior rather than the object to admire from the outside (Reisner, 2019). For this purpose, the architects built numerous models to design the most engaging spatial experience for the visitor. The selected project of the museum creates the overall space not as the transition but rather as the connection between the outside and the inside. The difference between interior and exterior was not supposed to be perceived strongly by the visitors what is achieved through the circular plan with several entrances. Furthermore, the continuity between inside and outside is experienced by quests through architects’ decision to use almost seamless glass facade as the boundary between the museum and the park. It might be stated that visitors are more circulating through the building interior and surrounding than passing through it with defined objective. That continuity is also influenced by the fact that only exhibition galleries are given a volume. In contrast, surrounding public space such as corridors and courtyards are a void within the building. While visiting, guests remain in a visual contact with the exterior environment and experience inside and outside at once. Contrary to other enclosing museums, visitors here are not detached from the surrounding.

Diagram 10 - Primary intent of the design was focused on the quality of the inside and visitor experience of the layered interior

The relation between the museum and the park is not perceived as the transition but continuity

Only the exhibition rooms are perceived as volumes which emphasise continuity between the interior and the exterior

The scattered arrangement of mainly rectangular spaces within a unique circular external boundary is another juxtaposition that is evident both in plan and in 3D. This contrast is both emphasized and, at the same time, concealed in the architectural design. This happens because at first impact, it seems the composition is done without following a grid or focus, however upon analysing the volumes, the authors perceived that this is somewhat false. The reason being that generally, architects are taught that grids are used to determine where the built objects will be placed. In this case however, the grid happens within the unbuilt space, once again emphasizing the approach of utilizing paths. This is achieved through a meticulous grid system where the volumes continuously take and create alignment possibilities in both horizontal and vertical directions. The linearity of such grids is continuously disrupted and branched in different directions. Thus the more the user enters inside, the more corners and volumes he faces, the more these exact volumes lose awareness as the paths become the focusing element. Therefore the unbuilt spaces create their own compositional design. In this way, it can be said that the museum acts as a labyrinth with no dead ends.

Diagram 11 - The built and unbuilt space

The initial horizontal grid of paths

The refined horizontal grid and its adjustments

The outlines of the built spaces

The initial vertical grid of paths

The refined vertical grid and its adjustments

The outline of the building

The initial grid system

The refined grid system with its adjustments

Furthermore, the composition and formation of the volumes themselves creates a further contradiction in the system of the museum. Even though at first glance they seem chaotic and independent, all of them are strongly interconnected following the rules of the common meticulous grid, and furthermore, at the same time, they are paradoxically part of each other. According to the authors’ analyses, there is a presence of three principles that serve as main typologies for their formation. The first one is the “block+block” classification, according to which some volumes are created by either repetition, or addition of two distinct blocks. In this case, the repitition allows a synonymous architecture by adopting the same stylistic mass in several locations, but also enabling each setting to exist independently. In contrast, the second one, the “block+path” typology, is characterized by the formation of a mass from the addition of another mass and the path, adjacent to it. Here, the relation between the path and the block is emphasized as it allows the separation of the two similar blocks, creating the transitional space in between. On the other hand, the last and most complex one called “block+path+block”, consists of the embodiment of a shape derived from a system of smaller shapes and paths. It is this configuration that joins the series of masses together into a unified, strong architecture. Here, SANAA contradicts predecessing notions of path and place, such as Schultz’s text on existential spaces, where he suggests that there is commonly a tension between centralization, or belonging to space, and the longitudinality of space (Schulz, 1971, 26). SANAA’s ability to reconcile the two perceptions of space into one building is where it succeeds in redefining a memorable building. Despite the concept of detachment and independence, each volume and path in the 21st Century Museum are strongly related to one another, and together construct the essence of the architectural design that functions as a working organism, relying on inward experience rather than form.

Diagram 12 - The volumes as independent spaces

The unbuilt as a chaotic space

Creation of a grid system

Dependency of size of the paths

Example of “repetition of block” typology

Example of “block+block” typology

Example of “block+path” typology

Example of “block+block+path” typology

Example of “multiple blocks+path” typology

EXPERIENCE

The aesthetic experience of the 21st Century Museum is perhaps the major determinant of the building’s design. The imposing circular shape is a prime example of how the building’s aesthetic serves the human experience. Like Schulz’s idea of perceiving existential space as a circle (Schulz, 1971, 25), the architects at SANAA epitomize the circle as the field of existence regarding the museum, whereby a circle does not begin or end and therefore encourages users to meet within one locale. Simultaneously, the circle is equally exposed to its surroundings with a consistent radius, which allows a continuous connection with its surroundings, creating an awareness and sensitivity to the existential space that the user is witnessing. However, the 21st Century Museum ventures even further beyond Schulz’s theory. Although he argues that a round existence always has a center to facilitate communal schemas, the building challenges whether this can also be achieved through paths and domains that are interacting through their partial transparency, rather than meeting in a center. This is because a center would expose everything at once, whereas SANAA aimed to spark the curiosity of their users to explore (Reisner, 2019, 32). As a result, the masses within the building offer glimpses into the courtyards and path, creating a layered journey for the user. The role of natural light in the museum further complements this idea. The visitor is led by the variety of these spaces through the implementation of different lighting settings in each zone of the building. For example, most of the galleries embody enclosed masses, but through their openings, one can find that they are internally bright through their white facades and use of skylights, and although this is made to accommodate the artworks on display, it also reveals an inviting setting to any passerby peering through the door. In contrast, the circulation spaces around these masses and surrounding the inner courtyards are designed as darker areas, creating a constant juxtaposition of light and dark, which psychologically demands the user to progress through the diverging atmospheres. Similarly, the circulation spaces towards the outer perimeter are designed to be more exposed and therefore are brighter. This informs not only the experience of the user but also how they respond to the space, as the brighter peripheries now incorporate public programs and thus are perceived as a part of the city’s public space. and the galleries are characterized by a variety of openings. Therefore, the visitor is led by the movement and experience of the variety of spaces, mainly achieved by the adept use of natural light, rather than the rigidity of the form itself, thus attempting to come out of the frame of the traditional monumentality in museums (Artforum, 2018).

TRANSPARENCY

path

space

path

space

path

space

path

space

path

Diagram 13 - Space-Path Interrelationship to Create Transparency

Diagram 14 - Light penetration

To ensure that the building would deliver the intended experience for its users, the architectural team constrcuted an endless array of models to simulate the experiential qualities of the visuals they had created at eye level. This simultanously contradicts with another one of Schulz’s theories of existential space, whereby direction is of utmost importance (Schulz, 1971, 25-26). He argues that directions carry meaning, such as upwards being positive and downwards being negative. In SANAA’s design however, a users’ direction dictates the experience that they will receive during each visit. No direction is expressed more than another on the basis of granting a free and non-biased instinct to explore. In fact, directions are blurred to the user through the ambiguous arrangement of the spaces, as seen in the adjacent sketches. This creates an aesthetic where spaces seem to be folding or spilling into each other with no beginning or end, once again prompting a user to consider their position in the spatial field of the building. Thus, the architects’ final internal arrangement of the individual volumes reveals spaces that are and detached upon first sight, but when placing them within the same circle they are undeniably intertwined, relative to a person’s everyday experience in a city where spaces are both connected and separated. The sensation of unity is further emphasized using clean materiality such as the reflecting white walls of each mass, which creates a visual connection of several spaces bouncing off each other. In this way, the physical aesthetic of the building is evidently influenced by what triggers the user’s consciousness to remain in the space. Monumentality is hence redefined because it no longer becomes a driving force of the building’s appearance, but a byproduct of focusing the building’s appearance on what the user needs to connect with a place.

The built and unbuilt

Voids within volumes

Seamless boundary

4 5

Diagram 15 - Views at different points in the plan

Figure 7 - 21st Century Museum Source: Arquitectura Viva, no date.

CONCLUSION Ultimately, the relation to people and place is what dictates a museum’s importance in a city. In the urbanization of cities, monumentality through scale and historic symbols of notability becomes insufficient for attracting users and emphasizing a public hub. Instead, SANAA’s 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art in Kanazawa triggers one’s consciousness rather than catching their eye from a distance. It poses the idea to simply stop in a space and let the architecture stimulate one to pass through it, returning to the idea of the museum as a cabinet of curiosities. In this instance, the analysis of the 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art in Kanazawa exemplifies a redefinition of monumentality for modern art museums in an urban context. In the first chapter, the museum was approached by examining the six determinants of architectural form according to its project, the theory which was developed by Paul Rudolph (Rudolph, 1956) to achieve greater understanding of building’s meaning. Each of the determinants manifest different architectural aspects of the museum, divided into physical elements and metaphysical characteristics. However, in the analyzed museum, each of these elements impact each other to create an everchanging connected organism. For instance, the corridors act as not only a means of passage between exhibition galleries but also as a variable that changes the user’s journey. Thus, each of the building’s characteristics carry a multifaceted function and effect manifested in each decision made by the architects, thereby creating a layered and rich overall composition that contributes to the building’s success. Moreover, the architectural expression of the building revealed the architect’s concept of creating a layered interior that visitors could encounter, rather than focusing on the building’s outlining form. Here, the departure from emblematic icons is prominent in reassessing monumentality through form and featuring a sunken alternative that can still generate public attraction. Meanwhile, the third chapter discussed the heterotopias within the museum, further enhancing the interrelation of the composition and the experience. Despite the museum being a fixed and unmovable structure, the visitor through interacting with the museum encounters diverse and unique perspectives of incoming journeys within the museum. The user’s depth perception of a space emphasizes the exceptional experience of the visit within it and through it the museum gains its particular importance. Similarly, the aesthetic choice in the 21st Century Museum was not just a matter of a stylistic preference, but a way of inspiring a reaction. The architects did not attempt to make the building’s appearance memorable, but rather the emotions and experience felt by the museum’s appearance memorable. After analyzing the 21st century museum of contemporary art through these different lenses, it was clear that its architectural significance in the local and global area is not a by-product of its size nor directly from its shape. It is not purely a matter of composition or planning that makes this museum stand out, but rather of how the composition affects the people’s perception of it and its surroundings; how all the elements of the architecture work in tandem to generate both a physical and phenomenal environment. This is evident through the previous analysis, but even more so from looking at the city of Kanazawa today and perceiving the current role of the museum within the city. While there is no quantifiable method of achieving monumentality in architecture, it is certain that the 21st Century Museum’s monumentality is not and cannot be defined by a grand scale, but by a grand reaction. 45

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. 21st Century Museum, Aerial View. Rethinking the Future. No Date. https://www.re-thinkingthefuture. com/rtf-fresh-perspectives/a1497-21st-century-museum-of-contemporary-art-kanazawa-by-kazuyo-sejimaand-ryue-nishizawa-museum-open-to-the-city-like-a-park/ Figure 2. 21st Century Museum, Outdoor View. August Fischer, May 2018. https://divisare.com/projects/386149-sanaa-kazuyo-sejima-ryue-nishizawa-august-fischer-21st-century-museum-of-contemporary-art-kanazawa Figure 3. 21st Century Museum, Floor Plan, SANAA. Arquitectura Viva. No Date. https://arquitecturaviva.com/works/museo-de-arte-contemporaneo-de-kanazawa-ishikawa-2 Figure 4. 21st Century Museum Zoning Map. Kanazawa21 Museum Website. No Date. https://www.kanazawa21.jp/en/ Figure 5. 21st Century Museum, Elevation and Section, SANAA. Arquitectura VIva, No Date. https://arquitecturaviva.com/works/museo-de-arte-contemporaneo-de-kanazawa-ishikawa-2 Figure 6. 21st Century Museum, Design Development, SANAA. Arquitectura VIva, No Date. https://arquitecturaviva.com/works/museo-de-arte-contemporaneo-de-kanazawa-ishikawa-2 Diagram 1. Paul Rudolf - The six determinants of archiotectural form. Environment. By Author. Diagram 2. Paul Rudolf - The six determinants of archiotectural form. Function. By Author. Diagram 3. Paul Rudolf - The six determinants of archiotectural form. Region / Climate / Landscape / Natural Lighting. By Author. Diagram 4. Paul Rudolf - The six determinants of archiotectural form. Materiality. By Author. Diagram 5. Paul Rudolf - The six determinants of archiotectural form. Psychological Demands. By Author. Diagram 6. Paul Rudolf - The six determinants of archiotectural form. Spirit of Times. By Author. Diagram 7. Architectural Expression and Iconography. By Author. Diagram 8. Superflatness Ideology. Axonometric View. By Author Diagram 9. Michael Foucault - Heterotopia. Aleotoric Spaces. By Author Diagram 10. Michael Foucault - Heterotopia. Layered Interiors. By Author Diagram 11. Michael Foucault - Heterotopia. Built and Unbuilt Spaces. By Author Diagram 12. Michael Foucault - Heterotopia. Typologies. By Author Diagram 13. Experience. Space-Path Interrelationship. Section View. By Author

Diagram 14. Experience. Light Penetration. Section View. By Author. Diagram 15. Experience. Views at Different Points of The Plan. By Author. Figure 7. 21st Century Museum. Arquitectura VIva, No Date. https://arquitecturaviva.com/works/museo-de-arte-contemporaneo-de-kanazawa-ishikawa-2

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Archiweb. N.d. “21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art Kanazawa” Accessed on 8 January 2022. https://www.archiweb.cz/en/b/21st-century-museum-of-contemporary-art-kanazawa 2. Artforum. 2018. “Architecture. Into the Light.” Last modified in 2018. Accessed on 8 January 2022. https:// www.artforum.com/print/201804/into-the-light-74667 3. Avella, Natalie. 2004. Graphic Japan: From Woodblock and Zen to Manga and Kawaii, Rotovision, p111. 4. Beynon, David. 2012. “Superflat Architecture: Culture and Dimensionality”. Interspaces: Art + Architectural Exchanges from East to West. University of Melbourne. Last modified in 2012. Accessed on 8 January 2022. https://arts.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/2777055/5.1_BEYNON_Superflat_Architecture.pdf 5. Britannica. 2018. “Kanazawa.” Last modified on 22 May 2018. Accessed on 8 January 2022. https://www. britannica.com/place/Kanazawa 6. Campbell and Nobel, David S. 1993. Japan: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. Kodansha. p. 732. ISBN 406205938X. 7. Costa, Xavier. 2017. “21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art: Sanaa.” Companion to the History of Architecture, H.F. Mallgrave (Ed.). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118887226.wbcha166 8. Detail Inspiration. 2005. “A Critical View: The 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art in Kanazawa.” Detail 1+2/2005. Last modified 2005. Accessed on 8 January 2022. https://inspiration.detail.de/a-critical-view-the21st-century-museum-of-contemporary-art-in-kanazawa-107938.html?lang=en 9. Diffuse, Luca. 2013. “Florian Idenburg. Back to the future #23” Klat Magazine. Last modified 5 July 2013. Accessed on 8 January 2022. https://www.klatmagazine.com/en/architecture-en/florian-idenburg-interview-back-to-the-future-23/34886 10. Foucault, Michel. 1986. “Of Other Spaces” Diacritics Vol. 16 No. 16, 22-27. https://doi.org/10.2307/464648 11. Giedion, Sigfried. 1958. Architecture, You and Me. The diary of a development. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press

12. Grima, Joseph. 2005. “21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art.” Domus. Last modified 10 January 2005. Accessed on 8 January 2022. https://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/2005/01/10/21st-century-museum-of-contemporary-art.html 13. Idenburg, F. 2002. “New Sobriety”. Idea Magazine #293 Last modified January 7, 2002. Accessed on 8 January 2022. http://so-il.org/projects/new-sobriety 14. Idenburg, F. 2009. “Relations”, The SANAA Studios 2006–2008: Learning from Japan: Single Story Urbanism, Last modified October 21, 2009. Accessed on 8 January 2022. http://so-il.org/projects/relations 15. Kanazawa Press Release. 2004. “21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art, Kanazawa” Last modified 9 October 2004. Accessed on 8 January 2022. https://www.kanazawa21.jp/en/12press/pdf/0925PressRelease9.pdf 16. Kirk, James. 2012. “Re-reading Japan SANAA’s Relational Architecture A reflection on the EPFL Learning Centre, Lausanne.” University of Westminster Dissertation. www.jameskirk.eu/docs/dissertationexportonlineversion.pdf 17. Lee and Kim, Sungwoo. 2008. “Reinterpretation of S. Giedion’s Conception of Time in Modern Architecture – Based on his book, Space, Time and Architecture” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 7:1, 15-22. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3130/jaabe.7.15 18. Lo, and Leardini, Paola. 2020. “Living in the Edge.” Urban Corporis. The City and the Skin. The University of Queensland. 19. Lubow, Arthur. 2005. “Disappearing Act.” The New York Times. Last modified 10 October 2005. Accessed on 8 January 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/09/style/tmagazine/disappearing-act.html 20. Norberg-Schulz, Christian. 1971. Existence, Space & Architecture. New York: Praeger. 21. Panoramah!. N.d. “Transparency: Literal and Phenomenal”. Accessed on 10 January 2022. https://www. panoramah.com/2021/07/06/transparency/ 22. Reisner, Yael. 2019. “Abstraction and Informality Generate a New Aesthetic: An Interview with Kazuyo Sejima.” Archit. Design, 89: 30-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2476 23. Rowe, Colin, Robert Slutzky, and Bernhard Hoesli. 1997. Transparency. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag. first published in 1963 in Yale Architectural Journal Perspecta, Vol. 8. 24. Rudolph, Paul Marvin. 1956. The Six Determinants of Architectural Form, Praeger Publishers. New York. 25. Yang , J. 2019. “A Sense of Japanese Aesthetics: The Role of Materiality in the Work of SANAA.” KnE Social Sciences, 3(27): 26–39. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i27.5512