DESIGN PHILOSOPHIES IN CULTURAL MUSEUM SPACES
Dissertation submitted by R.S.SURYA VENKAT 090901134 B.Architecture VII Semester ‘B’
MANIPAL SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING MANIPAL UNIVERSITY
November 2012
1
MANIPAL SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING MANIPAL UNIVERSITY
CERTIFICATE We certify that the Dissertation entitled “Design Philosophies in Cultural Museum Spaces”, that is being submitted by R. S. Surya Venkat, 090901134 in the IX semester of B.Architecture undergraduate programme, MSAP. Manipal University, Manipal is a record of bonafide work, to the best of our knowledge.
-----------------------------Faculty in charge
----------------------Director
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
To begin with, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my professors for their guidance and for giving direction and guidance with their invaluable inputs without which this would not have been possible. However absurd it may seem, it would not be right if I have not acknowledged the most powerful and resourceful tool which has been an indispensable entity in the realization of this research, the Internet. It is a tool of incomparable and unparalleled magnitude and it would be unbecoming of one to omit thanking such an entity. Hence, I thank the Internet, in all its abstract physicality, for being such a crucial tool in the development of this research paper. I would also like to thank my parents for their unending and unparalleled support through thick and thin. Lastly, and most importantly, I would like to extend my gratitude and warm regards to my friends for helping me sustain my resolve and making this presentation possible.
3
ABSTRACT
Through time, a museum has been a space which has housed objects and elements of the past preserving and immortalizing the journey through the spans of time. It is a place which not only houses such objects, but communicates and educates these stories to the masses. In recent times, however, the influence of these once essential and prestigious institutions has had a diminishing impact on the society and the masses. Obsolete methods of display and ineffective communication to the people have been the main culprits for this setback. This brings to light the inability of the institutions in coping and syncing with modern technology and adopting newer and more effective means of display and communication. In an effort to revive the diminishing concept of museums and to reinstate their position in the public domain, advancements have been conceived and achieved in the shaping and structuring of these spaces both in terms of space planning and the modes of effective display. The definition of a museum has evolved, in line with developments in the society This statement, issued by the ICOM (International Council of Museums), has an important take towards the changing mentality of the museums with respect to the society. Museums have come a long way in terms of evolution of their spaces and more importantly their design philosophies. The paper aims to establish an understanding of the design philosophies adopted in earlier times and juxtapose them with those that have been used to conceive museum spaces in recent times. A study of the philosophies which have widespread acceptance, for instance, those of French philosopher, Michel Foucault and his contemporaries such as Eilean Hooper-Greehill and Tony Bennet will help breakdown these concepts into tangible elements for analysis. Comparing them with recent philosophies, which delve into the realms of Economics, will give a study of comparison. This is done to get an understanding of how museums have sustained their position in the society by adapting to the varied needs and necessities they have been exposed to. A study, basically of the evolution of the design philosophies adopted through the ages and the reversible impact of the society and the museum’s characteristics.
4
CONTENTS 1.Introduction…………………………………………………………………………8 1.1 Background………………………………………………………………….....8-9 1.2 Relevance of the study …………………………………………………………9 1.3 Aim………………………………………………………………………………..9 1.4 Research question………………………………………………………………9 1.5 Objectives………………………………………………………………………..10 1.6 Definitions………………………………………………………………………..10 1.6 Scope and Limitations………………………………………………………….10 1.7 Methodology……………………………………………………………………..10 1.8 Outcome………………………………………………………………………….11 2. Literature Review 2.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………12 2.0.1 Museum Planning…………………………………………………………12-13 2.0.2 Exhibit Design……………………………………………………………..13-14 2.0.3 Museum Types…………………………………………………………….14-20 2.1 Methodology 2.2 Rethinking Museum Spaces……………………………………………………20 2.2.1 Purpose of Museums………………………………………………………20-21 2.2.2 What is Rethinking?...................................................................................21 2.3 Social Character - What Makes an Object Social?.......................................22 2.3.1 Making Objects More Social…………………………………………………..22 2.3.2Designing Platforms for Social Objects……………………………………22-24 2.3.3Social Platforms in the Real World…………………………………………….24 2.3.4Tours and Facilitated Social Experiences…………………………………….24 2.3.5Making Tours and Presentations More Social……………………………24-25 2.3.6Object-Rich Theater at the Indianapolis Children’s Museum……………….25 2.3.7Facilitating Dialogue Instead of Putting on a Show………………………….25 5
2.3.8Provocative Exhibition Design…………………………………………………25 2.3.9Provocation through Juxtaposition…………………………………………….25 2.3.10Provocation through Fiction…………………………………………………..26 2.3.11Institutional Sharing……………………………………………………………26 2.3.12CASE STUDY: Sharing Artifacts at the Glasgow Open Museum…………27 2.4 Culture and the Museum Space…………………………………………………28 2.4.1 Are museums getting better at the expense of collecting?....................28-29 2.4.2 In what ways can museum exhibitions promote or create a sense of personal, national and/or cultural identity?...............................................29 2.4.3 Who owns culture and what issues are raised by post-colonial collections?..........................................................................................29-30 2.5 Museum as Heterotopia………………………………………………………30-36 2.6 Culture Led Regenration 2.6.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………37 2.6.2 Evaluating the Influence of a Cultural Artifact in the attraction of Tourism ……………………………………………………………………………………….38-41 2.7 The Spatialization of Knowledge and Social Relationships………………41-44 2.8 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..44-45 3.Case Studies 3.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………...46 3.1 Methodology for data collection…………………………………………………46 3.2 Comparison of Spatial Layouts…………………………………………………………………………………46 3.2.1 The Ordering of Spaces into Sequences and the Morphology of Exploration ……………………………………………………………………………………….46-51 3.2.2 The Gathering Space and the Morphology of Encounter……………….51-53 3.2.3 A Model of the Basic Dimensions of Variability of Display Strategies……………………………………………………………………………….53 3.2.4 Exploiting Space to Enhance the Impact of Objects…………………….53-54 3.2.5 Using Objects to Create Space……………………………………………54-55 3.2.6 Conveying Pre- given Meaning……………………………………………55-58 3.2.7 Creating Meaning…………………………………………………………..58-60 3.3 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………60 4.DATA ANALYSIS 4.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………61 6
4.1 Social Functions- Changing Museum Designs………………………………..61 4.2 Spatial Layouts- Observations……………………………………………….61-62 4.3 Evaluating Museums as Heterotopia……………………………………………62 4.4 Museums as objects of Culture-led Regeneration…………………………62-63 4.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………63 5. Findings, implications and conclusions 5.0Introduction…………………………………………………………………………64 5.1 Findings…………………………………………………………………………….64 5.2 Implications…………………………………………………………………….64-65 5.3 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..65-66
7
1.INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment. Every museum has been conceived with a certain philosophy which defines it. Whether its part to whole or whole to part, the philosophy is instrumental in shaping the museum space. However, these philosophies go unnoticed / are “overshadowed” by the contents housed in these spaces. This phenomenon, however, should not be considered as a setback or a failure of the museum space as the very basic underlying principle of the museum is the exhibition of these contents. Borrowing the lines from a television commercial which states: Design should not be seen, what’s not seen should be designed. This statement holds up as an apt and concise description of the basis of museum design philosophy. A study of these philosophies seemed imperative because museums, as institutions of education and preservers of the past, have a very vital role in educating the society and imbibing in them a connection with their pasts. It is very important to be aware of ones past as to predict the future, one needs to study the past. Museums, as institutions, have long established their position in the society as an integral part. However their impact on the society has somewhat decreased. It could be attributed to the static nature of the exhibitions which haven’t evolved and been updated with time. Some attribute this as an additive to their timelessness as structures of the past housing the past, but the bottomline remains that their influence is diminishing and a revamp of their organizational structure is imperative. Museums, through the ages, have evolved dramatically. They started off as private collections of the riches of the feudal lords which were kept away from the public eye. The nineteenth century saw the opening up of these collections to the public as a show of power and wealth to establish the supremacy of the feudalists over the common man. The British Museums of the 20th century primarily showcased the best of the riches and plunders from the colonies of the British Commonwealth. 8
In recent times, however, the concept of museums has extended beyond the realms of preserving and showcasing the past. There has been a redefinition of the term – Museum. Modern day museums have evolved to give rise to a bouquet of types such as theme based museums, science museums, etc. Coupled with this, there is an obvious shift from the philosophies which existed in the earlier times to those that are theorized in the modern day museum.
1.2 RELEVANCE OF THE STUDY Museums form an integral part in educating and imparting knowledge to the society as a whole. As described my Michel Foucault, they are institutions of Enlightenment. A study of these spaces is necessary to facilitate a better understanding of their functioning for prolonging their existence in the society and sustaining their role in it. In the context of India, there is a lack of such spaces which have a high magnitude of impact on the society. Therefore, there is a gaping hole in the promotion of its rich and diverse cultural heritage which have been restricted to textual documents and photographs. These are short-coming as this means that the hands-on experience that one gets in a museum is absent if not highly deficient. Therefore, there is a need to study the philosophies of spaces of established museums to ensure the development of museum spaces of substantial quality. 1.3 AIM The aim of the study is the study of DESIGN PHILOSOPHIES IN CULTURAL MUSEUM SPACES The aim of the study is to develop an understanding of the design philosophies involved in the development of museum spaces of the past as well as the present and observe and establish their evolution through the ages.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION What are the design philosophies involved in the creation of cultural museum spaces?
9
1.5 OBJECTIVES Objectives of the study include: A study of the design philosophies propagated by philosophers such as Michel Foucault, etc. Study of various factors influencing the theorizing of these philosophies such as social implications, etc. Study of the various spatial layouts of existing museums to understand the materialization of the inherent philosophies A comparative study of the spatial layouts to establish the common-points and the points of difference
1.6 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS Scope: The study provides an insight into the theory and spirit which were involved in the development of museum spaces Gives an account of the philosophies which help in understanding the spaces better Help in theorizing for specific cases by analyzing a breakdown of the structure of the philosophies Extensive analysis by philosophers and scholars in this realm of study is a moot point as it provides a base for a comparative study Limitations: Lack of appropriate case studies in the country Interpretation of philosophy is done in varied ways. Hence, there is difficulty in establishing an appropriate interpretation.
1.7 METHODOLOGY To identify, study and review various philosophies which have materialised into actual spaces To review the spatial character of these spaces Study of journals, papers and books relevant to study of museum philosophies and spatial character of museum spaces Identifying and studying layouts and spatial character of particular museum spaces to arrive at points of similaritiy and contradiction Juxtaposing the philosophies against the spatial characteristics of the analysed case studies Drawing out conclusions based on the analysis of these two entities
10
1.8 OUTCOME The desired outcome would be a clear understanding of the design philosophies involved and their evolution from the early days to the present day. To develop an understanding of the basic spatial elements which constitute the layouts of museums and more importantly, the points where they differ. This helps in understanding the common elements of a museum space and the features unique to a museum space would highlight the specific purposes of that particular space.
11
2.0 INTRODUCTION A museum is an institution that cares for (conserves) a collection of artefacts and other objects of scientific, artistic, cultural, or historical importance and makes them available for public viewing through exhibits that may be permanent or temporary. Most large museums are located in major cities throughout the world and more local ones exist in smaller cities, towns and even the countryside. The continuing acceleration in the digitization of information, combined with the increasing capacity of digital information storage, is causing the traditional model of museums (i.e. as static “collections of collections� of three-dimensional specimens and artefacts) to expand to include virtual exhibits and high-resolution images of their collections for perusal, study, and exploration from any place with Internet. Museum purposes change from institution to institution. Some favour education over conservation, or vice versa. For example, in the 1970s, the Canada Science and Technology Museum favoured education over preservation of their objects. They displayed objects as well as their functions. One exhibit featured a historic printing press that a staff member used for visitors to create museum memorabilia. Some seek to reach a wide audience, such as a national or state museum, while some museums have specific audiences, like the LDS Church History Museum or local history organizations. Generally speaking, museums collect objects of significance that comply with their mission statement for conservation and display. Although most museums do not allow physical contact with the associated artefacts, there are some that are interactive and encourage a more hands-on approach. In 2009, Hampton Court Palace, palace of Henry VIII, opened the council room to the general public to create an interactive environment for visitors. Rather than allowing visitors to handle 500 year old objects, the museum created replicas, as well as replica costumes. The daily activities, historic clothing, and even temperature changes immerse the visitor in a slice of what Tudor life may have been 2.0.1 Museum planning The design of museums has evolved throughout history. Interpretive museums, as opposed to art museums, have missions reflecting curatorial guidance through the subject matter which now include content in the form of images, audio and visual effects, and interactive exhibits. Museum creation begins with a museum plan, created through a museum planning process. The process involves identifying the museum's vision and the resources, organization and experiences needed to realize this vision. A feasibility study, analysis of comparable facilities and an interpretive planare all developed as part of the museum planning process. Some museum experiences have very few or no artifacts and do not necessarily call themselves museums; the Griffith Observatory in Los Angelesand the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, being notable examples where there are few artifacts, but strong, memorable stories are told or information is 12
interpreted. In contrast, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. uses many artifacts in their memorable exhibitions. Notably, despite their varying styles, the latter two were designed by Ralph Appelbaum Associates. 2.0.2 Exhibit design Most mid-size and large museums employ exhibit design staff for graphic and environmental design projects, including exhibitions. In addition to traditional 2-D and 3-D designers and architects, these staff departments may include audiovisual specialists, software designers, audience research and evaluation specialists, writers, editors, and preparators or art handlers. These staff specialists may also be charged with supervising contract design or production services. The exhibit design process builds on the interpretive plan for an exhibit, determining the most effective, engaging and appropriate methods of communicating a message or telling a story. The process will often mirror the architectural process or schedule, moving from conceptual plan, through schematic design, design development, contract document, fabrication and installation. Museums of all sizes may also contract the outside services of exhibit fabrication businesses. Predator Exhibits, located in Ontario, Canada, is one such business. Exhibition design has as multitude of strategies, theories, and methods but two that embody much of the theory and dialogue surrounding exhibition design are the metonymy technique and the use of authentic artifacts to provide the historical narrative. Metonymy, or "the substitution of the name of an attribute or adjunct for that of the thing meant, is a technique used by many museums but few as heavily and as influentially as Holocaust museums. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C., for example, employs this technique in its shoe exhibition. Simply a pile of decaying leather shoes piled against a bare, gray concrete wall the exhibit relies heavily on the emotional, sensory response the viewer will naturally through this use metonymic technique. This exhibition design intentionally signifies metonymically the nameless and victims themselves. This metaphysical link to the victims through the deteriorating and aged shoes stands as a surviving vestige of the individual victim. This technique, employed properly, can be a very powerful one as it plays off the real life experiences of the viewer while evoking the equally unique memory of the victim. Metonymy, however, Jennifer Hansen-Glucklich argues, is not without its own problems. Hansen-Glucklich explains, "...when victims’ possessions are collected according to type and displayed en masse they stand metonymically for the victims themselves. Such a use of metonymy contributes to the dehumanization of the victims as they are reduced to a heap of indistinguishable objects and their individuality subsumed by an aesthetic of anonymity and excess. While a powerful technique Hansen-Glucklick points out that when used en masse the metonym suffers as the memory and suffering of the individual is lost in the chorus of the whole. While at times juxtaposed, the alternative technique of the use of authentic objects is seen the same exhibit mentioned above. The use of authentic artifacts is employed by most, if not all, museums but the degree to which and the intention can vary greatly. The basic 13
idea behind exhibiting authentic artifacts is to provide not only legitimacy to the exhibit's historical narrative but, at times, to help create the narrative as well. The theory behind this technique is to exhibit artifacts in a neutral manner to orchestrate and narrate the historic narrative through, ideally, the provenance of the artifacts themselves. While albeit necessary to most some degree in any museum repertoire, the use of authentic artifacts can not only be misleading but as equally problematic as the aforementioned metonymic technique. HansenGlucklick explains, "The danger of such a strategy lies in the fact that by claiming to offer the remnants of the past to the spectator, the museum creates the illusion of standing before a complete picture. The suggestion is that if enough details and fragments are collected and displayed, a coherent and total truth concerning the past will emerge, visible and comprehensible. The museum attempts, in other words, to archive the unachievable." While any exhibit benefits from the legitimacy given by authentic objects or artifacts the temptation must be protected against in order to avoid relying solely on the artifacts themselves. A well designed exhibition should employ objects and artifacts as a foundation to the narrative but not as a crutch; a lesson any conscientious curator would be well to keep in mind.
2.0.3 Museum Types Types of museums vary, from large institutions, covering many of the categories below, to very small institutions focusing on a specific subject, location, or a notable person. Categories include: fine arts, applied arts, craft, archaeology, anthropology and ethnology, history, cultural history, science,technology, children's museums, natural history, botanical and zoological gardens. Within these categories many museums specialize further, e.g. museums of modern art, folk art, local history, military history, aviation history, philately, agriculture or geology. Another type of museum is an encyclopedic museum. Commonly referred to as a universal museum, encyclopedic museums have collections representative of the world and typically include art, science, history, and cultural history. The type and size of a museum is reflected in its collection. A museum normally houses a core collection of important selected objects in its field. Archaeology museums Gold Museum, Bogotรก Colombia Archaeology museums specialize in the display of archaeological artifacts. Many are in the open air, such as the Agora of Athens and the Roman Forum. Others display artifacts found in archaeological sites inside buildings. Some, such as the Western Australian Museum, exhibit maritime archaeological materials. These appear in its Shipwreck Galleries, a wing of the Maritime Museum. This Museum has also developed a 'museum-without-walls' through a series of underwater wreck trails.
14
Art Musems Museum of Modern Art, New York An art museum, also known as an art gallery, is a space for the exhibition of art, usually in the form of art objects from the visual arts, primarily paintings, illustrations, and sculpture. Collections of drawings and old master prints are often not displayed on the walls, but kept in a print room. There may be collections of applied art, including ceramics, metalwork, furniture, artist's books and other types of object. Video art is often screened. The first publicly owned museum in Europe was the Amerbach-Cabinet in Basel, originally a private collection sold to the city in 1661 and public since 1671 (now Kunstmuseum Basel). The Ashmolean Museum in Oxford opened on 24 May 1683 as the world's first university art museum. Its first building was built in 1678–1683 to house the cabinet of curiosities Elias Ashmole gave Oxford University in 1677. The Uffizi Gallery in Florence was initially conceived as a palace for the offices of Florentian magistrates (hence the name), it later evolved into a display place for many of the paintings and sculpture collected by the Medici family or commissioned by them. After the house of Medici was extinguished, the art treasures remained in Florence, forming one of the first modern museums. The gallery had been open to visitors by request since the sixteenth century, and in 1765 it was officially opened to the public. Another early public museum was the British Museum in London, which opened to the public in 1759. It was a "universal museum" with very varied collections covering art, applied art, archaeology, anthropology, history, and science, and a library. The science collections, library, paintings and modern sculpture have since been found separate homes, leaving history, archaeology, non-European and preRenaissance art, and prints and drawings.[citation needed] The specialised art museum is considered a fairly modern invention, the first being the Hermitage in Saint Petersburg which was established in 1764.[citation needed] The Louvre in Paris was established in 1793, soon after the French Revolution when the royal treasures were declared for the people. The Czartoryski Museum in Kraków was established in 1796 by Princess Izabela Czartoryska. This showed the beginnings of removing art collections from the private domain of aristocracy and the wealthy into the public sphere, where they were seen as sites for educating the masses in taste and cultural refinement. Encyclopedic museums Encyclopedic museums are large, mostly national, institutions that offer visitors a plethora of information on a variety of subjects that tell both local and global stories. "With 3% of the world's population, or nearly 200 million people, live outside the country of their birth, encyclopedic museums play an especially important role in the building of civil society. They encourage curiosity about the world. James Cuno, President and CEO of the J. Paul Getty Trust, along with Neil MacGregor, Director of the British Museum, are two of the most outspoken museum professionals who support encyclopedic museums. Encyclopedic museums have advantages; however, some scholars and archaeologists argue 15
against encyclopedic museums because they remove cultural objects from their original cultural setting, losing their context. Historic house museums Within the category of history museums historic house museums are the most numerous. The earliest projects for preserving historic homes began in the 1850s under the direction of individuals concerned with the public good and the preservation of American history, especially centered on the first president. Since the establishment of America’s first historic site at Washington’s Revolutionary headquarters at Hasbrouck House in New York State, Americans have found a penchant for preserving similar historical structures. The establishment of historic house museums increased in popularity through the 1970s and 1980s as the Revolutionary bicentennial set off a wave of patriotism and alerted Americans to the destruction of their physical heritage. The tradition of restoring homes of the past and designating them as museums draws on the English custom of preserving ancient buildings and monuments. Initially homes were considered worthy of saving because of their associations with important individuals, usually of the elite classes, like former presidents, authors, or businessmen. Increasingly, Americans have fought to preserve structures characteristic of a more typical American past that represents the lives of everyday people including minorities.[25] While historic house museums compose the largest section within the historic museum category they usually operate with small staffs and on limited budgets. Many are run entirely by volunteers and often do not meet the professional standards established by the museum industry. An independent survey conducted by Peggy Coats in 1990 revealed that sixty-five percent of historic house museums did not have a full-time staff and 19 to 27 percent of historic homes employed only one full-time employee. Furthermore, the majority of these museums operated on less than $50,000 annually. The survey also revealed a significant disparity in the amount of visitors between local house museums and national sites. While museums like Mount Vernon and Colonial Williamsburg were visited by over one million tourists a year, more than fifty percent of historic house museums received less than 5,000 visitors per year. These museums are also unique in that the actual structure belongs to the museum collection as a historical object. While some historic home museums are fortunate to possess a collection containing many of the original furnishings once present in the home, many face the challenge of displaying a collection consistent with the historical structure. Some museums choose to collect pieces original to the period while not original to the house. Others, fill the home with replicas of the original pieces reconstructed with the help of historic records. Still other museums adopt a more aesthetic approach and use the homes to display the architecture and artistic objects. Because historic homes have often existed through different generations and have been passed on from one family to another, volunteers and professionals also must decide which historical narrative to tell their visitors. Some museums grapple with this issue by displaying different eras in the home’s history within different rooms or sections of the structure. 16
Others choose one particular narrative, usually the one deemed most historically significant, and restore the home to that particular period. History museums Museum of the Filipino People, Manila, Philippines. History museums cover the knowledge of history and its relevance to the present and future. Some cover specialized curatorial aspects of history or a particular locality; others are more general. Such museums contain a wide range of objects, including documents, artifacts of all kinds, art, archaeological objects. Antiquities museums specialize in more archaeological findings. A common type of history museum is a historic house. A historic house may be a building of special architectural interest, the birthplace or home of a famous person, or a house with an interesting history. Historic sites can also become museums, particularly those that mark public crimes, such as Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum or Robben Island. Another type of history museum is a living museum. A living museum is where people recreate a time period to the fullest extent, including buildings, and language. It is similar to historical reenactment. Living museum Living history museums recreate historical settings to simulate past time periods, providing visitors with an experiential interpretation of history.[28]These museums feature reconstructions of particular time periods and/or locations and are staffed by historical site interpreters who often reflect the time period. To reflect the time period, interpreters use costumes, period speech, and character impersonations while performing daily tasks and crafts of the period. These museums have found particular popularity in the United States and Canada. The beginnings of the living history museum can be traced back to 1873 with the opening of the Skansen Museum near Stockholm, Sweden. The museum’s founder, Arthur Hazelius, began the museum by using his personal collection of buildings and other cultural materials of pre-industrial society. This museum began as an open air museum and, by 1891, had several farm buildings in which visitors could see exhibits and where guides demonstrated crafts and tools. For years, living history museums were relatively nonexistent outside of Scandinavia, though some military garrisons in North America used some living history techniques. However, the growth of new social history beginning in the 1960s and 1970s and excitement over the United States Bicentennial in 1976 gave living history displays new credibility and use. Since this time, living history museums have become more widespread. Some of these first museums that are now well known in the United States are Colonial Williamsburg, Plimoth Plantation, Connor Prairie Pioneer Settlement, and Old Sturbridge Village. Many living history farms and similar farm and agricultural museums have united under an association known as the Association for Living History, Farm, and Agricultural Museums (ALHFAM). The relative authenticity of living history farms varies significantly. At its best, they most accurately reflect the past appropriate to the time period while at their worst they may portray gross inaccuracies in an attempt to portray a certain idealized image. One such example is Wichita’s Old Cowtown Museum, which in 17
its small, rural representation of Wichita resembles Western movies and Wild West myths more than the bustling urban city that Wichita quickly became. This living history narrative developed because of the availability of small historical buildings and inaccurate replicas, prodding from the city, and the influence of Hollywood. Museum professionals must grapple with these issues of conflicting audience and institutional needs which impact the overall structure of living history. Living history museums have also been criticized for their ability to teach, particularly from those that believe “living history is antiquarian, idyllic, or downright misleading. In response to this question, the Association for Living History, Farm, and Agricultural Museums (ALHFAM) has stated that they distinguish between an unchanging past and an interpretation of a constantly changing past. It additionally was affirmed by the ALHFAM that they also support Dr. Scott Magelssen’s idea that living history museums produce history as others do, such as teachers in classrooms, authors in monographs, and even directors in film. Maritime museum Maritime museums are museums that specialize in the presentation of maritime history, culture or archaeology. They explore the relationship between societies and certain bodies of water. Just as there is a wide variety of museum types, there are also many different types of maritime museums. First, as metioned above, maritime museums can be primarily archaeological. These museums focus on the interpretation and preservation of shipwrecks and other artifacts recovered from a maritime setting. A second type is the maritime history museum, dedicated to educating the public about humanity's maritime past. Examples are the San Francisco Maritime Museum and Mystic Seaport. Militaryfocused maritime museums are a third variety, of which theIntrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum is an example. Military and war museums The Canadian War Museum Military museums specialize in military histories; they are often organized from a national point of view, where a museum in a particular country will have displays organized around conflicts in which that country has taken part. They typically include displays of weapons and other military equipment,uniforms, wartime propaganda and exhibits on civilian life during wartime, and decorations, among others. A military museum may be dedicated to a particular or area, such as the Imperial War Museum Duxford for military aircraft, Deutsches Panzermuseum for tanks or the International Spy Museumfor espionage, The National World War I Museum for World War I or more generalist, such as the Canadian War Museum or the Musée de l'Armée.
Mobile museums Mobile museum is a term applied to museums that make exhibitions from a vehicle, such as a van. Some institutions, such as St. Vital Historical Society and the Walker Art Center, use the term to refer to a portion of their collection that 18
travels to sites away from the museum for educational purposes. Other mobile museums have no "home site", and use travel as their exclusive means of presentation. Natural history museums The National Museum of Natural History inWashington, D.C. Museums of natural history and natural science typically exhibit work of the natural world. The focus lies on nature and culture. Exhibitions educate the public on natural history, dinosaurs, zoology, oceanography, anthropology and more. Evolution, environmental issues, and biodiversity are major areas in natural science museums. Notable museums include the Natural History Museum in London, the Oxford University Museum of Natural History inOxford, the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle in Paris, the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., theAmerican Museum of Natural History in New York City, the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology in Drumheller, Alberta, Denver Museum of Nature and Science and the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. A rather minor Natural history museum is The Midwest Museum of Natural History is located in Sycamore, Illinois. Open-air museum The open-air museum of King Oscar II atBygdøy near Oslo in the museum guide of 1888. The World's first open-air museum was founded in 1881. An old farmhouse at the Salzburger Freilichtmuseum in Großgmain nearSalzburg. Open-air museums collect and re-erect old buildings at large outdoor sites, usually in settings of re-created landscapes of the past. The first one wasKing Oscar II's collection near Oslo in Norway, opened in 1881. In 1907 it was incorporated into the Norsk Folkemuseum. In 1891, inspired by a visit to the open-air museum in Oslo, Artur Hazelius founded the Skansen in Stockholm, which became the model for subsequent open-air museums inNorthern and Eastern Europe, and eventually in other parts of the world. Most open-air museums are located in regions where wooden architecture prevail, as wooden structures may be translocated without substantial loss of authenticity.[citation needed] A more recent but related idea is realized inecomuseums, which originated in France.[citation needed] Pop-up museums A concept developed in the 1990s, the pop-up museum is generally defined as a short term institution existing in a temporary space.[34] These temporary museums are finding increasing favor among more progressive museum professionals as a means of direct community involvement with objects and exhibition. Often, the pop-up concept relies solely on visitors to provide both the objects on display and the accompanying labels with the professionals or institution providing only the theme of the pop-up and the space in which to display the objects, an example of shared historical authority.. Due to the flexibility of the pop-up museums and their rejection of traditional structure, even these latter provisions need not be supplied by an institution; in some cases the 19
themes have been chosen collectively by a committee of interested participants while exhibitions designated as pop-ups have been mounted in places as varied as community centers and even a walk-in closet.[35] Some examples of pop-up museums include: Museum Of New Art (MONA)- founded in Detroit, Michigan in 1996 this contemporary art museum is generally acknowledged to be the pioneer of the concept of the pop-up museum. The Pop-Up Museum of Queer History- a series of pop-up museum events held at various sites across the United States focusing on the history and stories of local LGBT communities. Denver Community Museum- a pop-up museum that existed for nine months during 2008-9, located in downtown Denver, Colorado. Museum of Motherhood, currently located on Manhattan's Upper East Side. Has extended past its original close date & is seeking a permanent home. Museum of Science and Industry,Chicago CLSU Living Fish Museum CLSU,Philippines. Science museums and technology centers revolve around scientific achievements, and marvels and their history. To explain complicated inventions, a combination of demonstrations, interactive programs and thought-provoking media are used. Some museums may have exhibits on topics such as computers,aviation, railway museums, physics, astronomy, and the animal kingdom.
2.1 METHODOLOGY
To identify, study and review various philosophies which have materialised into actual spaces To review and understand the spatial character of these spaces Study of journals, papers and books relevant to study of museum philosophies and spatial character of museum spaces
2.2 RETHINKING MUSEUM SPACES The first major rethinking in the museum domain, in my opinion, was done in 1930s in the Deutsches Museum in Munich, introducing the concept of working exhibits. Since then, first generation science museums and second generation science centres have come a long way, changing the collection-based museums to activity-oriented playgrounds. But whenever there was a need for rethinking about the traditional museum character, a stumbling block of deeply entrenched conviction that such major transitions is faced, as happened in science museums with technology support, are simply not possible in artarchaeology- history museums.
20
2.2.1Purpose of Museums The International Council of Museums (ICOM) defines Museum in a comprehensive manner in the following lines: ‘A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment’ The definition has four parts: a) The first is the character of a museum, that it shall be non-profit, permanent institution, and open to public. b) The second part emphasizes the duties – service of society and its development. c) The third part deals with the functions of museum – acquisition, conservation, research (including documentation), communication and exhibition. d) The fourth part deals with the purpose – education, study and enjoyment. It is clear from this definition that education and enjoyment (along with study) are accepted as the primary purpose of a museum. Many museums need reorientation of priorities and rescheduling of activities to fit in this definition.
2.2.2What is Rethinking? Rethinking museums would result in a plan for a paradigm shift in the concept of museums, the kind of shift that the Deutsches Museum demonstrated in the 1930s inviting visitors’ participation in working of exhibits as mentioned earlier. It has always been held that the science museums enjoy the advantage of having technological support required for such paradigm shift, implying that artarchaeology-history museums are lacking that advantage. With the invasion of communication technology in recent years, even small children at home have become computer savvy. It is no wonder that some history museums have come up with the concept of story-telling museum with interactive computer support and immersive visualization. In such museums, history is no longer depicted by touch-me-not exhibits. It is now an inclusive personal experience enjoyed by visitors.
21
2.3 SOCIAL CHARACTER - WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT SOCIAL?
Drawing by Jennifer Rae Atkins Not all objects are naturally social. A social object is one that connects the people who create, own, use, critique, or consume it. Social objects are transactional, facilitating exchanges among those who encounter them. For example, one of my most reliable social objects is my dog. When I walk around town with my dog, lots of people talk to me, or, more precisely, talk through the dog to me. The dog allows for transference of attention from person-to-person to person-to-object-to-person. It’s much less threatening to engage someone by approaching and interacting with her dog, which will inevitably lead to interaction with its owner. Scouting around one’s social surrounding to identify such objects which enables and establishes such a social conversation is a social object.
2.3.1Making Objects More Social Most social object experiences are fleeting and inconsistent. For social object experiences to work repeatedly for a wide diversity of users or visitors, day after day, design tweaks can make an object more personal, active, provocative, or relational. For Example, Fort Siloso, Sentosa Island, Singapore, which is a Museum housing the history of Singapore houses a cannon which is operable. This on the press of a button swivels and simulates a cannon shot, recoil and sounds included. This makes the experience all the more exciting and gives the person the key to deriving his own personalised experience of the place.
22
2.3.2 Designing Platforms for Social Objects What makes an interpretative strategy explicitly social? Social platforms focus primarily on providing tools for visitors to engage with each other around objects. While attractive and functional presentation of objects is still important, it is secondary to promoting opportunities for visitors to discuss and share them. Drawing a comparison between a standard exhibition of works of art against the prowess of a rather abstract entity, the internet site, Flickr. In a traditional museum photo exhibition, visitors can look at photographs hanging on the walls. Information regarding the concept of the photograph and its creator, etc. are provided coupled with information such as year, place, etc. In some installations, visitors may be able to share personal thoughts about the photographs in a comment book at the entrance or exit to the gallery. The institution also typically offers visitors the chance to buy reproductions of some of the photographs in a catalogue or postcard set in the museum’s retail shop.
In a typical photography exhibition, visitors can look and learn, but they can’t leave comments or share the images with others as they browse. Social use of the photos is visitor-directed and may or may not be institutionally supported. Photo by Linda Norris. Contrast these to the visitor actions supported by Flickr. On Flickr, users can look at photos. They can read information about each photo and its creator. They can leave comments on each photo. They can mark particular images as favorites in their personal collections of favorites. They can make notes directly on sub-areas of photos to mark details of interest. They can add tags and geocodes that serve as descriptive keywords for each photo. They can view the comments, notes, 23
and tags created by other users who have looked at each photo. They can send personal messages to each photo’s creator, or to other commenters, with questions or comments. They can invite photographers to submit their photos to special groups or virtual galleries. They can send individual photos to friends by email, or embed them in blog posts or entries on other social networks. They can talk about each photo on Flickr and elsewhere. Flickr supports a long list of social behaviors that are not available in museums and galleries. This doesn’t mean that Flickr provides a better overall photography exhibition experience. From an aesthetic perspective, it is much more appealing to see photographs beautifully mounted and lit than arranged digitally amidst a jumble of text. When activated, the “notes” function on Flickr deliberately obscures the view of a photo by covering the image in rectangles indicating the locations of noted details. Providing social platforms for objects has design implications that can diminish the aesthetic power of the artifact.
2.3.3 Social Platforms in the Real World Is it possible to replicate the social functionality of Flickr in a physical exhibition space? You may not be able to write a note directly on an artifact, but museums and physical environments provide other social design opportunities that are impossible to simulate virtually. People use different social tools and transactions in different environments, and not all activities that work virtually translate well to physical environments. For example, in the real world, oversized objects often function as social objects because they are surprising and can be experienced by many people at once. There’s no way to design a comparable virtual object that suddenly and completely overwhelms several strangers’ sensory experience. Highly designed immersive environments, which provide context that may make some artifacts feel more active or provocative, are another example of a physical design platform that can accentuate the sociality of objects.
2.3.4 Tours and Facilitated Social Experiences Interaction with the Museum staff by means of presentations, demonstrations, tours, etc. facilitate a social interaction with the space through the staff as the buffer. Staff members are uniquely capable of making objects personal, active, provocative, or relational by asking visitors to engage with them in different ways.
24
2.3.5 Making Tours and Presentations More Social What makes a tour or object demonstration more social? Involving the direct participation of the visitors in a demonstration heightens the educational and social quotients of the space. Demonstrations that involve “guests from the audience” or encourage small groups of visitors to handle objects allow visitors to confidently connect with objects in a personal way. Staff members who ask meaningful questions, give visitors time to respond, and facilitate group conversations can make unique and powerful social experiences possible.
2.3.7 Facilitating Dialogue Instead of Putting on a Show When staff members are trained to facilitate discussion rather than deliver content, new opportunities for social engagement emerge. Learning to facilitate dialogue is an art. While there are entire books written on the topic, the general principles to facilitate and sustain a dialogue are similar to those for designing civic participatory environments. Respect participants’ diverse contributions. Listen thoughtfully. Respond to participants’ questions and thoughts instead of pushing your own agenda. And provide a safe, structured environment for doing so.
2.3.8 Provocative Exhibition Design Live interpretation is not always possible, practical, or desired by visitors. Even without live interpreters, there are ways to design provocative, active settings for objects that can generate dialogue. Just as dramatic lighting can give objects emotional power, placing objects in “conversation” with each other can enhance their social use. When visitors encounter surprising design choices or objects that don’t seem to go together, a sort of eclecticism, it raises questions in their minds, and they frequently seek out opportunities to respond and discuss their experiences.
2.3.9 Provocation through Juxtaposition One of the most powerful and simple ways to provoke social response is through juxtaposition. Rarely employed in online platforms, juxtaposition of artifacts has been the basis for several ground-breaking exhibitions, including Fred Wilson’s Mining the Museum, presented in 1992 at the Maryland Historical Society. Wilson selected artifacts from the Historical Society’s collection—objects that were overlooked or might have been perceived to have little evocative power—and used them as the basis for highly provocative, active, relational exhibits. He 25
placed a fancy silver tea set alongside a pair of slave shackles, paired busts of white male statesmen with empty nameplates for African-American heroes, and contrasted a Ku Klux Klan robe with a baby carriage. While the objects in Mining the Museum were (for the most part) unremarkable, the platform on which they were presented added a provocative, relational layer to their presentation. This translated to a more social reception by visitors. Juxtaposition implies obvious questions: “Why are these here and those missing?” “What’s going on here?” Curators and museum educators often ask questions like this, but these questions can fall flat when presented as teachable moments. In Mining the Museum, these questions were not explicit but bubbled naturally to the top of visitors’ minds, and so people sought out opportunities for dialogue.
2.3.10 Provocation through Fiction Fred Wilson didn’t just place objects in dialogue with each other; he also wrote labels and interpretative material that deliberately twisted the meaning of the artifacts on display. Artist David Wilson uses a similar technique at the Museum of Jurassic Technology in Los Angeles, which showcases very odd objects alongside labels that couple an authoritative tone with fantastical content. These artists play games with the ways cultural institutions describe and attribute meaning to artifacts in museums. By doing so, they invite visitors to question what’s going on in an exhibition or institution.
2.3.12 Institutional Sharing There are many designed ways, from exhibits to interactives to programs to performances, that cultural institutions share their objects with visitors. These sharing techniques are largely governed by two sometimes conflicting goals: offering high-quality object experiences to visitors and preserving collections safely. Museums must be able to ensure that objects will not be unreasonably damaged or endangered. Typically, this involves housing artifacts in cases, designing mediating technologies for visitor consumption, and storing and caring for objects out of public view when necessary. Why is sharing objects important? At a conceptual level, the extent to which an institution shares its objects affects whether people see the institution as a publicly owned utility or a private collection. What the staff considers protecting 26
and conserving, some visitors may see as hoarding. Museum mission statements often talk about the collections being in the public trust, but from the public’s perspective, the objects are owned by the building that houses them. Visitors can’t visit objects whenever they like. They can’t take them home or get too close. Museums share their objects parsimoniously, at strict and rule-bound visiting hours, often for a fee.
2.3.13 CASE STUDY: Sharing Artifacts at the Glasgow Open Museum The Glasgow Open Museum stands out as an institution whose mission is to share artifacts with visitors for their own use. The Open Museum started in 1989 as a project of the Glasgow Museum to “widen ownership of the city’s collection.” The Open Museum lends objects to visitors for their own collections and displays, provides expert advice on conservation and presentation of objects, and organizes community partnerships to help community groups create their own exhibitions. Through the early 1990s, the Open Museum reached out specifically to partner with marginalized groups like prisoners, mental health patients, and senior citizens. Community members produced exhibitions in their own hospitals, community centers, and at the Open Museum on controversial topics from homelessness to breast-feeding to food poverty. In its first ten years, the Open Museum’s community partners created 884 exhibitions that were visited by hundreds of thousands of people.
From 1999-2000, the Glasgow Open Museum shared over 800 objects with diverse community groups across the city. In an extensive impact study completed in 2002, researchers identified three key impacts on participants: new opportunities for learning and growth, increased self-confidence, and changed perception of museums from “stuffy” places to being highly relevant to their own lives. They also determined that physical 27
objects played a unique role in validating diverse cultural experiences, acting as catalysts for self-expression, and enhancing learning. Finally, the researchers commented that “the more focused the experience was on the needs of the individuals, the greater the impact.” This was true both for participants and spectators. By inviting visitors to use what they needed from the institution, the Open Museum became a truly audience-centric place.
2.4Culture and the Museum Space (Cumberland Lodge Conference 2004): The fixed view of the identity of museums has sometimes been firmly held and, until recently, little has disturbed it. But it is a mistake to assume that there is only one form of reality for museums, only one fixed mode of operating. Looking back into the history of museums, the realities of museums have changed many times. Museums have always had to modify how they worked, and what they did, according to the context, the plays of power, and the social, economic, and political imperatives that surrounded them. Museums, in common with all other social institutions, serve many masters, and must play many tunes accordingly. Perhaps success can be defined by the ability to balance all the tunes that must be played and still make the sound worth listening to. At the present time, in many areas where decisions are now being made about the funding and maintenance of museums, hard questions are now being asked about the justification of museums, about their role in the community, and their functions and potentials (HooperGreenhill, 1992:1). 2.4.1 Are museums getting better at the expense of collecting? Julian Spalding’s paper presented a substantial body of evidence to support the hypothesis that museums were not only failing to collect, but also seemed unable to discern the ‘big stories’ – those narratives which had contemporary cultural significance. Without the impetus to collect, a museum loses its dynamism, its reason for existing; it feeds purely on the premise that culture is dead. Rather, a museum is there to inspire you, connecting one with the past, initiating an identity discovery process. Collecting for display and collecting for research, according to Spalding, had long been the two principal activities of museums; however, things were now quite different. He explained: I think we are at a point where we have to rethink those processes, and make some decisions about what we want to do 28
and what we want to collect for the future. On the whole, museums have remarkably lost their nerve about collecting, and lost the purpose of collecting; it’s ceased to become the main purpose. They have become much more concerned with trying to communicate, trying to provide access, trying to reach new audiences, trying to educate, and they are much less concerned about actually acquiring and actually adding to those collections. And I think this is symptomatic of something that’s a real fundamental change and turning point in the whole of the museum business which is happening now. 2.4.2 In what ways can museum exhibitions promote or create a sense of personal, national and/or cultural identity? The museums possess the power to construct meaning positions, and identities through the use of objects. With reference to the newly opened National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, Tiffany Jenkins revealed how American Indians had been consulted to ensure a pure and authoritative interpretation of their history. In effect, they influenced every decision, including the design of the building, the role of the museum, selective conservation and rights of access to sacred objects. The understanding which this museum, and similar museums in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, promoted was that, ‘originating cultures and their affiliated people today are the only people who can speak to that past. There is a problem with the argument that certain communities own culture over others; it’s premised on the idea that cultural material has an essence best understood by the ethnicity of the originating place of that object’. For Jenkins, while cultural production was fluid, open to influence, hybridized and never pure, so too were peoples who interbred with different social groups. 2.4.3 Who owns culture and what issues are raised by post-colonial collections? Taking the case of the British Museum, whose high profile collection is largely composed of objects from Britain’s colonial past, issues such as cultural ownership and interpretation are crucial. Drawing on his personal experience at the BM, Jonathan Williams explained how the museum’s functions of collecting, interpreting and creating a sense of personal and national identity, had developed over the last two hundred and fifty years. He explained: If the 20th Century was a century characterised by conflicts of ideology, the 21st Century is all about conflicts of identity . . . I think our current concern with questions of culture and identity 29
and our increased awareness of their potentially explosive sensitivity, is more about this than about post-colonialism, though clearly the two developments intersect in interesting ways . . . political ideology and social class are not the only things which unite and divide us. Other, older ingredients in human identity – religion, culture, language have gained prominence and shown themselves to be anything but blandly harmless objects of benign curiosity . . . Culture came out of the museum, arm-in-arm with religion it has asserted itself as a driving force for re-establishing or inventing afresh communal identities . Making a case for the way in which religious extremism had rendered an understanding of cultural heritage and cross-cultural dialogue problematic, Williams discredited the ‘archipelago idea of culture’ which was often espoused by cultural institutions and movements which sought to preserve and promote indigenous cultures. To make a counter claim to this mind-set, Williams quoted from a number of statements from the UNESCO website, on the theme of ‘intercultural dialogue’. While each culture draws from its own roots, it must fail to blossom without contact with other cultures. It is not therefore, a matter of identifying and safeguarding every culture in isolation, but rather of revitalising them in order to avoid segregation and cultural entrenchment and prevent conflict. If it is accepted that no culture is pure, but rather hybridised and plural, should it be acknowledged that the arguments for maintaining post-colonial collections intact outweigh the moral grounds of the repatriation lobby? As if to buttress his argument, Williams disclosed that the trustees of the BM had not only reappraised their national and international loan scheme, thereby making the collection available to museums across the globe, but also divulged that it was to be marketed as a core function of the ‘universal museum’. No one could doubt that this gesture had the potential to foster good local, national and international relations.
2.5 Museum as Heterotopia – A theorization by Michel Foucault A heterotopia is a space of difference, a space that is absolutely central to a culture but in which the relations between elements of a culture are suspended, neutralized, or reversed. Unlike utopias, heterotopias are real places ‘designed into the very institution of society’ in which all the other real emplacements of a culture are ‘at the same time, represented, contested, and reversed, sorts of places that are outside all places, although they are actually 30
localizable’ (Foucault 1998: 178). Foucault’s prime examples of the heterotopia are the cemetery and the ship: the cemetery is a different place compared with ordinary cultural spaces; it is a space of the difference of life and death, duration and eternity; and yet it is a space that is connected to all the othe emplacements of the society, since every individual and family has relatives in the cemetery. The ship is ‘a piece of floating space, a placeless place’; it functions according to its own rules in the space between ports, between cultures, between stable points (Foucault 1998: 185). Holiday resorts, gardens, fairs, theme parks, cinemas and museums are also heterotopian for Foucault: they are those sites in a culture designated as spaces of difference, spaces in which ordinary relations within the culture are made and allowed to be other. Like hospitals, prisons, and schools, museums are instances of state power as it is embodied in the built environment; like encyclopaedias and libraries, museums are monuments of the eighteenth-century drive to categorize, classify, and order the world into a totality universal in scope and universally intelligible. The museum can be – and has been characterized as an Enlightenment institution whose power to collect and display objects is a function of capitalism and imperialism, and whose power to form individuals is exercised through the careful and ordered deployment of knowledge within an institutionally controlled and publicly monitored space (see, e.g., HooperGreenhill 1989, 1992, 2000; Bennett 1995; Pearce 1992; Crimp 1983; Luke 2002). From this broadly Foucaultian perspective, the museum might be considered an example of the worst sort of Enlightenment tendencies to totalize, categorize and control the world.
When the museum is understood essentially as a heterotopia or space of difference, it becomes clear that the museum can perform Foucault’s own historical methodology of genealogy. It is in this sense that the museum can contribute to progress. Progress, understood in Foucault’s sense, is not the necessary progress of ‘total history’, nor a teleological progress towards a goal or ideal; it is, rather, progress as the growth of capabilities to resist and transgress systems that cast power relations and historical events as fixed and necessary (see Hoy 1986: 138-45). It is to this type of progress, associated with Foucault’s genealogy and ‘general history’ (2002: 7-10), that the museum can contribute. In this sense, the museum is seen to be a document of postmodernism as much as it is a document of the Enlightenment. To understand how Foucault characterizes the museum, we need to return to the notion of the heterotopia developed in ‘Different Spaces’. This notion is alternatively – and better – elucidated in The Order of Things (to which we will return), but in ‘Different Spaces’ it is linked specifically to the museum. The heterotopia is a space of difference, in which ordinary cultural emplacements are brought together and represented, contested, and reversed. Sacred and 31
forbidden spaces, ‘crisis’ spaces, and spaces for holding deviant individuals are included in this definition. Heterotopias are spatially isolated places that juxtapose incompatible objects and discontinuous times, and have ‘the role of creating a space of illusion that denounces all real space, all real emplacements as being even more illusory’ (Foucault 1998: 184). Thus cinemas and meticulously organized gardens are heterotopias; in presenting an illusory version of human life or nature they question and contest the ‘real’ order of things. The concept of heterotopia has often been used in discussions of place in geography, architectural theory, and studies of the built environment, linked to non-places, spaces of conflict, or alienating spaces (e.g. Soja 1989, Lefebvre 1991). It has also been frequently invoked in museum studies (e.g. Bennett 1995; Rogoff 1994; Kahn 1995; Belting 2001). While these studies generally accept that the museum is a heterotopia, they give almost no sense of how or why it is one. It is a significant concept because it has the potential to shift the definition of the museum away from objects and collections and towards difference. What is it that makes the museum a heterotopia? Foucault suggests a spatial aspect and a temporal aspect: the museum brings together disparate objects from different times in a single space that attempts to enclose the totality of time – a totality that is protected from time’s erosion. The museum thus engages in a double paradox: it contains infinite time in a finite space, and it is both a space of time and a ‘timeless’ space. What makes it a heterotopia, then, appears to be threefold: its juxtaposition of temporally discontinuous objects, its attempt to present the totality of time, and its isolation, as an entire space, from normal temporal continuity. The museum is likened to another heterotopia, the holiday village that promises a temporary return to a lost ‘natural’ way of life: in visiting, ‘one abolishes time, but time is also regained, the whole history of humanity goes back to its source as if in a kind of grand immediate knowledge’ (Foucault 1998: 183). As rich as it is in describing the museum’s relation to time, Foucault’s account limits the museum to being a space that contains and represents the totality of history. But museums have not always been characterized by this endeavour to present all of history, and they need not be characterized in this way. The museum as a ‘heterotopia of time that accumulates indefinitely’ (Foucault 1998: 182) is not part of the essential definition of a museum, but is historically contingent, as Foucault acknowledges: Museums and libraries are heterotopias in which time never ceases to pile up and perch on its own summit, whereas in the seventeenth century, and up to the end of the seventeenth century still, museums and libraries were the expression of an individual choice. By contrast, the idea of accumulating everything, the idea of constituting a sort of general archive, the desire to contain all times, all ages, all forms, all tastes in one place, the idea of constituting a place of all times that is itself outside time and protected from its erosion, the project of thus organizing a kind of perpetual and indefinite accumulation of time in a place that will not move – well, in fact, all this belongs to our modernity. The museum and the library are heterotopias that are characteristic of Western culture in the nineteenth century. (Foucault 1998: 182) 32
Characterizing the museum as a space of time limits the museum to the form, aims and activities it took on in the nineteenth century. Extending Foucault’s own analysis of the epistemic shifts in The Order of Things, it is only in the nineteenth century, when time, history, and evolution become the dominant ideas governing the organization and display of collections, that museums become concerned with exhibiting objects as historical and with presenting the totality of time (1970: 263-79). Museums today for the most part no longer aim to ‘accumulate everything’ or to ‘constitute a place of all times that is itself outside time’: as Hooper-Greenhill states, ‘the great collecting phase of museums is over’ (2000: 152). Nor, as Foucault’s analysis implies, did collectors of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries generally have the aim to present total history (see Bennett 1995: 96). Differences exist between museums of different eras and types, and ideas about the museum’s purpose have changed historically. For Foucault, then, the museum’s attempt to present the totality of time is historically contingent. Yet if the seventeenthcentury cabinet of curiosities and the twenty-first-century science museum are no less heterotopian than the nineteenth-century universal museum, then the heterotopian nature of the museum can in no way depend on the representation of temporal discontinuity or on the presentation of the totality of history.
In what way, then, is the museum essentially a heterotopia, through all its historical changes and differences in type? Perhaps it is the spatial aspect, the juxtaposition of temporally discontinuous objects, that makes it heterotopian. But surely it is not enough to say that the museum brings together different objects from different places and eras. Many museums, certainly the great universal museums of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, do this. But museums today often bring together objects by virtue of their geographical or functional similarity: the objects displayed in the Tank Museum in Dorset, for instance, are almost exclusively armoured manoeuvred vehicles from a limited geographical and historical range. Many museums use fabricated objects to illustrate the concepts and principles that are the real content of the display: the Wellcome Wing at the Science Museum, London communicates complex ideas from the biomedical sciences using a large number of interactive, non-object-based exhibits. Many museums today rely less on objects than they do on narrative and the experience of an architectural space (cf. Belting 2001: 80), two examples being the Jewish Museum Berlin and Imperial War Museum North in Salford (both in Daniel Libeskind buildings). To define the museum as a heterotopia because it is a space of different objects is either banal (a supermarket is also a space of different objects) or overly reliant on the notion, associated with the nineteenth-century museum, of a ‘timeless’ storehouse of temporally discontinuous objects. Perhaps inevitably such a definition ends 33
up comparing the museum with the cemetery or an abstract ‘space of accumulation’ (Lefebvre 1991: 263). The threefold explanation of the museum as heterotopia implied by ‘Different Spaces’ fails to account for what the museum is and has been. In order to understand how the museum is in its essence a heterotopia, and to show why that designation is crucial for demonstrating the progressive potential of the museum, we need to consider the heterotopia literally as a space of difference. We need to focus on Foucault’s claim that heterotopias represent, contest, and reverse the cultural order to which they are linked. This suggests that the museum does not only represent objects that are different from one another, but that it represents objects in their difference from the conceptual orders in which those objects would normally be understood. The museum is a heterotopia not because it contains different objects, nor because it contains or juxtaposes different times, but rather because it presents a more profound kind of difference: the difference between objects and concepts. What every museum displays, in one form or other, is the difference inherent in interpretation. Interpretation is the relation between things and the words used to describe them, and this relation always involves a gap. Museums need not contain artefacts and need not contain text; sometimes interpretation is implicit and hidden. But without interpretation, without representing a relation between things and conceptual structures, an institution is not a museum, but a storehouse. The museum is the space in which the difference inherent in its content is experienced. It is the difference between things and words, or between objects and conceptual structures: what Foucault calls the ‘space of representation’ (1970: 130). As we will see, the space of representation is the heterotopia.
Interpretation and representation are intrinsically connected here. Interpretation in the museum is the way that objects are conceptually explicated. Representation, in the very specific context in which Foucault uses it, is the space between things and ways of conceptualizing them. The museum would be impossible without this epistemic space of representation that opens up with the dissolution, in the early modern period, of the idea that things and concepts are necessarily and divinely connected: ‘signs were then part of things themselves, whereas in the seventeenth century they become modes of representation’ (Foucault 1970: 129). Once conceptual systems are taken to be products of human reason, a space or gap opens u between mind and world, concept and thing, les mots et les choses. This gap starts to be evident in the intellectual developments of the mid-seventeenth century – that crucial moment of epistemic rupture that Foucault describes in The Order of Things. Whereas this gap did not exist under the pre-modern metaphysical assumption that true concepts and things are perfectly adequate to one another in a universe created by God, once the world is considered to be conceptually constituted by rationality – a conviction that starts with Descartes and reaches its height with Kant – there arise insurmountable doubts about 34
the adequacy of conceptual schemes to objects. The general eighteenthcentury philosophical concern over whether and how the mind can adequately represent the world responds to this doubt. In modernity, the gap between words and things cannot be closed, but can only be bridged. Enlightenment philosophy is characterized by the need to provide a theory of representation that will justify the application of concepts to the world, and the simultaneous recognition that such theories will never be fully adequate and such concepts will always be limited in their use. What is new about the seventeenth century, for Foucault, is that this problem of representation enters into all fields of knowledge and transforms them. ‘Natural history finds its locus in the gap that is now opened up between things and words’ (Foucault 1970: 129-30). Collections and displays of objects existed before the seventeenth century, but the ‘space of representation’ makes possible an institution that interprets objects; an institution that puts on display the ways that objects are conceptually understood. The fact that early museums displayed their collections wordlessly is, curiously, evidence that interpretation had become their very essence. The objects on display are ‘already virtually analysed’ by being grouped according to a system of classification or the ‘order of nature’. Museums, from their beginnings to the present day, do not only display objects, but display the ways in which objects are related to words, names, and concepts: they display systems of representation. Museums are centrally concerned with that problem of seventeenth and eighteenth century philosophy: how can the things of the world be adequately represented in the conceptual systems of reason? And museums are met by the same problem, that conceptual systems will always fall short of perfect adequacy to the world. By putting ‘the order of things’ itself on display, museums are spaces for representing the space of representation as such.
The eighteenth-century museum, in offering virtually no textual interpretation for its objects or the order that brings them together, requires the visitor to reflect upon the order of objects presented and its adequacy to the plenitude of nature. The authoritative, text-heavy displays that arise in nineteenthcentury museums as the result of pedagogic, sociological and political changes in the museum idea (see Bennett 1995; Hooper-Greenhill 1992, 2000) do not altogether remove that requirement but simply present it differently. The nineteenth-century museum display is didactic in presenting the order of things as historical and progressive, and eaves little room for contesting curatorial authority. The visitor is still asked to reflect upon the order of objects presented, but is now asked to reflect upon the evidence for the rightness of that order. Despite the limited opportunities for contestation, the nineteenth-century museum is still a space of representation. Malraux’s remark that the museum forces us to question the principle that brings together the different expressions of the world that it displays (1956: 15) is, after all, directed at the nineteenth-century museum. Examples of the nineteenth-century museum type (or what Hooper-Greenhill [2000] calls the ‘modernist museum’, for it persisted well into the twentieth century) are still 35
prevalent across Europe; the natural history exhibitions at the Royal Museum (part of the National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh), are good examples of the didactic mode of display. Examples of the eighteenth-century museum type are less common. While the comparative anatomy gallery at the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle in Paris is close to being an ‘original’ example,3 the British Museum’s Enlightenment Gallery, which replicates an eighteenthcentury exhibition, perhaps gives us the best example of this mode of display. The Enlightenment Gallery displays closely-packed objects on high shelves with little or no textual interpretation; the undeclared order of things is on display, its adequacy to represent nature open to contestation. It asks the visitor to reflect upon the adequacy of the conceptual order to the things, to consider what brings those things together, and to bring other interpretations to bear; it puts representation itself on display.
Over the last thirty years or so, with increasing recognition of the limitations of the didactic model, and with socially and culturally inclusive learning now a primary aim for museums, many museum displays today explicitly encourage visitors to consider how objects are related to concepts and categories and whether they might be interpreted otherwise, in other social or cultural orders. Interestingly, there is a current trend for this to be realized in ‘Enlightenment’ styles of display, with objects presented in high-density display units (sometimes indistinguishable from visible storage), in non-chronological orders, with minimal interpretation. Examples of the use of the ‘Enlightenment’ model can be found at the Darwin Centre at the Natural History Museum, London (Phase One opened 2002), the Warwickshire historic house/ art gallery Compton Verney (opened 2004), and the Joey and Toby Tanenbaum Gallery of China at the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto (opened 2005). By cutting down on authoritative interpretative text and putting objects in unexpected orders, all encourage multiple ways of relating things and concepts. Hooper-Greenhill, in her description of the ‘post-museum’, shows how museums increasingly allow multiple voices to be heard and encourage plural interpretations (2000: 140-62). But she sees the possibility of multiple and contesting relations of things and concepts as a fundamentally new development in museums, rather than being implicit in what the museum is. I suggest instead that throughout its development, the museum represents systems of applying concepts to objects, and is a space for presenting, reflecting upon and contesting the relation between concepts and things. Museums are fundamentally not about objects but about representation, and anything that operates as a space of representation can be called a museum.
Understanding the museum as space of representation is an extension of understanding it as a heterotopia. The museum is a space of difference not only in the spatial sense of bringing different objects together, but primarily in 36
the sense of the difference inherent in its content. Because the content of the museum is interpretation, the ways in which objects are explicated, that difference is the space between objects and conceptual systems for understanding them. As a space of representation, the museum is a space of difference. Foucault’s museum is not a funereal storehouse of objects from different times, but an experience of the gap between things and the conceptual and cultural orders in which they are interpreted.
2.6 Culture Led Regeneration 2.6.1 Introduction From the 1980s onwards culture-led regeneration has been used as a strategy throughout Europe for regenerating and revitalising cities and regions which have suffered social and economic problems through de-industrialisation. These strategies have undoubtedly been successful in a number of different cities throughout the UK and Europe. Culture-led Regeneration, Regional Identity and the North East Culture-led regeneration can be understood as the use of cultural projects to revitalise economically depressed cities and regions. This can involve the promotion of arts-based events and attractions along with encouraging the development of high quality housing and retail, and the attraction of professional businesses to the area. Culture-led regeneration programmes are implemented in order to foster a new image for a city or region (Doucet, 2007: 5-6). The shift to a globalised economy has seen increasing competitiveness between cities, meaning that they must now vie for investment and status on a global scale. In the last twenty-five years post-industrial cities have increasingly adopted strategies of culture-led regeneration in order to revitalise stagnant economies and solve problems of unemployment and deprivation. As Keating and De Frantz (2004: 190) explain: In a crowded international market, it can mark the city as distinct, giving it a brand image. This can indirectly promote its economic competitiveness by increasing its position in the quality-life indexes of international investment rankings. It may also have a psychological effect within the city, building selfconfidence and civic pride among the population and even boosting optimism among investors. Culture-led regeneration has been used extensively around Europe (Gomez 1998; Keating and De Frantz, 2004; Miles, 2005). The Bilbao region of Spain is often cited as one of the most successful examples. Beset with economic decline and social deprivation, the Bilbao region was revitalised with the 1997 opening of the Guggenheim Museum playing a central role in changing the fortunes of the region. Indeed, a number of European cities have attempted to achieve their own version of the ‘Guggenheim Effect’, often by placing flagship artistic or cultural 37
projects at the centre of their regeneration schemes. These flagship projects are predominantly located in ‘high-profile’ areas such as city centres or waterfront locations (Healy et al., 1992). Recent examples in the UK include the Tate Modern and Renzo Piano’s ‘Shard of Glass’ on the London Docklands, the Millennium Galleries and Winter Garden in Sheffield and the redevelopment of Salford Quays. Elsewhere in Europe both Berlin and Barcelona have carried out extensive cultural regeneration schemes.
An important milestone in the regeneration of the North East was the establishment of the NewcastleGateshead Initiative in 2000. While the 1998 unveiling of the Angel of North sculpture provided a highly visible landmark for the North East of England, a coherent regeneration strategy had not existed until this point. The Initiative involved the councils of Newcastle on the north bank of the Tyne, and Gateshead on the south working together and promoting the conurbation as a single entity. Following the European model of high-profile city centre/waterfront regeneration, the river that divided the two urban areas became a key focal point providing the location for several flagship regeneration projects. Through cultural promotion and high-profile marketing the Newcastle Gateshead Initiative aims to position Newcastle Gateshead as a leading European destination for leisure, business and tourism, and in doing so create a new identity for Tyneside and the wider North-East region (Newcastle Gateshead, 2008). 2.6.2 EVALUATING THE INFLUENCE OF A LARGE CULTURAL ARTIFACT IN THE ATTRACTION OF TOURISM The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao Case Bilbao is an outstanding test case for the impact of an internationally famous cultural facility in a context that otherwise does not lend itself to large flows of tourism. The aim is to quantify the influence of the Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao in the attraction of tourism and to identify the potential factors that explain such an impact. 2.6.2.1 FOCUSING ON TOURISM PROMOTION The city of Bilbao is located in the north of Spain, a short distance from France. Spain’s largest port and fourth-largest city, the population of metropolitan Bilbao is 905,866. As the economic and financial capital of the Basque Country, Bilbao’s gross national product (GNP) per habitant is 95% of the European Union average and 120% of the average of Spain as a whole (see Figure 1). Founded in 1300, Bilbao reached peak prosperity during the industrial revolution and remained Spain’s northern capital of steel and shipping up until 1975, when the recession struck and turned it into a decaying backwater. Between 1979 and 1985, almost 25% of the industrial jobs in metropolitan Bilbao were lost, and a relevant part of the economic structure deteriorated. In the late 1980s, city authorities began to take the tourism industry seriously 38
as a source of job creation that could fill the gaps left by declines in older industries. Image policy was also planned to have a positive effect on the reputation of Bilbao as a business center, with the principal aim of encouraging the local entrepreneurs’ pride, undermined by both the economic crisis and the violence of the ETA(ETAis a terrorist group that demands separation of the Basque Country from Spain). Local leaders in the 1980s had very little experience in marketing the city, which had few renowned cultural assets to attract leisure tourism (the Bilbao Museum of Fine Arts, the Archaeological-Ethnographic Museum, two symphonic orchestras, a theater, and twomovie theaters) and unpleasant weather (the annual rainfall is about 1,500 liters per square meter). Moreover, the city lacked a positive image as a consequence of industrial depravation and the terrorism of the ETA. Promoted by the Basque administration and Bilbao Metrópoli 30—aprivatepublic partnership—Bilbao began developing ambitious projects such as the futurist subway system designed by Norman Foster and the newGuggenheim Museum. The plan also includes a transportation hub designed by architects MichaelWilford and James Stirling, a new airport by architect and engineer Santiago Calatrava, and a vast waterfront development of parks, apartments, offices, and stores adjacent to the Guggenheim, designed by Cesar Pelli. Guggenheim Museum Bilbao was intended to be the core attraction for tourism in a city not known for its tourist attractions in order to revitalize its economy. Therefore, the key question is the following: How much additional tourism, if any, can be attributed to the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao from its opening in October 1997? Tourist growth inflow to the Basque Country may be a result of the worldwide growth in tourism, the favorable business cycle, the dynamism of the International Fair Center of Bilbao, the increasing attractiveness of San Sebastian (previously the main leisure tourism destination in the Basque Country), or even the cease-fire declared by the ETA in September 1998, which ended in December 1999. Results show that the number of incoming travelers to the Basque Country rose from the opening of the museum onwards (October 1997). Figures show an average increment of 31,453 incoming travelers per month, 10,381 of whom are foreigners—that is, a significant 33%. The level of occupation of the hotels also is higher, having improved from a 37.8% average to a higher 46.6%. A visitor increase to the Guggenheim leads to a 0.175 increase in the number of incoming travellers to the Basque Country. From the opening date of the museum, an average of 98,035 people visited it monthly, which generated an additional monthly average inflow of 17,156 visitors to the Basque 39
for 54% of the growth in tourism experienced by the Basque Country from October 1997 to January 2000—that is, 17,156 visitors out of the total 31,453 average increase per month. With regard to foreigners, the museum accounts for almost 44% of the growth, whereas the effect rises to 55% in the case of Spaniards. As far as the overnight stays are concerned, a one-visitor increase to the Guggenheim leads to a 0.284 increment in the amount of overnight stays the total 55,459 average increment per month are attributed to the museum, that is, a significant 50% of the growth. As a consequence, the level of occupation of the hotels has improved from a 37.8% average to a higher 46.6%. In the case of foreign tourism, the Guggenheim explains 42.7% of the increment, whereas the effect on the overnight stays of Spaniards rises to 58%. Interestingly, occupancy indices are considerably higher for the top-end range of the hotels (85%), whereas the average level remains low (46.6%). This attests to the nature of tourism that Bilbao is generating. A significant
portion of the museum attendees is concentrated in the upper end of the income scale and is therefore in a position to incur high expenses with the corresponding multiplying effects in the city. In conclusion, the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao exerts an important effect on the attraction of tourism. 2.6.2.2THE GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM BILBAO’S ATTRACTION Judging by the first evaluation undertaken by Thomas Krens, director of the Guggenheim Foundation New York, the principal motive that inspires tourists to visit the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao is the magnetism of Frank Gehry’s building3 itself (Krens 1999) . The research demands an evaluation of additional motivations, such as the 40
link between the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao and the Solomon Guggenheim Foundation New York. The Guggenheim brand denotes prestige. Still, the Guggenheim has already inaugurated a downtown branch in SoHo (NewYork) that failed to attract the expected attendance and has had to rent part of its ground floor to the Italian boutique Prada. Consequently, although helpful, the label Guggenheim may be insufficient under certain circumstances. Nevertheless, the Solomon Guggenheim connection gave the Basque authorities access to the famed architect Frank Gehry, who would have otherwise been unavailable. On the other hand, the Guggenheim link connects the Bilbao museum to the U.S. market. The consumed quantity of the Guggenheim image increases even more to the extent that its silhouette is conducted through North American news agencies that enjoy a monopoly power worldwide. As Stigler and Becker (1977) pointed out, the utility derived from the consumption of art depends on the consumed quantity, as well as the ability to appreciate art, which in turn is a function of past consumption of art. In other words, the diffusion of Frank Gehry’s masterpiece’s image through printed and audiovisuals means of communication is making the museum a fashionable imperative for tourists (Plaza 1999).
2.7 The Spatialization of Knowledge and Social Relationships Recent literature on museums has covered both changing social concepts which lie behind the way in which we design museums, and the spatial layout of museums themselves. Few texts, however, have attempted to bring these two aspects of debate together into a single theoretical framework. Introduction: the spatial implications of social concepts of the museum Over the past two decades, a rich literature has emerged on the museum as a distinctive social phenomenon in modern society. Seen at its broadest, the relevant literature incudes: - Social theorists like Foucault and Bourdieu whose writings have been highly influential in museum studies. - Writers like Bennett, Hooper-Greenhill and Duncan who have tried to focus on the social functions of the changing design of museums The most influential social theorist has probably been Michel Foucault. One of his most critical concepts has been the discontinuity of knowledge. According to this concept, the modern episteme emerged at about the end of eighteenth century, that was also the time museums became public.Knowledge was transferred from the visible to the invisible. To know something now means to know things in their context of time and function. Foucault's idea about this discontinuity has great influence on Hooper-Greenhill's study on the space of museum. In her study Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge in 1992, through the idea of the epistemes provided by Foucault's concept of discontinuity she has analysed several European museums, looking at the way they have shaped knowledge. According 41
to her study on the Medici Palace which has been regarded by other scholars as the first museum in Europe, there was a 'general epistemic field' functioning to articulate the different discourses on private domestic space, material things, wealth —— and so on. The general epistemic field included older practices - such as the medieval cosmology, and the newer practices such as mercantilism. She argued that the articulation of different discourses made the space of the Medici Palace the identity and symbol of the social hierarchy of a feudal society (Hooper-Greenhill 92:47-77). Therefore from Hooper-Greenhill's point of view, the architectural space of museum is an embodiment of the meanings of the objects that were arranged and interpreted in their relations to the epistemes. The shaping of knowledge that Hooper-Greenhill was focusing on, can be readily identified as closely related to Foucault's The Order of Things. The other Foucaultian scholar Bennett, on the other hand, has mainly used the concepts drawn from Foucault's Discipline and Punish to deal with the problem of the space of modern museum. According to Bennett's The Birth of the Museum, his arguments about the spatial functions of museums in the nineteenth century mainly involve two different, but inter-linked ideas. The first is that, through the ideal of 'scopic reciprocity', museums as well as international exhibitions and modern fairs had been playing a role in Regulating the conduct of their visitors'. The ideal of scopic reciprocity was a space apparatus which allowed the visitors to inspect each other as well as a means of celebrating the citizenry's co-presence'. Quoting from Ozouf's study on the festival celebrating the French Revolution, the spatial function of museums in the nineteenth century is for Bennett just like the festival: "the new social bond was to be made manifest, eternal, and untouchable in allowing the members of society to be rendered visually co-present to and with one another." (Bennett 1995:50). The space of museums in the nineteenth century therefore, for Bennett, is implicating the apparatus of government3 and the construction of a social network of visibility. A new spatial form was devised to mix a public, which used to be differentiated, when the museums were reconceptualized as a public cultural resource in the nineteenth century. In its openness, this new spatial form was actually an exemplary space in which "the rough and raucous might learn to civilise themselves by modelling their conduct on the middle-class codes of behaviour to which museum attendance would expose them." (Bennett 1995:28). Consequently the museums, for Bennett, were like a nineteenth century version of the Panopticon - the architectural configuration of the new mechanism of power4. Through the vision of surveillance which was provided by space the possible field of action was structured and society was rendered transparent. 42
The spatial function of museum is mostly focused on the 'organised movement' which is regarded as an importan function of space to allow the ideology of dominant group to be manifested. The secon type of thought mainly uses Foucault's idea of power to explain the existence of contemporary society. The spatial function of the museum is mainly focused on the 'reciprocal surveillance' which is regarded as the effect of spatial form. These two kinds of thought, ultimately define what they can observe in the spatial form of modern museum. The spatial layouts of the modern museum, are designedto organise visitors' walking so as to embody knowledge and, at the same time, tophysically or virtually congregate visitors in order to form social relationships. These twodifferent kinds of functions constitute the basis of the spatial types of the modern museum.In other words, the spatial types of museum are the result of the relations between visitorsand objects and between visitor and visitor. There are two key themes emerge: (1) Organised walking: Buildings as classifying devices, including the spatial layouts of modern museums, became the mapping of knowledge. Through regulating visitors' movement, 'historicity' could be manifested. The single-sequence movement could be organised to illustrate historicity by applying specific spatial arrangements. By such organisation, the visitors' movements are controlled by the spatial organisation. (2) The congregation of visitors: The spatial layouts of museums have a function in bringing visitors together. There is an 'integration core' which serves as the locus of the exercise of power and the formation of bonds. Through maximising visitors' encounter physically or virtually, different kinds of social relationships could be possibly constructed and inscribed on bodies. The two key themes above are in fact concerned with the spatialization of the characteristics of the modern museum that were purpose-built since the nineteenth century. The term 'modern museums' refers not only to their public nature, but also the different forms of historicity which are inscribed on their spatial layouts. Their spaces were therefore recognised as 'structured' by the interfaces between visitor and object and between visitor and visitor. The spatial types of museum are recognised as the resolutions of the two different kinds of spatial functions surveyed above: congregation and organised walking. These two functions are respectively related to the integration core and the spatial sequence. Based on this idea, this paper will now seek to constitute a two-dimensional perspective of the question of spatial types. The integration core theoretically is the convex spaces where the congregation happens. However, according to Hillier's arguments and Choi's studies on the core, the function of maximising random encounter could be 'virtualised' and 'visualised' through the increasing depth of the core. Choi has pointed out in his work that "the presence of people in the 43
different museum spaces is not consistently related to the configurational properties of layouts. The number of people visible from a space, however, is very strongly and consistently correlated with the degree of integration of the space." (Choi 1991:245). In other words, what he found is that the integration core is not the space where the maximum number of people are present, but rather the space where the maximum number of people could be seen. According to his findings, visibility is in fact replacing permeability and becoming the primary property of spatial integration. The integration core is not any longer the space maximising the random encounter, but the space maximising the visual copresence. The second dimension of the spatial types of the modern museum is in regard to organised walking - the strength of the single sequence. The basic spatial logic of the single sequence, for the convex space unit, is that of 'one way in, one way out'. Visitor movement is constrained in the convex spaces of single sequence without an alternative. To measure the strength of the single sequence, this paper' proposal is simply to calculate the proportion of the 'two-entry' convex spaces in the spatial system12. Due to the fact that the 'one-entry' convex normally functions as an 'attachment' of the convex space which is connected to it, when calculating the proportion of the two-entry convex the 'one-entry' convex should be ignored. The proportion of the 'two-entry' convex, which indicates the strength of the organised walking, thus constitutes the second dimension of the spatial types of modern museums. These two dimensions constitute the two-dimensional model of the distribution of the spatial types of modern museums. The spatial types of modern museums, based on the arguments above, are distributed in the quadrants of integration core and sequence. The different spatial types of modern museums can be regarded as the resolutions of the 'genotypical conflict' which derives from the different functions of the museum. It is a 'genotypical conflict' for the following reason. To physically congregate people a museum needs a shallow integration core which means a 'symmetric spatial system' is needed. In contrast, to represent 'historicity' there is a need to organise visitors' movement in a strong sequential plan which means an 'asymmetric spatial system' is needed. How best to deal with these two different and conflicting functions has deeply structured the spatial design of museums. Attempts to incorporate these two kinds of functions, consequently, characterise the history of the space of museums. 2.9 Conclusion  Foucault’s museum is defined as a space of difference and a space of representation: a space in which the difference between words and things is put on display and made available for public contestation. The 44
museum is an Enlightenment institution not only because its essence is the problem of representation, but also because the museum partakes of the Enlightenment ethos of permanent critique: a reflection upon its own conceptual conditions of possibility. Foucault’s definition of the museum as heterotopia is useful, firstly because it overcomes the problems of defining the museum exclusively in terms of objects, collecting practices, or methods of display that are historically contingent; it enables us instead to define it in terms of a philosophical problem that is part of the museum’s essence. Secondly, the definition of the museum as heterotopia explains how the museum can be progressive without subscribing to politically problematic notions of universality or ‘total history’. The modern museum functions as a sort of narrative machine through which the concept of a great temporal current is provided, and as a social machine through which specific social relationships are constructed. The machines, however, are not operated just in the abstract. It is through the materiality of body and museum's spatial layouts, the visitors' movements are organised to offer a knowledge of time, and the visitors are brought together to reinforce specific social relations and interests. Through the spatial layouts and body, the spatial implications therefore could be embodied and summed up into the spatial types of modern museum. The spatial types of modern museum, therefore, could be regarded as the medium and result of the spatialization of knowledge and social relationships. Objects of Culture led Regeneration are effective in reviving the economy of a region which is not sound financially. However it requires a carefully thought of contingency plan and should emanate a magnetism such as that in the case of The Guggenheim, Bilbao which saw a unique amalagamation of the respected brand image of The Solomon Guggenheim Foundation coupled with the architectural acumen of the world renown Frank Gehry. Establishing a correlation between culture and its influence on the museum’s design theory, cultural isolation is rendered as a defunct model whereas establishing a interactive, multi-cultural model proves to be successful for the simple reason that it will be supported by a greater number of cultural ethnicities. The impact of social realms, owing to their exposure to internet media such as flickr, etc.have created a number of deterrents, raising a question regarding the viability and validity of the very concept of a museum.
45
3. CASE STUDIES 3.0 Introduction Research and analysis of relevant case studies helps in developing a better understanding of the principles and philosophies of museum design as they are being observed in a real-life situation and these spaces are a realisation and interpretation of the design philosophies which had only been discussed on paper previously.
3.1 Methodology
Identification of appropriate case studies Ensuring that the case studies adopted are unique and diverse in nature and character Comparison of the spatial layouts of these spaces across a common set of modules to evoke a comparative study.
3.2 Comparison of Spatial Layouts: A theoretical as well as practical key issue in the design of art museum and galleries is how the layout of space interacts with the layout of objects to realise a specific effect, express the intended message or create a richer spatial structure. To fully understand this interaction entails answering three critical questions: Does the spatial design makes a difference, and if so, what kind of difference? How does it relate to the curatorial intent? What dimensions of our experience of museums are determined by the way galleries and objects are organized spatially?
3.2.1 The Ordering of Spaces into Sequences and the Morphology of Exploration Let us consider the second component of the spatial model first, the organization of viewing spaces in a sequence, a principle intrinsic to museum design and instrumental for the accommodation of visitors’ movement as well as the arrangement of objects. Looking at the case studies, we find approximations of the two theoretical extremes: at one extreme is the grid, which is impossible to visit in an orderly sequence, but minimises the control that the layout places on the visitor and consequently, maximizes the randomness in the pattern of movement and exploration; in our sample, the grid is exemplified by the Sainsbury Wing. The other polar case is the single sequence, which imposes strong rules in the pattern of movement, and 46
powerfully controls the pattern of exploration since visitors have to go through the same sequence of spaces in the same order with no option of changing the course. It is best illustrated by the layout of Castelvecchio, which forms in effect a single ring of spaces. The grid and the sequence articulate the variety of layouts exemplified in the sample. Pompidou, Tate Britain (and to some extent Kröller-Müller) are in effect sub-types of the same type: there is a main sequence with sub-sequences, which constitute discrete experiences, but are dependent on the main axis, since one is forced to return -once or regularly- to the same space. The Museums compared are: Pompidou, Paris, France Kroller Muller, Oterllo, Netherlands Louisiana Museum of Modern Art, Humlebaek, Denmark Sainsbury Wing (Extension of the National Art Gallery), London ,UK Tate Museum, London, UK Castelavecchio, Verona Italy
Pompidou, Paris, France Centre Georges Pompidou also known as the Pompidou Centre in English, is a complex in the Beaubourg area of the 4th arrondissement of Paris, near Les Halles, rue Montorgueil and the Marais. It was designed in the style of high-tech architecture.It houses the Bibliothèque publique d'information, a vast public library, the Musée National d'Art Moderne which is the largest museum for modern art in Europe, and IRCAM, a centre for music and acoustic research. Because of its location, the Centre is known locally as the Beaubourg. It is named after Georges Pompidou, the President of France from 1969 to 1974 who decided its creation, and was officially opened on 31 January 1977 by President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. The Centre Pompidou has had over 150 million visitors since 1977
Kroller Muller, Oterllo, Netherlands The Kröller-Müller Museum is an art museum and sculpture garden, located in the Hoge Veluwe National Park in Otterlo in theNetherlands. The museum has a considerable collection of paintings by Vincent van Gogh, such as The Potato Eaters, Cafe Terrace at Night and Sorrowing Old Man ('At Eternity's Gate'), making it the second-largest collection of Van Gogh paintings in the world 47
Louisiana Museum of Modern Art, Humlebaek, Denmark The Louisiana Museum of Modern Art is an art museum located directly on the shore of the Øresund Sound in Humlebæk, 35 km (22 mi) north of Copenhagen, Denmark. It is the most visited art museum in Denmark with an extensive permanent collection of modern and contemporary art, dating from World War II and up until now, as well as a comprehensive programme of special exhibitions. The museum is also acknowledged as a milestone in modern Danish architecture, noted for the synthesis it creates of art, architecture and landscape.
Sainsbury Wing (Extension of the National Art Gallery), London ,UK The most important addition to the building in recent years has been the Sainsbury Wing, designed by the postmodernist architects Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown to house the collection of Renaissance paintings, and built in 1991. The building occupies the "Hampton's site" to the west of the main building, where a department store of the same name had stood until its destruction in the Blitz. n contrast with the rich ornamentation of the main building, the galleries in the Sainsbury Wing are pared-down and intimate, to suit the smaller scale of many of the paintings.
Tate Museum, London, UK Tate Modern is a modern art gallery located in London, England. It is Britain's national gallery of international modern art and forms part of the Tate group (together with Tate Britain, Tate Liverpool, Tate St Ives and Tate Online). It is the most-visited modern art gallery in the world, with around 4.7 million visitors per year. It is based in the former Bankside Power Station, in the Bankside area of Central London. Tate holds the national collection of British art from 1500 to the present day and international modern and contemporary art.
Castelavecchio, Verona Italy Castelvecchio Museum is a museum in Verona, northern Italy, located in the eponymous medieval castle. Restoration by the architect Carlo Scarpa, between 1959 and 1973, has enhanced the appearance of the building and exhibits. Scarpa's unique architectural style is visible in the details for doorways, staircases, furnishings, and even fixtures designed to hold a specific piece of artwork. The museum displays a collection of sculpture, statues, paintings, ancient weapons, ceramics, goldworks, miniatures and some old bells. Sculptures, mostly from the Romanesque period of Verona 48
The plans of the museums of the sample (in scale) 49
But how are these differences relevant to the way museums function? At a basic level, the ability to identify the relational properties of layouts that transcend differences in geometry allows us to draw a fundamental distinction between museums that provide choice of routes to (most of the) galleries - illustrated in our sample by Tate Britain and Louisiana-, and those that permit choice of galleries, exemplified by KrĂśller-MĂźller and Pompidou4. In the former case, the spatial structure allows alternative route choices from one part of the layout to another (that is, at a global level), which, consequently, generate a probabilistic distribution of people. By contrast, in the latter case, choice is offered at a localized level but this becomes essentially merged in the global well defined route.
But what seems critical in the organization of circulation is the ratios between pairs of space-types and the way they relate to one another with respect to the overall system in which they are embedded. This argument can be confirmed by a pair of illustrative examples, Tate3 and Louisiana. Tate3 has a high ratio of choice-spaces (d-spaces) vi in 50
the layout, the highest in the sample; yet, choice seems illusionary as we have to do with localised d-complexes disposed in such a way in the dominantly sequenced spatial complex that one cannot take significant route decisions. By contrast, Louisiana does not have a high d-ratio, but it is the embedding of the powerful central space, the park, into the layout that critically affects the whole itinerary and offers choice at the global level. It follows from the above that an interesting tension arises between the global and the local properties of space as visitors move around 3.2.2 The Gathering Space and the Morphology of Encounter Interpretation of the common spatial theme of the gathering space, and what the critical implications of these different interpretations are. The basic axiom of space syntax, the unprogrammed social effects of the arrangement of space, informs our analysis of the morphology of co-presence and encounter in the museums of the sample: significantly, it enables us to look for the social function over and above the programmed space that the museum provides to accommodate encounter, and seek social effects in the way the gathering space of the museum relates to the galleries, and in the gallery sequencing. The syntactic literature and the analysis of the selected museums suggest that the gathering space is more than the obvious social gatherer; it is the space that assumes a variety of key functions: from playing the role of the reference point in the spatial sequence and providing orientation, to working as the space of large-scale circulation that imparts movement to the galleries and, as a consequence, the space where local movement is interfaced with global movement. From a syntactic point of view, the gathering space tends to be part of the integration core of the gallery, and by implication, by being most directly accessible, it attracts higher movement and maximizes the opportunities for co-presence and encounter. However, these properties do not seem to determine the shape of the gathering space. Interestingly, its form varies considerably from one case to another, allowing a critical distinction between the museums of the sample on the basis of the geometrical properties of their gathering space: at Tate Britain and Pompidou, it stretches in space and takes the form of the axis; at Tate Modern, it is represented by the escalator space; more surprisingly, at Louisiana, it takes the form of the park. What is of particular interest is that even within the museums where it takes the form of the axis, that is, Tate Britain and Pompidou, meaningful functional differences arise from the way it is embedded in the global system, reinforcing the argument made earlier. At Tate Britain, the axis does not organize the whole building; the complexes of spaces on both sides structure independent routes, that allow the exploration of the gallery independently of the axis; so one can make 51
the whole route just by crossing once the main axis to get from one side of the gallery to the other. Furthermore, the gathering space is the key element in the shallow core of the gallery, which, by linking the entry to the building to its deeper parts, interfaces in-and-out movement with movement around the complex, and creates the emergent churning effect (Hillier et al. 1996): people who enter the museum together, split onto different paths, and then re-encounter each other probabilistically, at some point of their itinerary. On the contrary, the main axis at Pompidou5, though it is also the integration core of the layout that spreads out at full length, assumes a different function. It organizes the whole layout and links the subcycles on each side, but as these are not interconnected, and circulation choices are restricted on the local scale, people have to return to the main axis regularly and in a certain order. Moreover, the fact that it also works as the way back, further reinforces its role as an ordering device and contributes to its overwhelming presence. It could therefore be argued that what differentiates the axis at Pompidou from that at Tate Britain is the degree of compulsion: while the latter permits movement and empowers visitors, the former enforces movement and guides visitors’ exploration. More surprisingly, and despite initial appearances, the park at Louisiana plays the role of the axis at Tate Britain, in that it opens up the exploration dimension, by allowing significant route choices. In both cases, the gathering space, the main integration space of the layout, works as a generative social space, and the pattern of encounter is a global emergent phenomenon, rendering the whole experience much richer socially. However, the gathering space of Louisiana differs from that of Tate Britain in terms of shape, since it increases convex synchronicity vii by increasing the two-dimensional space invested in the park, in contrast to the latter which increases axial synchronicity by increasing the one-dimensional space invested in the main axis. This differentiation might indicate a different functional emphasis: on social interaction, in one instance, and on organization of circulation, in the other. A second point derives form the first: though the gathering space -the park- at Louisiana operates as part of the display, it is outside the museum building, and more importantly, it is not a compulsory space (as in Tate Britain), since the localized sequences allow for a continuous circuit of movement; yet it constitutes an essential part of the experience, and more importantly, it extends the pattern of socialization outside the galleries. Returning to the sample, we find that the remaining museums miss this extra resource. The Sainsbury Wing has no gathering space; yet it seems that the visibility structure of the layout –i.e. open spatial relationships, rich cross-visibility- acts on the pattern of co-presence: it enhances co-awareness, rather than co-presence, and sustains a dense pattern of visual encounter; and this can be seen as the most primitive form of socialization. 52
Castelvecchio, Kröller-Müller and Tate Modern do not really add social experiences; or if they do so, it is at a localised level. This is an interesting distinction between Louisiana and Tate Britain, on the one hand, and Castelvecchio, on the other hand: in the former, the local groups of visitors are linked to a between-groups contact in the largescale movement space (the park or the axis), while in the latter, it is the short and local encounters that are reinforced. Though at Tate Modern the escalator space operates like a gathering space, which is visually on the main axis and part of the integration core of the gallery, it is in effect located outside the viewing sequence, and so it does not play an active role in the organization of movement within the limits of the exhibition space; rather it tends to be constrained to the global circulation function and so it seems more instrumental than social. Adopting two terms coined by Borhegyi (1968, p.43), we could describe the key difference between the central space at Tate Modern, and the gathering space in the rest of the cases as follows: the former is sociofugal, intended to distribute visitors, while the latter are sociopetal spaces, intended to bring people together. A main conclusion that can be drawn from the foregoing discussion on the main dimensions of spatial variability in museums is that a critical tension is created between social and informational function. This tension arises as a contrasting requirement in cases where the layout of space, dictated by the order in which information is received, operates to enforce spatial separation, rather than to create connections (e.g. Kröller-Müller) viii. But the reverse can also happen, and the informational function can contribute to enhancing the social function, in the cases where the spatial proximity required by the organization of information maximizes the randomness of encounter and creates the conditions for social interaction (e.g. Louisiana). 3.2.3 A Model of the Basic Dimensions of Variability of Display Strategies Having explored the interaction between the different components of the spatial model, and their relation with visitor experience, the second critical issue is the interaction between space and display. In what follows it will be suggested that depending on the way fundamental spatial qualities -such as, hierarchy, axiality and perspective- and key configurational properties –as, for instance, integration, connectivity and control- are handled in respect to display decisions, a basic distinction could be drawn between three main strategies of relating spatial and display layout -each with its own affects and consequences: using space to enhance the impact of objects, or using objects to enhance space, and a third possibility, that space and display retain their autonomy. 3.2.4 Exploiting Space to Enhance the Impact of Objects The most common strategy adopted by the majority of 53
the museums of the sample -Sainsbury Wing, Pompidou5 and KrĂśllerMĂźller according to which the display layout exploits the qualities of the setting in order to maximize the impact of the objects. A distinguishing spatial quality of the three museums and a consistent property of their display, is cross-visibility, aiming on the one hand, to create a visual effect and on the other hand, to operate as a powerful means for mediating additional relationships between works, multiplying affinities and cross-references. But at a more fundamental level, it appears that curators tend to relate the distribution and categorization of objects to spatial decisions. The three museums under consideration are characterized by a hierarchal spatial organization. In other words, they structure space in such a way as to privilege certain galleries with respect to others, by means of direct accessibility, ample or distant visibility, and rich network of connections. Interestingly, spatial hierarchy is closely interwoven with curatorial choices, meaning that the hierarchy of access and subdivision tends to correspond to the hierarchy of the works displayed. Let us consider, for example, the Sainsbury Wing and Pompidou5: they both use the key property of depth, but invert it. In the case of the Sainsbury Wing, some key displays are in sets of spaces of more restricted access, located at the deepest parts of the gallery, in dead-end rooms. In contrast, at Pompidou5, key displays are richly connected and among the most integrated and strong control spaces of the layout. In other words, the two museums seem to proceed from opposite principles in their attempt to induce movement and increase the probabilities that objects will be seen: in the first instance, by drawing people further into the deepest parts of the gallery and trying to inhibit the bypassing of rooms; in the latter, by exploiting movement generated by the most integrated spaces in order to attract higher densities of viewing in these spaces x. We begin therefore to see that this close link between design choices and display decisions can extend beyond the aesthetic and visual aspect, and that syntactic (spatial) and semantic (objects) aspects of the layout seem in some kind of a relation of correspondence, meaning that we understand the relation of works of art by the proximity and the relation of spaces.
3.2.5 Using Objects to Create Space Castelvecchio and Louisiana offer the opportunity to identify another possibility of relating space and display layout, which involves the opposite curatorial choices: instead of the exhibition layout exploiting the qualities of the setting in order to maximize the impact of the objects, the exhibits are set so as to emphasise and bring out the qualities of architectural space. Intriguingly, though Castelvecchio has spatial qualities similar to those of the Sainsbury Wing, these are used in a diametrically different way. 54
The long perspective vistas that are end-stopped by blank walls, instead of key paintings, are a good case in point. This may be related to the fact that the arrangement of objects is not aimed at inducing through movement. On the contrary, structure of space and distribution of objects seem to work together so as to encourage local exploration, slow down visitors’ paths, and delay the rhythm of perception. Statues first encountered from behind, require the viewer to move close to, and around them; paintings detached from the static wall surfaces and treated as three-dimensional objects, are used to re-order and articulate space, offer short-term destinations, and screen what is ahead. Similarly, recurrent are the galleries at Louisiana that afford a bird’s-eye view over the adjacent room, enhancing spatial sense. It may therefore be argued that, rather than being a function of decisions dependent on the relational properties of the layout, the arrangement of objects arises from the integration of objects within their immediate architectural/spatial setting; so here we have to do with the inverse relationship between conceptual and spatial structure, that is, a non-correspondence relation.
Installation views of the collection at Louisiana (a) and Castelvecchio (b) 3.2.6 Conveying Pre- given Meaning Looking at the sample as a whole, there is a comparable spatial style to be immediately observed between the Sainsbury Wing, Pompidou5, Kröller-Müller and Tate Modern. Each museum exhibits geometrical order -manifested in symmetries of shape and application of proportions-, and displays spatial order xii -expressed by the more or less identical spaces (or sequences of spaces) that make up the layout, arranged in similar spatial relations. In all four cases, long axes traverse the building in its length and width, constantly giving clues about the global structure of the gallery, and responding to the key concern for lucid organization of spatial elements, while axially synchronized views, revealing vistas, and relatively uniform isovists, enhance information stability (Peponis et al. 1997). But on the other hand, providing the viewer with a large flow of visual information beyond the space he is in, means reducing unexpectedness and 55
spatial anticipation, and decreasing the impact of visual impressions.
Long axes traversing the length of the building, a key spatial feature of Pompidou (a), Sainsbury Wing (b), TateModern (c) and Kröller-Müller (d) Even more remarkably, there is more than a little similarity between the four museums in they way they structure space. As argued above, all layouts guide exploration and restrict random patterns of movement, though to different degrees. By implication, the field of encounter seems enforced, rather than dynamically generated. But perhaps more significantly, it is the way the four museums relate layout of space and objects that invites their linking together under the characterization of long models. To explain this, we must first note that in these cases we have to do with either a chronological (Sainsbury Wing, Pompidou5), or with a conceptual arrangement of objects, in the sense that their spatial organization reflects the development of a particular argument (Tate Modern), or a specific view of art (Kröller-Müller) xiii. In other words, we have a mode of grouping that is marked by a high degree of conceptual intervention by the curator and noninterchangeability among objects within the display. Furthermore, the message to be communicated is well defined, and more importantly perhaps, it is a transpatial message, based on a specific concept or argument which is realized in spatial form. Especially in the cases of the Sainsbury Wing, Pompidou5 and Kröller-Müller, layout of space and objects point in the same direction to support each other (cf. correspondence model), and by doing so, they reinforce the redundancy of the message and decrease the unexpected, in order to effectively convey the intended, specific meaning. It could therefore be argued that in these cases, space represents rather than presents; the way objects are put together means something other than the objects themselves.
56
Line isovist drawn from the main axis of Pompidou, Tate Modern, KrĂśllerMĂźller and Sainsbury Wing
57
It follows that in long model museums, through the arrangement of spaces and objects the designer (architect or curator) controls the information and reduces the exploratory aspect of the visit both spatially and intellectually. So in both these senses, space is used in a conservative way so as to reflect something already known, to reproduce a set of relationships previously specified, and restrict randomness both in the experience of objects and in the experience of other people. The emphasis is on the intellectual communication and comes to the fore, with the spatial and social experiences in the background. Perhaps the didactic gain can be seen as potentially counterbalancing the lack of unpredictability and the absence of variety of experiences. Because, it is clear that, rather than the spatial means, in a long model museum, priority is given to the functional ends, since there is the characteristic of intent, to convey a precise meaning (Moles 1966). 3.2.7 Creating Meaning Castelvecchio, Louisiana and Tate Britain, museums which despite their conspicuous and meaningful differences, have a key feature in common: they exist to generate something new - new relations, new ideas, new encounter patterns. This is what essentially differentiates them from the previously discussed cases which exist to reproduce. It should be noted here that, instead of considering the case studies as a group, they are dealt as individual cases or in pairs. As it will be made clear, the reason for this is that, in contrast to the long models which tend to resemble one another, short models tend to individualization. Let us begin with Louisiana, the museum which most obviously appears to concentrate the key spatial features of a short model: invisible architecture, asymmetric arrangement of galleries, variety in the morphology of spaces and their relations, strategic presence of the park. Interestingly, in certain of its spatial qualities Tate Britain resembles Louisiana - as, for instance, the ringy layout, the variety in spatial relations. Moreover, both museums, as seen earlier, optimize and structure randomised patterns of movement and exploration, at the global and the local level, and by implication, generate an emergent pattern of encounter. But Louisiana has some additional features, which can be paralleled to the spatial structure of Castelvecchio. Both are concerned with accentuating unexpectedness, and surprise takes precedence over intelligibility. The layout - marked either by short axes or by long but not revealing lines of sight- can not be grasped as a whole from any central point; it requires the viewer to move around and experience it 58
gradually, in an asynchronous way. To this contribute significantly the frequent changes of levels and shifts of direction that restrict the amount of information he receives and maximize the unpredictability of his experience (Hillier 2003, Shannon 1948).
The unpredictability of the experience, a distinguishingfeature of Louisiana (a, b) and Castelvecchio (c) Perhaps more importantly, the sense of exploration is followed at the level of the display. Castelvecchio and Louisiana adopt a visual arrangement of objects that privileges visual links and aesthetic juxtapositions; in comparison with the chronological and mainly the conceptual arrangements discussed earlier, it is the most exploratory intellectually, since it gives the intellectual control to the viewer: the curator puts things that look nice together –and in this sense he prioritises space as an independent variable-, but it is the visitor’s task to reconstruct the story semantically. In complete contrast to the long model museums discussed above, here the arrangement of objects mean nothing else than the objects themselves (cf. noncorrespondence relation). It could therefore be argued that Louisiana and Tate Britain make people explore and this applies to the informational as well as the social programme, while at Castelvecchio, space does not act to structure social meaning (or relations) -as in the above cases-, but it does contribute to the creation of spatial meaning. This point to the most fundamental distinction between long and short model museums. Rather than reflecting a specific meaning, the intent (if there is any) is to create fields of possible meaning. After all, meaning does not exist in advance, but is created and exists by virtue of the existence of the specific museum (Hillier 2004). Furthermore, instead of placing the emphasis on the conceptual structure and the functional ends, priority is given to the spatial structure and the architectural/spatial means; and the spatial means is the basis of the aesthetics of space, which is the complete opposite of the didactic (Hillier 1996). This distinction enables us to propose a possible insight to the thought initially suggested, that the influence of space on the display can extend as distinct from and beyond the discursive dimension of the experience of exhibits. It seems to us that, when a richer spatial 59
structure is produced by the effects of the synthesis of spatial and display layout, the informational function of the museum extends beyond the didactic aims, and acts through its aesthetic quality. Moreover, when space is used in a more subtle way, the experience of space itself is rendered more complex and information rich.
3.3 Conclusion
The conceptual model is a proposed way of thinking, as a method for reading museum space as a set of formal potentials, built out of a number of basic concepts. In that sense it might be suggested that these ideas could be a valuable contribution to the design of museums in that they provide designers with a better understanding of principles and some knowledge of systematic consequences of strategic design decisions. More importantly perhaps, they can also inform the application of new ideas, and encourage new ways of handling spatial and display considerations. The space definition, though varied, carry a common concept. For instance, The unpredictability of the experience is emphasised in both castelvecchio as well as in Louisiana, however the spatial treatment varies. The theories emphasise on the ends rather than the means. The use of objects to define the floor space shows a definitive method of defining areas without walls, or any other such space markers. This theory is well emphasised in the design of The Berlin Museum by Meis Van der Rohe which uses the exhibits to define the floor space, thereby creating a definitive circulation paths for the people to follow.
60
4. DATA ANALYSIS 4.0 Introduction The theoretical and physical aspects of the museum spaces, namely the philosophies and the spatial layouts of museums have been highlighted upon. An analysis of the available data by juxtapositioning the theories with the spaces, one can get a clear picture of the implementation and physical derivation of these theories which were previously just words on paper. 4.1 Social Functions- Changing Museum Designs Social objects help in engaging the user in an alien environment in order to establish an interaction. The advent of internet social media and sharing shows a great deal of interaction is possible while one is confined to the comforts of ones very room. Also there are no physical hassles like waiting in line etc. They also empower the user to register their views and allows other users to build on one person’s perspective promoting a healthy dialogue within the social realm. However, to replicate such a successful system in a place where ones physical presence is required is quite a challenge. Social media, though unparalleled in its own accord, has a few setbacks. They do not offer the real world experiences that one feels as they walk through the corridors of a museum. The hands on experience that one gets in a museum is also absent. Deriving these positives that social media has provided, and implementing them in the physical realms of a museum will add to its quotient of sociability and sustain and promote its existence in the society.
4.2 Spatial Layouts- Observations The spatial layouts of the various museums analyzed provide a study of comparison between the different layouts. The chosen Case studies have mushroomed at different decades of time. However, they more or less, provide a study of similarity when compared. The conceptual model is a proposed way of thinking, as a method for reading museum space as a set of formal potentials, built out of a number of basic concepts. In that sense it might be suggested that these ideas could be a valuable contribution to the design of museums in that they provide designers with a better understanding of principles and some knowledge of systematic consequences of strategic design decisions. More importantly perhaps, they can also inform the application of new ideas, and encourage new ways of handling spatial and display considerations. The space definition, though varied, carries a common concept. For instance, the unpredictability of the experience is emphasised in both castelvecchio as well as in Louisiana, however the spatial treatment varies. The theories emphasise on the ends rather than the means. The use of objects to define the floor space shows a definitive method of defining areas without walls, or any other such space markers. This theory is well emphasised in the design of The Berlin Museum by Meis Van der Rohe which 61
uses the exhibits to define the floor space, thereby creating definitive circulation paths for the people to follow.
4.3 Evaluating Museums as Heterotopia Foucault’s museum is defined as a space of difference and a space of representation: a space in which the difference between words and things is put on display and made available for public contestation. The museum is an Enlightenment institution not only because its essence is the problem of representation, but also because the museum partakes of the Enlightenment ethos of permanent critique: a reflection upon its own conceptual conditions of possibility. In allowing for the possibility of transgressing those conceptual conditions, the museum is not mired in Enlightenment critique that searches for ‘formal structures with universal value’, but moves toward Foucault’s version of transformed critique that is ‘a historical investigation into the events that have led us to constitute ourselves and to recognize ourselves as subjects of what we are doing, thinking, saying’. Foucault’s definition of the museum as heterotopia is useful, firstly because it overcomes the problems of defining the museum exclusively in terms of objects, collecting practices, or methods of display that are historically contingent; it enables us instead to define it in terms of a philosophical problem that is part of the museum’s essence. Secondly, the definition of the museum as heterotopia explains how the museum can be progressive without subscribing to politically problematic notions of universality or ‘total history’. Indeed, museums are best placed to critique, contest, and transgress those problematic notions, precisely on the basis of their Enlightenment lineage. A heterotopia is a space of difference, a space that is absolutely central to a culture but in which the relations between elements of a culture are suspended, neutralized, or reversed. Unlike utopias, heterotopias are real places ‘designed into the very institution of society’ in which all the other real emplacements of a culture are ‘at the same time, represented, contested, and reversed, sorts of places that are outside all places, although they are actually localizable’ (Foucault 1998: 178). Foucault’s prime examples of the heterotopia are the cemetery and the ship: the cemetery is a different place compared with ordinary cultural spaces; it is a space of the difference of life and death, duration and eternity; and yet it is a space that is connected to all the othe emplacements of the society, since every individual and family has relatives in the cemetery. The ship is ‘a piece of floating space, a placeless place’; it functions according to its own rules in the space between ports, between cultures, between stable points.
62
4.4 Museums as objects of Culture-led Regeneration From the 1980s onwards culture-led regeneration has been used as a strategy throughout Europe for regenerating and revitalising cities and regions which have suffered social and economic problems through de-industrialisation. These strategies have undoubtedly been successful in a number of different cities throughout the UK and Europe. In a crowded international market, it can mark the city as distinct, giving it a brand image. This can indirectly promote its economic competitiveness by increasing its position in the quality-life indexes of international investment rankings. The Bilbao region of Spain is often cited as one of the most successful examples. Beset with economic decline and social deprivation, the Bilbao region was revitalised with the 1997 opening of the Guggenheim Museum playing a central role in changing the fortunes of the region. Indeed, a number of European cities have attempted to achieve their own version of the ‘Guggenheim Effect’, often by placing flagship artistic or cultural projects at the centre of their regeneration schemes. These flagship projects are predominantly located in ‘high-profile’ areas such as city centres or waterfront locations.
4.5 Conclusion Analysis of the data had been qualitative in nature. Comparative studies have been predominantly adopted to analyse the acquired data. The data collected has been utilised either to support the prevalent theories or philosophies or to substantiate new thoughts and views. The interpretation of the theoretical and philosophical data and statements has been done in line with those adopted by Michel Foucault and Foucauldian Scholars, Tony Bennet and Eilean HooperGreenhill as Michel Foucault has been considered the front-runner in the realm of museum design philosophy. His works have covered subjects which reflect the dominance of power and politics in the influence of almost all developments during his time, which hold good to this day and age.
63
5. FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 5.0 Introduction The qualitative analysis of the design philosophies incorporated in a cultural museum space led to the listing of a number of findings which have proved to resources which proffer a number of implications eventually leading to the emergence of concrete conclusions, helping remove the obscurity revolving around this topic. The successive breakdown of the intangible whole into a number of tangible elements and the corresponding analysis of these elements helped piece together a number of observations and conclusions – following on the lines of a “part to whole concept�. The analysis was basically done as a process of dismantling a larger entity into its components, analyzing them and eventually piecing them back together to get the broader picture.
5.1 Findings Museum spaces, however small or big, have been conceived with a single, main philosophy, it may have a number of smaller theoretical influences, but its existence is defined by one single diktat, which defines and shapes it. The evolution of museum spaces have seen remarkable spurts in recent times as people scurry to refurbish and remarket these spaces as that of Enlightenment, a shift away from the earlier role of museums as store houses of the past. Moreover, their role does not only confine to the impacting of society and the spread of knowledge, they are also being conceived with its primary objective being an economic driver. Museums, coupled with their philosophies have evolved over the years with an ever expanding realm, bringing in various factors to play as the day and age progress. Museums are no longer developed as spaces in isolation, but are being conceived as spaces for inclusion, the advent of the development of a Social Character for the space has been acknowledged.
5.2 Implications The importance of museum spaces has diminished over the years. The static, self-centered and rule-bound approach toward the society did not find favor with the society as they took solace in the realms of the internet for the edu-tainment that they were deprived of owing to the obsolete nature of the museum space. Technological intervention had helped reinvent the museum space as a more dynamic and interesting experience. Private players, aiming at profits, increased the entertainment quotient of these spaces making them more popular and more importantly ensuring that the people came visiting again. Virtual, 3D displays, audio channeled guidance, etc. added to the attraction of the museums. Some museums, like the Ann-Arbor hands-on museum, have broken the barriers of the 64
people being restrained from touching the exhibits on display by providing them full access to all exhibits. An Evolved Philosophy- The philosophies of design which existed earlier have not been shunned. They have merely evolved in accordance to the evolution of the milieu. In early times, the basic idea was to store riches and wealth in certain spaces, kept away from the public eye. But they were eventually opened for public view to establish the feudal supremacy. Post-modernist thought was to enlighten, promote and entertain the masses. The birth of the concept of the Museum conceived as a Heterotopia. In recent times, this philosophy has evolved into one which redefines the museum as a space beyond one which holds archaeological artefacts. It saw the rise of theme based museums. Cultural structures of dominating prominence were conceived as a an attempt to revive economies. Museums and Perpetuity- in the 2004 Cumberland Lodge conference, the theory of perpetuating the life of a museum by immortalising it, was discussed. A similar, yet differing course of action was adopted by Le Corbusier when he designed the Museum of Unlimited growth. However, the design never came to life owing to the apparent utopian nature of the design. The philosophies, though similar in outcome, had completely different approaches towards achieving this perpetuity. Le Corbusier proposed a spiralling building plan, starting with the centres, the expansion could continue as and when required. On the other hand, the conference suggested a theoretical contingency plan with individual objectives.
5.3 Conclusion The museum space has an underlying philosophy which shapes it into existence. This philosophy need not necessarily be a design guideline or a design theory. The philosophy is simply the resolve to conceive a particular space in a given location. This resolve is the primary starting point for the development of the museum as a conceptualisation. Societal and other social implications need to be satisfied to prolong the permanence of such an institution. The museum, as a space defines and promotes the objects on display and always plays second fiddle to the exhibits. The conviction of the Museum as a Heterotopia by Michel Foucault has helped in theorising and breaking down of many philosophies leading to a better understanding of museums as a ‘Place of Otherness’. The function of the museum as a sanctuary for storing the past, in all its brilliance, has undergone a definitive shift in focus. The museums are no longer conceived as spaces which translate to their literal meaning. They characterise so much more of essence as a space for public gathering and interaction. But at the same time, there cannot be generalised parallels drawn between these spaces and the colloquially popular public spaces such as town squares, town centres etc. for the simple reason that despite their evolved nature in terms of conception, the basic spirit of the museums is to educate, interact and entertain the masses. The primary focus of such a public space, being the space itself, one can easily conclude that the museum has been successful in evolving into a Social Object/Entity.
65
The conception of museums and such public spaces as object of Culture Led Regeneration is more of an economic model of a cultural revival movement. The eventual positives that come out of such programs trickle down to the realms of a cultural regeneration movement which strengthens the will of the locals to take pride in their local culture. This model of “Cultural Regeneration� witnesses the intersection of a rational entity like economics with an abstract entity such as the arts and culture. It is a fascinating amalgamation which bridges the gap between two opposites. Culture Led Regeneration has led to the creation of landmark structures such as the Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao and the Denver Art Museum, Denver, Colorado, etc. It is important to ensure the development of such structures as they are literally history in the making for the future generations of the society. They are Louvre and the Tate of the generations to come. In fact, they represent the architecture, the design philosophies, the mentalities and the spirit of the people of our times ad cocoon them within their skin for the future to peruse through. The architecture, the exhibits and the eventual spaces are the reflections of the society, as we know it. And therefore, it is important to theorize the spaces sensibly and preserve an essence in them because after all, history is indeed being written, and it is imperative to ensure that it is done so in the right way.
66
References: Author: Nina Simon (2010); Ch. 4: Social Objects; Title: The Participatory Museum; Publisher: Museum 2.0 Author: Hsu Huang. Title: The Spatialization of Knowledge and Social Relationships. University College London, UK. National Museum of Natural Science, Taiwan ROC. Cumberland Lodge Conference; 17th – 19th September, 2004; Conference Essay by Dr. Christine Ovenden. Evaluating The Influence Of A Large Cultural Artifact In The Attraction Of Tourism; The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao Case; Author: Beatriz Plaza; University of the Basque Country, Spain. Museum Building Design And Exhibition Layout; Patterns Of Interaction; Author: Kali Tzortzi; The Bartlett School Of Graduate Studies, UCL. Foucault’s museum: difference, representation, and genealogy; Author: Beth Lord; University of Dundee.
67