Architecture Art Museums and Urban Developments - Analysis

by

Hannah Schwanzer

2001

“It is an open secret that the presentation of art is not the only function of the contemporary museum. The very success of the institution has accrued additional interests and powers that require their own infrastructure. In addition, the way visual culture is now infinitely disseminated increases the value of access to real things. This allure makes it crucial for institutions to guard, exploit and wherever possible, enhance their aura. Paradoxically it raises the stakes for those who own real things to play a role in their dissemination, if not to control it.

This requires a place where all complementary campaigns and ventures are masterminded; a MOMA Inc. This Headquarters can plot the dissemination of MoMA`s assets and use them for a campaign of continuing relevance, artistic growth, and fiscal well being”.¹

The situation of many European museums (by the ending of the twentieth century) is traceable to a prevailing public and social perception about them and can be portrayed as: “The public art museum is an 18th century idea (the concept of the encyclopedia) in a 19th century box (the recycled and extended palace), that more or less fulfills its structural destiny sometime toward the end of the 20th century”.²

The change of the perception of the museum´s task and its exterior appearance started in the 1940s and 1950s in the United States. A model for that change is the Guggenheim Collection with its stirring spiral architecture built by Frank Lloyd Wright in 1959. “He conceived of its curving, continuous space as a “temple of spirit”, where viewers could foster a new way of looking”.³ “For America today organic architecture interprets (will eventually build) this local embodiment of human freedom. This natural architecture seeks spaciousness, grace and openness; lightness and strength so completely balanced and logical that it is a new integrity...”⁴

Architecture as an expression for a new viability, taste, spirit, and zest for the arts and life had become a crucial part of an art museum at the ending twentieth century.

In my interviews with Karen Davidson, Deputy Director for Policy, Planning, and Administration MOMA,⁵ and Julian Zugazagoitia,⁶ Executive Assistant to the Director, Guggenheim Museum, New York, it became manifest that the prominent architecture of the museum was important not only for raising the image of the museum but also for the whole philosophy of a museum’s vision. It adds intellectual value and demonstrates this towards the outside world. Architecture had become part of the corporate image of the art museum. Therefore, the architect’s ideas and his philosophy play an important role for the museum´s vision and image.

Such architecture and construction cannot be financed by the museum alone so partnerships and the symbiosis with businesses, local governments, and professional developers has achieved major importance since the early 1990 s, and culminated in the last five years.

By “building landmark new structures and satellite venues”, museums became “cultural cornerstones of urban revitalization and tourism efforts”, and catalysts for increased business and development endeavors.⁷

[....]

1 Rem Koolhaas, Design Charette for MOMA 1997, image 29 at:
http:www.guggenheim.org/new_guggenheim/index.html.

2 Image 3 at http://www.guggenheim.org/new_guggenheim/index.html,
and http://www.guggenheim.org/new_guggenheim/program/3.html.

3 See http://www.guggenheim.org/history.html.

4 Frank Lloyd Wright, 1958, Image 6 at:
http:www.guggenheim.org/new_guggenheim/index.html.

5 Personal Interview with Karen Davidson, Deputy Director for Policy, Planning, and Administration MOMA, MOMA, New York, 17 January, 2001.

6 Personal Interview with Julian Zugazagoitia, Executive Assistant to the Director, Guggenheim Museum, New York, 18 January 2001

7 See Laura Meyers, ABN Contributing Editor “Museum Growth Pays Off for Galeries” http://www.artbusinessnews.com/article/museum.html, 4 March 2001.