2010
Nr 2(28)
A term ‘museum’ originates from ancient Greece. Mu-
seions (museion – temple of Muses) were the institutions
whose patrons were Muses – mythological daughters of
Zeus and Mnemosyne – guardians of liberal arts
1
. Li-
braries, which contained collections of researches, con-
stituted the main part of them. As a kind of academy of
science they provided scientists with places for meetings
and discussions as well as with ats, costs of living and
workplaces at the expense of the state. Fine arts such as
architecture, sculpture, painting, and decorative art were
regarded as handicraft and the places on which they were
exhibited were named according to the exhibit kind: the-
saurus (treasure-house), sculpture collection, collection of
cameos and gems or collection of paintings [19]. The An-
cient Greeks, and later also Romans, were in the habit of
making works of art accessible for the public. They were
exhibited in temples and public buildings (such as porti-
cos, gates, theatres, odeons, nympheaums, thermaes) as
well as on squares (agoras, fora, stadiums, hippodromes)
[13]. Private collections of art were very popular in the
Roman Empire times. According to Vitruvius, pinacothe-
cas often constituted a part of the Hellenic house [18].
The cradle of museology in modern Europe is con-
sidered to be the Renaissance Italy where a humanistic
movement started to develop as a result of the fascination
with the ancient world. During the Renaissance the notion
of museum meant collection of objects of a certain class,
appropriately ordered and made accessible. This mean-
ing has prevailed until today. [19]. In Italy of the 15
th
and 16
th
centuries there appeared rst modern buildings
for museum purposes such as The Vatican Pinacotheca
(A. Bramante), The Gonzaga Pinacotheca (V. Scamozzi)
*
Faculty of Architecture of Gdańsk University of Technology.
1
Muses were patrons and guardians of liberal arts such as Erato –
love poetry, Euterpe – lyric poetry, Calliope – epic poetry, Clio – history,
Melpomene – tragedy, Polyhymnia – choir poetry, Thalia – comedy,
Terpsichore – dance, Urania – astronomy and geometry.
in the ideal town Sabbioneta or the Museum in Como.
However, most of the rooms, which served the purpose
of exhibitions places, belonged to castles, palaces, patri-
cian and middle-class houses, church and cloister build-
ings. At that time, there used to be a custom of building
in palaces huge, elongated halls with side lighting which
rstly constituted the place of meetings and receptions.
Galleries, which showed wealth of the house, began to be
fullled with works of art and as the collector’s interest in-
creased, the galleries were decorated with paintings and
sculptures according to the program [13]. The gallery of
Farnese Palace (later imitated in the Louvre Museum and
Versailles) and the Medicean gallery Ufzi in Florence
(G. Vasari – 1560, B. Buontalenti – 1581) whose spatial
arrangements such as the central yard with colonnade sur-
rounded by loggias, the arrangement of exhibition rooms
with galleries on one side and small rooms on the other,
and a culmination point in form of orthogonal Tribune
with top lighting (on the model of Florence baptistery),
were the most famous galleries and constituted a standard
for the neo-Renaissance architecture. From Italy human-
ism spread to other European countries. From the 17
th
century, painting or sculpture galleries which were situ-
ated at residences became popular in the whole European
palace architecture.
The ancient idea of making works of art accessible
for the general public was also revived in Italy. In 1471
the Pope handed over the Capitoline Museum in Rome to
the Roman people and in 1581 the Medicean collection of
sculptures in Loggia dei Lanzi on Piazza della Signoria
in Florence was opened. Some time later in 1681 in the
Mediaeval castle Louvre converted to the museum, the
royal collections were made accessible to the members of
Academy and the talented youth, while in 1683 in Eng-
land the Ashmolean Museum collections were made ac-
cessible to the scientist and students of Oxford [17].
From the 18
th
century on, separate buildings were
erected independently of palace complexes whose found-
Małgorzata Rogińska-Niesłuchowska*
Architecture of the contemporary museum as the art
of transmission of material and spiritual cultural values
180 Małgorzata Rogińska-Niesłuchowska
ers were mainly governors. They had elongated shapes
and side lighting, which was typical of galleries. The spa-
tial form was so popular that it became a synonym of the
building which exhibits works of art [9] (Dresden Gallery
of Wettins family – F. Algarotti, 1745–1746 or Sansoucci
Gallery in Potsdam – J.G. Büring, 1756–1763). Gradu-
ally, museums acquired a more monumental character and
were modelled after the palace architecture as well as on
the ancient forms and arrangements thanks to which they
got the shape of the art temple. Their interiors were based
on spatial gallery forms which were connected in one or
multi-nave halls and in this way they formed closed ar-
rangements with inner yards or open arrangements with
perpendicular wings. A room with the central arrangement
accompanied with top lighting and covered with a copula,
which referred to Greek and Hellenistic buildings whose
most perfect example constitutes the Roman Pantheon
(e.g. the Fridericianum Museum in Kassel – Simon du Ry
1769–1779 or the Vatican Museo Pio-Clementino since
1773, which was built by G. Marini, M. Simonetti and
G. Camporese respectively), was used as a culmination
space. Apart from the classicistic designing style of mu-
seums a romantic trend appeared in England which re-
ferred to the Gothic architecture (e.g. ‘Strawberry Hill’
near Twickenham – Sir H. Walpole, 1747). The age of En-
lightenment dened the role of museum as a public and
citizen institution which was supposed to be an educa-
tional place of the society. In 1759 the British Museum in
London was opened as the rst public museum. In 1791
by Act of the French Revolution and the French National
Assembly a decision was reached concerning the creation
of the National Museum in Louvre [19].
The 19
th
century was a period of development of mu-
seology all over the world. The rst half of the 19
th
cen-
tury continued the trend of museum buildings designing
based on the ancient standards, for instance, a complex of
museums at the Royal Square in Munich (L. von Klenze)
built on the model of Athenian Acropolis. Altes Museum
in Berlin (K.F. Schinkel – 1823–1830) determined an im-
portant monumental museum archetype which was based
on the neo-classicistic stylistics with rich allegoric orna-
ments. The most important and culminating role, among
a multi-storey series of galleries, was performed by the
rotunda space covered with a copula and having top light-
ing on the model of the Roman Pantheon. This model was
widespread in Europe and in the United States of Amer-
ica where it was still popular in the rst half of the 20
th
century [19]. Also a new building of the British Museum
(R. Smirke – 1823), which constituted a copy of Athe-
nian Parthenon in its central part, became the model for
hundreds of museums built all over the world [20]. A ra-
tionalistic approach towards designing museums, which
originated from the Enlightenment and aimed at creating
optimal conditions for exhibitions, was continued in Eng-
land. Dulwich Gallery in London (Sir J. Soane – 1811–
1814) with exhibition rooms lit by means of central lan-
terns with vertical windows became the exemplar which
was met with general acceptance.
Models of the Italian and French Renaissance palaces
and galleries of art as well as the Baroque palaces and
churches began to dominate since the middle of the 19
th
century under the inuence of historicism. The old Pina-
cotheca (Alte Pinakothek) in Munich (L. von Klenze –
1822–1836) is considered to be the rst European great
museum built in the neo-Renaissance style. This style
dominated almost till the end of the 19
th
century and its
most excellent examples are the buildings of the Nation-
al Museum in Prague and new tsar museums in Vienna
(G. Semper i K. Hasenauer – 1872–1889).
The modernist avant-garde movement rejected the tra-
dition of the museum as a temple and palace of art and it
also rejected decorativeness with symbolic and allegoric
signicance. The museum architecture was supposed to
express formal and ethical ideas of modernism such as
transparency, ‘open’ plan, functionalism and universal-
ism of space, technological precision as well as lack of
dialog between space and exhibited objects. The problem
of expressing the idea of museum was the subject of stud-
ies of the most remarkable creators of the movement like
Le Corbusier (a design of the world museum ‘Mundaneum’
in Geneva – 1929, the ‘Museum of unlimited growth’ –
1931) or Mies van der Rohe (‘Museum for a small town’
– 1942). Only after World War II could the principles of ar-
chitectural avant-garde be applied. The Museum of Mod-
ern Art in Sao Paulo (L. Bo Bardi – 1957) and the New
National Gallery (Neue Nationalgalerie) in Berlin (Mies
van der Rohe – 1962–1968) belong to the spectacular ex-
amples of free articulation of the exhibit space which ‘in-
termingles’ with the surroundings. Big, glass surfaces – in
spite of the fact that they caused problems in the case of ex-
hibitions – expressed a symbolic meaning of transparency,
which gave the space a public character by means of ‘great
freedom of access’ [14]. The open space and greenery of
the landscape were recognized as the most favourable sur-
roundings for exhibiting modern art. An idea of combining
modern art with the beauty of nature found its most perfect
reection in the Louisiana Museum in Humlebaek situ-
ated at the seaside near Copenhagen (J. Bo and V. Wohlert
– 1958–59). A spiral shape of the ‘Museum of unlimited
growth’ by Le Corbusier can be found in R. Guggenheim
Edice of Salomon Foundation Museum in New York
(F.L. Wright – 1943–1959). The owner of the radical forms
of modern art collection intended to exhibit it in a com-
pletely new space and to build a monument which would
be a symbol of the institution. Georges Pompidou National
Centre of Culture and Art in Paris (R. Piano and R. Rog-
ers – 1972–1977) perfectly reects ideological declara-
tions of modernism and at the same time it constitutes the
rst example of ‘high – tech’ philosophy which assumes
that a building should function like a catalyst: it should be
a casing which provides technical possibilities, stimulates
processes but it does not preserve them [16].
A rational direction of designing museums in search
of the most economic lighting systems of exhibitions was
created by the Saeger system – a combination of a vertical
window with a concave lamp which reects and models
light [17]. The rhythm of repeated round lanterns shaped
the museum form and in this way it expressed the idea of
functionalism. Possibilities of exible usage of different
sets and arrangements of this system made it very popu-
Architecture of the contemporary museum as the art of transmission of material and spiritual cultural values 181
lar in the second half of the 20
th
century (e.g. Joan Miro
Foundation in Barcelona, J.L. Sert – 1972–1975, Bauhaus
Museum in Berlinie, W. Gropius – 1964–1979, Ludwig
Museum in Koln – P. Busmann and G. Haberer – 1986).
Kimbell Art Museum (L. Kahn, 1967–1972) undoubtedly
constitutes a gem in the history of museums. A unique at-
mosphere of the interior (‘sacrum’) was achieved through
a harmonic combination of the structure, light and space
by means of traditional forms and materials and thanks to
the application of a modern light technique in the process
of designing.
At the end of the 20
th
century, museums experienced
signicant development as public institutions. In response
to the public needs connected with the development of
mass tourism and popularisation of the so called culture of
celebration [16], a new type of museums appeared called
a trade centre of culture or cultural mall [3] because its
main activity consisted in generating income through
stimulating consumption. Increasing needs for additional
spaces functioning as educational, relaxing, entertaining
places as well as commercial zones of trade and services
became a characteristic feature of the museum. Museums
as cultural centres and institutions dealing with research
on art were supposed to function as places of cultural
and social meetings, educational resources and market-
ing places as well as providers of pleasure coming from
contacts with culture. Architects responded by designing
buildings which were representative, stylistically diverse,
expressing their attitude towards architecture and art and
reecting artistic ambitions of the collections’ owners.
V.M. Lampugnani named them ‘seismographs of architec-
tural culture’ because they gave quick answers to chang-
ing architectural trends [10]. Thanks to the functional de-
velopment, the role of museums in solving urban, social
and economical problems of cities increased. Museums
designed as works of art inuenced the attractiveness of
the city surroundings by performing the role of ‘urban
signposts’ and symbols of cultural identity.
Since the 1980s design orders regarding museums or
other centres of culture have been considered to be the
most prestigious and met with great acceptance in the ar-
chitects’ environment.
Architecture of the advanced technology, which treats
natural light as indispensable in the museum space, fasci-
nates with possibilities of its transmission to inner parts
of the building by means of reections from mirror sur-
faces, shafts and light channels as well as through the use
of structural glass in horizontal divisions (Sackler Wing
Royal Academy of Arts and Crescent Wing in Sainsbury
Centre for Visual Arts of East England University in Nor-
wich – N. Foster, 1991, National Gallery of Canada in
Ottawa – M. Safdie, 1983–1988). Renzo Piano worked
on more and more sophisticated solutions of at glass
roofs above the museum exhibition in order to achieve
ideal light conditions (De Menil Collection – 1981–1986
and Cy Twombly – 1992 in Houston; Beyeler Museum
in Riehen –1992–1997; development of High Museum in
Atlanta – 1999–2005).
Postmodernist architecture, which opposed to the
monotony of the international style, referred to historical
typological elements of the museum as a form of a tem-
ple or treasury, rotunda covered with a copula, spatial ar-
rangement of a gallery, rooms en suite, elements of archi-
tectural styles and orders as well as methods of lighting:
gallery windows, a copula oculus, lanterns, skylights, etc.
This did not mean direct copying of historical forms but
applying them in a different way aiming at presenting
messages with symbolic meanings and emphasizing dif-
ferences between the past and presence (e.g. development
of Staatsgalerie in Stuttgard, J. Sterling & M. Wilford –
1977–1984).
Fatigue with historicizing forms of postmodernism
again resulted in their total negation and in architec-
ture which denied their – as it seemed so far – inalien-
able rights and reached constructivist Soviet utopias and
Jacques Derridy’s philosophy [11]. Deconstruction in the
museum architecture destroys originally created regular-
ity and typology on purpose. The way of treating the form
of a building resembles the work on a sculpture and its
relations with the surroundings are unconventional (e.g.
Weisman Museum of Art in Minneapolis, 1990–1993
and Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, 1991–1997 – F.O.
Gehry, Judish Museum in Berlin – D. Libeskind, 1989–
2001). Expressionistic and deconstructivist designs by
Zaha Hadid treat the gallery as a stage for art and archi-
tecture. They constitute a multiple and multi-planar trans-
formation of space (e.g. Centre of Modern Art in Rome,
1999–2005) and aim at expressing the idea of museum’s
public accessibility (e.g. Centre of Modern Art in Cincin-
nati, 1998–2003 – ‘urban carpet’ entering the building)
[5]. Rem Koolhaas’ architecture on the fringes of decon-
structionism, postmodernism and commercialism aims at
lack of stability and shocking the recipient by using col-
lages of contrary forms and materials [12] (e.g. Guggen-
heim Museum in Las Vegas, 2001).
Apart from the trends, which create the museum ar-
chitecture as a show or complicated technical device, also
other structures are erected such as architectural works of
art in the convention of rationalism, neo-realism, classicist
modernism or regionalism. Italian architects could com-
bine modernism with tradition in a creative way. Accord-
ing to Rossi, no époque should create a completely new
architecture but a traditional canon should be adapted to
the current requirements and ‘interpreted’ in a new way.
[16]. According to Álvaro Siza, the museum architecture
can be classical only (…) distanced or careful in rela-
tion to history and geography [2]. The complex of build-
ings of J.P. Getty Centre of Art in Los Angeles (R. Meier,
1984–1997) has a classical (Greek and Roman) and
modernist origin with references to the Roman forum –
Acropolis, Hadrian’s villa and Le Corbusier’s creative
activity. The concept of Gegenwart Gallery in Hamburg
(O.M. Ungers, 1986–1996) was based on the form of
a square and its geometric repetitions, which had their
roots in the Renaissance (works of art by Palladio and
Ledoux). In the Museum of Modern Art in San Francisco
(M. Botta, 1989–1995) a cylindrical form, which is situat-
ed on the axis and includes a central yard, creates a mon-
umental atmosphere and the heart of the building. The
restraint of minimalism, whose founding father is con-
182 Małgorzata Rogińska-Niesłuchowska
sidered to be Mies van der Rohe, expresses architecture’s
respect towards art. Achieving excellent effects by using
simple means becomes possible thanks to the following
elements: a thorough analysis of the subject and location,
simple and well-proportioned structure, carefully elabo-
rated details and innovative technical solutions (e.g. Kun-
sthaus in Bregenz, P. Zumthor – 1990–1997, Museum in
Fort Worth, T. Ando – 1997–2002).
A diversity of theories and styles is a feature which
results from tolerance for various views and needs. Multi-
thread character of the modern art which attempts to refer
to the current problems of the world and to follow the
changing reality, progress in building technologies and
the pursuit of originality do not allow dening the canon
of beauty in an unambiguous and permanent way and
make it impossible to adhere to the principles of one pre-
vailing theory. Classicism determined models and arche-
types existing throughout the centuries, which entered the
language of architecture permanently. The modern archi-
tectural thought must have its own attitude towards these
models by either accepting or rejecting them. Apart from
the solutions which consciously combine modernity with
tradition, we can nd references to classical archetypes
even in the most avant-garde designs.
References
[1] Van Bruggen C., F.O. Gehry, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, Gug-
genheim Museum Publications, New York 1999.
[2] Bulanda-Jansen A., Idealne muzeum... jakie?, A&B styczeń 2002
[3] Ghirardo D., Architektura po modernizmie, Wydawnictwo VIA,
Toruń, Wrocław 1999.
[4] Gössel P., Leuthäuser G., Architecture In the Twentieth Century,
Taschen, Köln 1990.
[5] Hadid Z., Architektur, Hatje Cantz, New York, London 2004.
[6] Henderson J., Museum architecture, Rockport Publishers, Gloucester
Massachusetts 1998.
[7] Jencks Ch., Architektura postmodernistyczna, Arkady, Warszawa
1987.
[8] Jencks Ch., Architektura późnego modernizmu, Arkady, Warszawa
1989.
[9] Kiciński A., Racjonalizm i romantyzm w oświetleniu naturalnym
muzeów i galerii sztuki, Muzealnictwo 40, 1998.
[10] Lampugnani V. M., Sachs A., Museums for a New Millennium:
Concepts, Projects, Buildings, Prestel Verlag, Munich, London,
New York, Art Center, Basel 1999.
[11] Leśniak D., Wolf Prix w centrum Manggha, www.w-a.pl/2004/
wolf_prix.htm.
[12] Leśnikowski W., Projekty Rema Koolhaasa, A&B 7/8 2003.
[13] Muzealnictwo, praca zbiorowa pod red. S. Komornickiego i T. Do-
browolskiego, Wydawnictwo Związku Muzeów w Polsce, Kraków
1947.
[14] Norberg-Schulz Ch., Znaczenie w architekturze Zachodu, Wyd.
Murator, Warszawa 1999.
[15] Sochańska B., Krajobraz Architektura Sztuka, Muzeum Sztuki
Nowoczesnej Louisiana, Archivolta 4/2001, p. 27.
[16] J. Tietz, Historia architektury XX wieku, Könemann, Koln 1998
[17] Wierzbicki J., Muzea i biblioteki, Arkady, Warszawa 1961.
[18] Witruwiusz, O architekturze ksiąg dziesięć, Prószyński i S-ka,
Warszawa 1999.
[19] Żygulski Z. jun., Muzea na świecie: wstęp do muzealnictwa, PWN,
Warszawa 1982.
[20] Żygulski Z. jun., Przemiany architektury muzeów, Muzealnictwo
45, pp. 106–124.
Architektura współczesnego muzeum jako sztuka przekazu
kulturowych wartości materialnych i duchowych
W pojęciu kultury, rozumianej jako całokształt duchowego i mate-
rialnego dorobku społeczeństwa, miejsce szczególne zajmuje sztuka, jako
twórczość artystyczna wywołana wewnętrznym przymusem, potrzebą wy-
rażania uczuć, komunikacji, rozwiązywania problemów ogólnoludzkich.
Artykuł dotyczy muzeum jako miejsca, które służy zaspokajaniu potrzeb
związanych z obcowaniem ze sztuką. Począwszy od drugiej połowy XX
wieku nastąpił rozwój architektury muzeów pod względem funkcjonal-
no-przestrzennym i estetyczno-kulturowym. Służąc ekspozycji, badaniom
i konserwacji sztuki, muzea stały się również miejscem spotkań kultu-
ralno-społecznych, marketingu, rekreacji i rozrywki, edukacji. Projekty
nowoczesnych muzeów, jako najbardziej prestiżowe, tworzone są przez
najwybitniejszych architektów, reprezentują aktualne oraz awangardowe
nurty architektoniczne. Swobodzie wyrażania nowatorskich artystycznych
idei towarzyszy konieczność rozwiązywania złożonych problemów
funkcjonalno-przestrzennych oraz wymogów użytkowych. Rezultatem
jest architektura konkurencyjna w stosunku do wystawianej w niej sztu-
ki. Stosowane środki artystyczne oraz nowoczesna technologia mają na
celu przyciąganie widzów, dostarczanie im przyjemności estetycznych
oraz przekazywanie treści materialnych i duchowych związanych z ideą
muzealnictwa.
Key words: contemporary museum Słowa kluczowe: współczesne muzeum