reshaping museum space- architecture- design- exhibitions by suzanne macleod

8/2/2019 Reshaping Museum Space- Architecture- Design- Exhibitions by Suzanne Macleod

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reshaping-museum-space-architecture-design-exhibitions-by-suzanne-macleod 1/28

Architecture, Design, Exhibitions

Edited by

I~....R a . · uitledgeI . . . . ~E<.I~r:ilrK!I~C;rn!;l""

OONLI ( )N A , ! I \ I I ! ) NI;W ' \ I ' 0 1 ! i 1 i ! ;

Also available as a printed booksee title verso for IS,B,N details



]SBN n~15~34341J~5 (hhk)

.~SBN0-415-34345-.3 (phk)

First ruhli~hcd 20mh y R[Nnh:cl)g~

2 Park Squore, Mjl~oIJlPark, A I l J . i n g J o a . 1 , Oxen OX14 4RN

S i l l 1 i i l ; ! l t a r i t e O l l s l y p i l ; ! b h s h e o d i ~ l t h e L JS A a n d C a r u l ! d . : " i

by Ihlur!t!Jg~

2 70 M a clio on A~t;LU1,c:, New ' ; ( ' 0 1 - 1 . : ; , NY 10016

RQMtle:dgc i s . 1 1 I im [xrim of tin TIJ),1or &.fm m:'s G ro up

This ~d~tu(lolil lmbl:ish~dn~he lay~Qr I f ! } ; Francis e-Library, 20HS .

'"T~ r lLl !"Ch~, ,"~ YQur ( }w ru Cor,I llY f t llh O f , 8 ! l 1 , , ' \ ' QfTa) '~Qr 8 1 : F[lmcu~ Qf HJ[lIu.t~~Jg~·~

eellcct ion onh[)1;I:l)~lId!> o r ,I f ,cBook~ p l eas ego t o g . w'iliiwc&Qk5t(lre,t~rnlfoo,uk:'

© 2005 S.Uz.l~nLlCMacLeod fQI: seleceiou and cdit!O[i(ii,1ma~c[';

infH.v~dnal ch~.p.tcrs:,. the ooj]f~~bur(u~s.

A.U[;!i~u~ reserved, No psr[ .o f !:~;s Ibook may b~

.r.eprintedi or repredaeed or lItil.i.~~d in any forme« by any d~ctl'onic,

mechanical, nr ()Ih~'IT1I"I"I1t',!lrI'l:.;

m:l\'It !kiilown (][. lhi~t·~afltT invented, il1dndil1gpho tQwp:y i .ng .olnd recording, o . i[l <lin)' ~n{io1'~nat:iol1srIDrage' orr ' rcmkv:i l~

:;r~lt~m,i~ho~t IX'r,[lJli'!i~jQ!1J in wrjtiii!!; mO'Llii ~h~~jbli: ;~!;[~1

B dN $b LU~ ~O ir-yCatalQgl~b~g i n 1?~ lb . fh ;~ t;o1 rDatfl

A Cllimlogll~ rscord For E l lis book is a ....lJHable f eom '[ he H r it is hL l b. ru y

L ibrary o f CQ1ljgres~ Gatulogjl1g ill P.~lbI'iClrti<fmDat t l

Macl.eod, ::;!.lz;.~l1n~"

RllSha?ing, m~SetlHl Si.l%toe;ar.dlitectllfC, des ign" c :xh ilbh ion : sJ

S.l~;z,, '1IU1.C M,acLeod.

p . em.. - (MI:lOO~[ll I1lf 'anirLJ}'S}

Includes hibHog~·apllkalf{:kmtccs and index ,

1 . M . !!ls el1 :r na [d 'li~ eC tillili't .2 . S p ac e (Ar ch io o ch lrd . 1 . Muse'LlInlJ j}l!lnrlh:lgs,'I..Mm~nml ;:::xhi.bhs.. S . Museum s - InJOi) lmUU011 ceo;::imology.

6"MiJs~u:m~ - T~clh!!:mr[jgic.ll] :i!T!n()....a~i.n:rl~ 7..C./l]~t!l[,a~r()~rt)' - r~m~cti(~!T!"

8 ..MIl~Llmg - Ph i. ~0 2 la p h )'. ] , lide,. m . Selties.NA6 6 9 0'J I,4 37 2 0 0'5

n7.6-th::22

2004026835



For Sue and Ron;nie'M,c],cLeod



Contents

List of figu;res

No tes 0 11 c(mtrib~ttor:s

A,ckno wledgem,rJ ,t it s XLV

]ntroauc:tlou

SlliZmnUt M acLeo d

]

Part I On t h e natillr~of I J J m S e U m space

] Rethinking ffiliueum architecture, towards a site-specific h]$wry

of prod uctiou and use 9Sw,zan~lU! .MacL eod

2 Black box sciencein black box science centres 26

Richard Toori

3 Space and the machi ne: adaptive museu ms, pervasive tech nology

and the new gallery environment 39

Ross Payry mid An .d re~ () ' S aw y er

4 Creative space 53

David F.le.mi~'lg

Part: II Architecturalll1 'esh,apiug

5 From cultural instimtion to cultural consumer experience.Manchester Art GaUery Expansicn Project

Moir~ Stt'vemon

6 Spatial culturevway-findiug and the educational me.'isage=

the impact of layout on the spatial, social and educaticnal

experiences o f visitors tomuseums and galleriesSophia P sarra

65

78

vn



7 The' Grande Galerie de l'Evolution: <linalternative cognitive

e.xpenence 95

Fabl~me Gah.mga# ~Qr4irat

8Prociu.cing a public for art: gallery space in the twenty-first century 10.8

He ltJ '1 'l Rees Leahy

9 'T ow ards < 1 . n ew IUU8,eum. arch ieecm ree n arra tiv e an d representation :1]8Lee f[ Sk ohn~c li .

Pa rt IU ~n :iljd .es p a ce s

]0 Building on Victorian ideas 133

La;W'Y~nu Ht~ger.aJd

~1Representing . E n . 1 ightenment space 146

Beth Lord

] 2 The, stu d u o in the g;aIlery? 153

]em : Wo od

B When worldscollide. the conrenrporary museum < : l i S an gallery 170Chr i s- top ,h e r R . Marshal .1

H Constructingand ccmmunicat ingequal i tv r the social agencyof mUSem.11space 18 5

R ic ha rd S al'fd ell

Parr lV C r e a i t O O v e s p a c e :

]5 Threshold :fe~u 203

Elairi:e!Heum~m Gurian

]6 F rom ca thedra] o f cu ltu re to an cho r a ttraceo r 2 'U .5Peter Higgins

] 7 T he- v ira l m useum 22 ,6

St~hcrJ Gre~1'1.berg

Index 23&

vm



Figures

i.i The \ValkeE~Natioual Museums Liverpool l52.1 Arizuna Science Center 2.72 .. 2 Interac t ive exhibits in . A rizo na S cien ce C en te r's . A U AboAr,t yo~'

gallery 33

3. ] An evolu tio.n of in-gallery digiral i .IHeractuv.L[y 45

6.1 Levels of irrtegracicn <lit the A[~I:GaHery and. Ml]seum~Kelvingrove,

Glasgow; the Natura] History Museum, London, the Museum ofS co tla n d •.Edinburgh, and the B l . 1 U e U Musenm ; . Glasgow 33

6.2 Visitor p a ths a t the An Ga .Ue I 'Yand Museum,K.eJvu.l].gnrve~

Clasgow, the Natural History Museumc Lomlon, the SHnd.1Museum, Glasgow, and. the Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh 86

7.1 The centre ofthe courtyaed of the Ga,lle[~yo f Zoclogv. Paeis 977.2 The inner space of the Gr:au.de Galede de ]~.Evnlll.don,. National

Museum of Natural History, Paris 10'0

9 . : 1 . The Creative Discovery Museum in Ch~.ITa.noog<li)ennessee 116

9.. 2 The inrericr of the Creative Discovery Museum ln Chattanooga,

Tennessee 126

9.3 The Marine Park E nv ironm enta l Cen ter in Brooklyn, New York . i l l 2.7

9.4 The Muhammad Ali Center i n . Louisvil le~Kentl!1cll;:.y 12.9

W.1 The Art Gallery and Museum, Kelvingrove, Glasgow 133

11.0. 2 The pro to lype : flexible 'Slrorydisplay" sys t em, the Art GaUe ry and

Museu m)Kel vingrove, Glasgow 14·0'11.1 EnlighteNlne.1·1 t:Discovercng the World :b:rthe .1 : ightee.1'lth Cent« f'Y,

which opened ]R 200+ atthe Bri t i sh Museum 1+ 9 -

n 1.2 Displayea binets in the B.rit~sh Museum ' : f l Enlightenn .•ent gallery 151

n.2.1 Van Gog:h'sWorkroom~ Scar bow ugh 1591L2.2 Clo se E,'1·COtmter:s: The Sculptor'c$ Studio £ 1 ' t th .e .A ge o f the C am era ,

Henry Moore Institute, teeds, installation photograph of maingaU ery 1162

13.1 . B a l d w . D f i Spencer Display, Bunjilaka GaJlery~Melbourne Museum 178

13.2 Julie Gough, Chase (2001); [i trees) string, fabricand meta], as

instal led in . The kin Potter Centre, National GaUe ry of Victoria,Ausn-alia 1 1 [ 8 0

14.1 The spatial charecteristics of devices for displaying difference 192

tx



]4.2 Spatia l tactics and inrent within displays designedto cornmu nica te

notices of equality and combat prejudice 197

Hi.l Concept of 'Tomorrow'sworld' ~a mixed-use destinarion 22,]~ ,6 .2 N a tu oF la l Marjtime Museum COTDlwaU 122

17.1 Penn anent Hoi ocaust Exh ib i rion~Imperial War Museu m,

LambethvLnndon 229r7.2 Imperial W aI Museum North, Irafford 23]17.3 ~Iden.t]ti.es~,eart o J S lo ~,lg h 234

]'7.4 Nam Juu.ePaik Museum, Suwon, South. Korea 235



R ich ard T 'O o l!1is S em ior Research Analyst , Morrison In stitiu te fo r Public Policv,Aeizoua Smte Unuvel~S'lty"Tempe, Al~lzona ..He was previously Educatinn and

Research. Director at the Arizona Science Center, il l Phoenix, Arizona. US. He

com p le ted .hi.sPbU in Musepm Sw.dies a t Le ice s te r University in 2003 and. liasbeen : : I . prograrmne evaluator and. public policy consultant for over 2,0 years.

JonWo,od. wnrksat the Henry Meore Institute in Leeds, UK, where he co-

ordinaees the research programme and curates exhibieions, He is au AssociateLecturer at Leeds Unive[:sh:y~ wherehe teaches on the <MAin Sculpture Studies"

course. He: specializes in sculpture from [850 to the present <lindis currentlywriting a history of the OlI.r(lsesstudio.

xm



Acknowledgements

This book emerged out of a conference held < 1 J t the University of Leicester inApril 2004a]].d wauh!. not have been possible without the support of the

University of Leicestes, Haley Sharpe Design and the s~<'!Ho f the Departmentof Museum Studieavl am grateful to Dr Simon Knell, who. enthusiasHc:aUy

S 1 l I p pm : r e d the idea fo r the conference and the book, and to Professor EileenHoeper-Greenhill, who. 11.a:saken. : i 3 J . keen interest in the content of the bookand ~prov~ded much-needed directirm and advicevI am grateful to Richa.rd

Sandell for his ongoing support and to Catherine Bousfield at Roudedge, who

has prov.ided clear and hdp.fl!l~.instructions throughout, Thanks should also goro the contrihnrnrs to the book, all of WhO'[I1 wcrked to make the prod uction

process as simple as possible - sQolneching whichI g~e~~dyappreciate - to JimRoberts for his technical assistance, and ro jocelyn Dodd. Mark O'Neill;

Richa rd Toon an d R icha rd S an de ll, w .h .o prov ided thoug htfu l feedback on chap -ten•. fTlllally,n would especially like to thank my husband Lee Ridsdale, whocontinues W take <lin i.nte.r!l;st in m y work and to act as a conseant source of

enceuragemen t and. hUmOl1E.

figure 1.], Courtesy of National Mm~ums Liverpool.

Figure 2,11.Courtesy of th e Arizona Science Center,

Figures 7.] and 7.2 Counesy of the Nalriona] Museum of N:=I.tur:3J~iswry~ Paris.

Figures 9..1 and 9'.2 © Peter AatonfEsto.

Figure 9..3 Courtesy of Lee H. Skolnick, Am: ::llite c: tu re " DesignParrnership.

Figure 9.4 Courtesy of Lee rI..kolnick, Architecture + Design. Partnership/-B eye r B ]itlde r B ene Arch ite cts an d Plan ue rs , '. ~

Figures 10.1 and IfLl © Glasgow Cixy Council {Museums) .

Figures 11.1 and 11.2 The British Museum.F ig ure ]2 :.2 J , Ha rdman Jones, H en ry M o ore In stitu te ,

Figure 13.1 Photegra ph c curtesy of MU.S.eIlITi Victoria and Des ign Craft

Furniture Pt.y Ltd,

Figure 13.2 julie Gough, born Ausrralia 1965~ Chase (20O'J); ti trees, string,

fabric, metal. Collectian of theartist, © courtesy of the artist ..Phomgraph

© NGVPh.owgl'aphk Services,

Figure 16.1 ©l<l!ud. Design Studio/Locum Destination .

Figure 16.2:© National Maritjme Museum Cornwall.

f igure r 7 . 1 © D E : : . G W . A c L arg e, N ick Hu fton,Figure 17.2: © DEGW. AtLarge, Andrew Puder.

Figures 17.3 and 17.4 ©Metaphor ..



Suzanne Macl.eod

A t no o ther POiM in the ir m odern history hav e m useum s underg one such radi-

cal reshaping as. in. recent years, Challenges [,0 create inclusive andaccessible

spaces open to . appropriatinn and. responsive to ccnremporary agenda S . have

resulted in new archirectura] and spatial forms for museums .. One result of this

]arge-scale and var ied remaking o f m u se um space is that the sp ace o f rhe m useum

is in cre as in g ly re co g nize d. a s anenvircnment crea ted throug h a . com p lex o f p rac-tices < lind system s o f k now ledg e , M useum professionals are beg inn ing ro

recog nize the constitu tiv e characte r and rransformative possibilities o : fmu s eumsp2l.ce as wel l as the abiL ity of Il i]USeLUm!J1Sers Sind museum professionals to

reshape museum Sp<3iGeShrough practices of appropriation .. Museum space

is now recognized as a space with a history of its own, a space active in the

making o f meaning and, most impor tant ly , < I! space open ro change.

This recegnition i s undoubtedly linkedto the substantia '! new building projects

that can be identified nrteruarionallyand that have begun to challenge tradi-

tinnal concepts o f museumaeehfrecture and sugges.t new pnssibilities for displayand experience. However, the redlinkil1g of museum space relates to mote than

the physical structure and exhibition hardware of the museum. Many museums .

< 1 J J " t working to reposition both collectinns and. visitors in orderto geaeraee new

spatial forms, withoue large-scale archirecmraldevelopmenes. These shifts arev ario us ly c ha ra cte rize d a sc re atin g spacesfor Hf.-e longlearning, spaces o :fmutu-

< l i L L t y and. inclusive spaces, where phy:sica1ju.lndlect~al and . cultural barriers WILaccess may ~)e overcnme,

l{.@ s ha pir rgM~$ e#m S pa ce: A 1 ' c : i J i t e c t 1 4 ' r e . , D e $ . r g } ' f " Exhibi t ions rakes aspects of

th es e re ce ntmu se um developments as its focus ...Pu.ILU.ngcgether th e views o f

mu s elilHI. profess ionals , architects , desig n e rs and academ ics the b oo k h ig hlig lrtsthe complexity, su.g:JrI.i~.CilnceSind.malleability of museum sp:3Jceand provides. an

oPPolftrLluityfor some prelurirlin<lfY reHecrionslUpon recent developments in" = - '" ,

museum. space and. for the detailed analysis of specific case studies .. In partie-

~1.1.3r ,he chapters, con cen tra te o n the processes <lindp ractices o f m useum building

and ex huhul~O n design, focusing on tbenaw re~ character and. possibidit iesfor museum space t h . r ' OU . g : h an understanding o .r thecomplex ways in.whichitis made ,

: 1



S i4Za tme MacLeod

A recurring issue across a good number ofrhe chapters in I{es ha ph 1g Mu s eum

S p . a ' c e is the tension between iconic archirecture and the agendas ofaccessand

inclusion that form the central tenets of the modem museum. Often criticizedas architectural indujgences, iconic buildings can ccmpcnnd the separation

between the building, its contents and its contexrvensuring the persistence of

arathe[: Iimited and partial understanding of architecture as the aestheticoutcomeand privileged :a.ctivity of th e architect - a. view that ignores th e

complexity and diffiG~I.I:Ytl{ any architectural pli'oiect.As Richard T()Qnll()tes

in Chapter 2, architecturaltexts devoted UJ the museumtend eoconceneraeeon images of specific architectural. features such as staircases, entrances and

lighting solutions, the assumption being that the architecture exists in D C S idealform before the commun i t i e s of use move in. i Si.I.!t]]I.ar]y~arehirecnu-al histories

of the museumprivilege the museum a.iSanarchitectural object, celebrating some

museama, ignoeing others and obscuring from view the complex histories of

practice through which the space o f the-museum has been continually recreated[Chapter 1l).

The chapters in .Reshapi1'lg Museut 'H Space suggest a broader understanding of

architecture based upon a recogutnon of the range ofprofessionals and stake-

holders involved fn the arcltitecturel produeticn process and the eomplexity

of navigating these often-contradictory agendas and aspirations towards the

building of a new museum, A!'l Moira Stevenson suggests in Chapter i, for

many museum professionals directly involved in capital development projects,

achieving the aims and vision of their institutions and turning development

plans and ideals into a rea~ity have demanded stringent plann ~ng,nerves of steel

and < 3 J commitment to ongoing evaluation and change. With this in mind, agood number of the chapters in R.e.shaping M I 1 : S , e : l i .u n Space concentrate on the

process of archirecturaland spatial reshaping in ortier frO highlight the various'negotuOltions~throughwhic:h arch.urecture ge t s built and the problemsand incon-

sistencies, that: can creep into the architectural structure of the museum as a

resu It of th iscompl e x i ! : : y bee, for example, Chapters 5, 6:~7,. g aad. 16V

As museums have come to be consciously recognized as drivers for social and

ecnnomdc regenerarion, the architecture o r rhemusenm has developed from itstraditional forms into often-spectacular one-off statements and architectural

visions. H u . g h ~ p . r o f U ~ e examples includeFrank G e h l " Y ' : s G~lggenhe in l Bilbao andDaniel Libeskind 's Jewish MUS{:ifl.rn in Berlin, WhH e recognieed as often drawing

mass appeal and admiration, such buildings may also Hghtaga.uB.s. t the other

agendas of the museum) con firming to a broad. public that museums are notfor them {seeChapters 1~4,.8 and. 15 )'.For example, Helen Rees Leahy (Chapter

8),notes ;@ J tension berweenthe spectacular space of distraction and disorienta-

tion in . < : l i . numher of recently built and renewed art 1111.USeunlS, .nd the agendas

of le a riling and inclusion to which the institutions are fully committed. SimUarl .y;

in Fabienne Galengau-Querat's account o~ the creation of the Grande Ga~e·.riede l'Evolution at the National Museum of Na.m.ral History in Paris (Chapter

7h the language of spectacle and the successful incorperation ( ' I f architecturalscale and splendour into the exhibition experience would seem to have been

achieved at dle expense of a contenr-rich experience,

2



[conic architecture can place a city Oil town on the cultural ID<1Ip. It can, as inthe case of Bilbao, raise the profile of .1 pl ace or region. and work in an incredibly

positive way to challenge preconceptions aJIUd encourage economic investment,It can add enormously to the pleasure of museum. visiting, creating a visual

teast and sense of occasion that is rarelj' experienced in other building types.

The challenge, however; is to achieve dais alnngside the iutegeatian of site,architecmreand exhibition, fighting against the iconictendencies in museum;3lrc ;::h.ute c:n ue, a H ln nbe r o f the chapters descrjbe W;3!YSofwnrking that stern f rom

the visions and agendas oJ the museum and [I!HlY poten~ialJy result in three-dimensional design solutions that form a direct relationship between context,

content and . sp a tia l ex p erien ce (Chap eecs .9 , ] 6 and 1 n.Wi th in th e approachesdescribed here, visitor experience is privileged over the design of beautiful

objects and narrati vepla y 5 a.key part in structu ring space and anchoringconren t

to context. Here, the architecture and other design features become part of a

ra.nge of elements, macro and micro, arranged and orehesrratedto create possi-bH iH es fo r interactian and experience. A s Peter I"] lgguns notes (Chapter HO,

museums built un t his way cau also become an ·~~nchorat tracror" 'when master-planned Into the commercial activities of agiven location.

Common to a ll of this is a repositioning of the museum as a Ilexible :5pace~

open to. change, responsive to visitor needs and in touch with contemporary

issues and. agendas (see Chapters ]0', U~ 12, B and 14}. Lawrence Firzgerald's

description of the rationale behind the redisplay of Kelvingrove MuseumandArt GaHery 1]1G~as.gow {Chapter 10) charts a shUt in cnnceptions of museum

space where permanency has g iven way to a system of changeable modules

enabling 60 per cent of the display tobe changed over : B ! . six-year period ..And,in Chapter 12, Jon Woo.d describes the i:n .n ov a.tiv ea .n d in sp irin g Clos t .E1'lcou.11ters;~ The Scu.lptor~sStt,,,aio in the Age of the Camera at the Henry Moore

Institute in Leeds, whichre-eveked the sculptor's studio in the g3iHerywithoutrecourse to 'mock-ups with tuentables, too]s.,. stone and sawdust" ..These and

the other examples offered. ~n Re!;/ur.ping MIJ.SrJlifr1'I; Space poineto sorne of the

sophisticated techniques being utilized in. a range of exhibition formats at the

present rime. Such examples challenge the not ion . of "dumbing down' in museumdisplay~,pointinB instead to t = I . myriad of possibilities,

A common ch;;l!racteri:stk 'O f many of the examples ofrnnseum sp;il!cecited bythe centrilmtors is the recognition on the part of the exhibit des igner s of the

need. fo.r d.idlactuc exhibition e l emen t s that ground the user andenable SOITle

level of eugagement with the subject matter, while at the same time providingspace to iH1J:3J.g;ine,.ontemplate aIII.d l'ef[ect.[n Chapter 13,. on the cress-overs in

spat ia l characteristics between the worlds of the museum and the gallery,

Christophel!' Ma.rslllaHdifferentiates between th e essentially ~projective space' of

the museum and the 'reflective space" o f the gallery, Museums , he argues, a remore 'prcjectivein the WSiy that they pun together exhibi tionary elements in

order to convey a message .. Galleries on the other hand cffer, in the main, a

mnre "reflective" space based. upon the contemplation o f u n . d i v u d . u . a J works,Marshall concentrates his attention on . the w ays in w hich . museums ha.v€:beguntoutilize the ref lecdv .e space of the gaJ l e ry through. the incorporation oJ aesthetic

3



Part I

On the nature ofmuseum space



1

Rethinking museum architecture'

Towards a site-specific history

of production and use

Suzanne Macl.eod

Introducaion

U you co uld distil the essence of pure mod ern < J I[c hir€c ru r€• a nd remove

a ll traces of theusual compromises <lindcut corne rs and clumsy detailsand. .Aas.hpopulist moves then you woul,c1 get a strange, unsettling; austere,

bur rather heaurifulbuilding, Such absolute purity is of course impossible

to achiev e .. B tu the N ew A rt G alle ry in W a lsaU comes clo se r than any newcultural landmark bllUI~in B.' . i lain for years. It is both extraordinaryandexttaotdiliati[y good .. It repays attention: this is emphatically nota one-

:~ine:l: 'ui.lding.'

.11b~,li~d.ingor people in which to experience art? Not inmy book. Thisis an architectural indulgence which allows enthusiasts to experience am

umpre s s i v e bui.lding but w here now here nea r enoug h thoug h t bas been putinto ho 'w a wider pubhc wUHuse that ibufMi [i]g.. It is a traditicnal g;allery

in new dothe,,,. It gets nowhere close to the essential 'fedgoocl' rdaxing

atmosphere neededto make people love it. W hy are [here no production

facilities., no cra f ts , no f ilm . There aren ' t even areas to sit.2

T hese tw o s ta tem en ts w ere both wri t ten abour the N ew A rt G aU e.ry~W a .lsa J I .)

on its opening in 20.00. Th ey offer just two examples of the kinds of narrativethat have circulated around the progra~Jlnle of new museum building and expan-

sion that has taken place on <Iii intematlona] scale over the last three decades.

W .here H ug h Pea rm an is re l ieved that, on this occas ion ) the usual 'd ininessj3

of archireeture (compromise, populism and economy) has been avoided by thearch ..teers, John Stewart-Young speaks only ( ] o f missed opportunities andpartiel

re sp o n se s to the m ak in g o f a . n ew m useum . W hH e Pea rrn an see s a ll a rchitec-tura l masterpiece, S te w art- Y o un g se es <linsrchirecturalindulgence and cast iga testhe architects of the building for ornitting the most obvious of architectural

elementsnecessaryinamuseumfit for the twenty-first cen tury - p lace s to sit,

Such statements point towards some of the perceived 'problems' ( ; I f museumarchltecture that have become evident in thewake aftheIarge-scale reshaping

9



S i4Za tme MacLeod

o f m u seum s . A recu rrin g critic ism o f m any n ew and ren ew ed m useum s is thatthe vision and desire 0 '£ the archi teet to create < 3 ! . is igneture building have ridden

roughshod over the needs and a ims of the museum, Such buildings may workvery wellas [ co ns , a nd . cultural l a ndma rks withoutachi,ev]ug the lev e ls o f acces-

sibiHcy~u s ab ility a n d re le v a n ce fo r both v is ito rs a n d. s ta ff ,p .ro tm i s,e d durin g th eir

conception.

T hese frustra tio ns o .t m useu In a rc hite ctu re e xp o se its comp l e x ir y ..H e r e, persona lag endas and g oa ls m ix w ith in s tin rtion a l am bitio n s and v is ion s , econ om ic:dev elo p men t p lan s, the expectations offullding bodies and the broader socia lidea ls and ex p ecta tio n s fo r the m useum 's ro le in society. M a k in g a rc hite ctu rein v o lv e s a~ :a :rrg e num ber o f p eo p le from different f ie ld s an d 'COI1'l!]]1lI..U)lties

of practice'who speak different languages and ho ld dH fe ren t aspiratians and.

priorities, values and lbeHefs, sOmuch. so that the v:aJ.ryuJ1tgiudg~ment:sOn aechi-

te ctu recan seem diff icu lt, if not imposs ib le ! to r ec o n cile ..4 T here seem s to be

little shared ground between them, Y et such. diversi ty of perception and. prinJdtyis not : unccn rmcn , often character iz ing € 'V ' e. nh e sma lle s t o f c ap ita l deve lopmen t

project teams.

W h< 1!tseem s to cloud the issue he re , but does also perhaps of fe r $.Q].He common

ground, is am underlying umder:standing,m: notion, of what architecture is - am

assumpt ion that architecture i . s the ae s the tic o utcom e and activ ity o f ' the a rch i-tecto This dominant and powerful understanding, it is argued here, sits behind

m any o f the deba te s surround ing m useum arch itectu re and is [he cause o f rn,u'iyo f the p roblem s asso cia ted w ith w o rk ing with a rcbitects in m useum s: the

seem in g lack o . f con t ro l o f the building process on the p a rt o f them useum ,th e inability of the d.ientw ccmmunicare the institutional vision to the acchi-

e e ct s, th e r e a r ,o f intede: rung with th e architecturalprocess andhoisting Woo nl~ny

compromises on to the architect, the fear of being perceived S J . S S J phi.l.isrune byquestionirsga design concept, and so on .•.

T ak ing ie s lead from a body o f a rchitectura l theo ry tha t has em erg ed in the g apopened. up ·by Henri Lefebvre's work em the pruduction of space/ this. chapter

sets out to oppose this underlying and dominant definition of architecture andt:CI aq:;ll.€: instead fo[: a fuller reading of museum .archltecture'' as a social and cul-

ruralproduct, cnntinual ly rep roduced th roug h use . S uch a broaden ing o .r our

underscanding of what architecture iswould enable us to begin to considerthe co n tex ts w ith in , an d p rocesse s through w hich. m useum architectu re is con -tinually reproducedcIu this way , we m:u;ght begun to explore the c()lnplex:uty of

museum architectnreand understand more abour h.ow it gets made.

While the k ey a im of this chapter is to chal lenge underlying and reductive

notions of .:u:chitectun:." it isalso concemedwith archirectural histories of th emuseum - the stories through which we learn about museum architecture.

Arcbi tectura l histories ofdle museum tend eo be based upon and re in fo rce thedom in an t unde rs tand ing o f a rchitectu re a s m e aes the tic ou tcom e o r activ ity o f

thearchitect. Such histories can. be recognized : i 3 ! . S legitimizing current practiceand con tributin g to som e o f the p roblem s asso cia ted with mu s eum a rc hite ctu re .W i th th is in m ind ~the chap te r beg in s from ex istin g a rchitectura l h is to rie s o f th e



of architecture and the subtle histories of site-specific change in the process.The outcomes of the dCHIlilnant conception o f arehfrecture : 8 J S the privileged

<'Jictivityofthe architectand as an aesthetic work are also evident in museumsin numerous, ways. Many museum professionels, understandablr, find it very

difficult [0engagewirh architecture - after an they don't speak the specialist

]anguage of architecture and can feelill-equipped to hold an cpinion. Relatedto this is the tendency of museums to assumethat the architect will lead building

Pl'U,jects"resulting in museums which m ay be beautif~~. and ~ardi~e';;::il:llr;3!lly

strong", but don't necessarily provide the : r e q u m . s i r e spaces expected by themuseum. staff or ]n Hue with the longer-term p]am for development. 1 m addi-

tion to chis, t h e view of architecture as a product dMU other people t ' O C : l ~ ~ k e

eompounds the separation between the building Sind. its contents that manifests.

itself in the much-quoted examples of < 11 rchieects and visitors valuing the museum

building f o r its o W . 1 1 L sake.

A number of sources begin to provide a mnre usefulway of. thinking about thea t c h . i t '€ ( ; ' l : l :D f € of [he museum, A growing literature c a n be identified 1 : 1 1 . 2 1 . [ .looks

beyond rh e definition ofarchitecture as the actuvity and creative output of thearchitect cowards an undersranding of the built environment as a social and

cultural product, conriuuajly [rejproduced thrcuglruse. From this Iiterature,

four ke'y overlapping observations concerning rile productien of architecture

[nay begin. to suggest all alternate reading .. In. the following sections, the four

observations are explored through selected episodes from the architectural pastof the W :aJk .er...

Arc!J~ .t :ec1 'ure as (1 : soda.i and c~d:t 'ura l prod·u:c'f:

Research has shownthat architecture can be conceived as the outcome of aperceived social : n H 5 I 5 d , located in the s p e c i f i c s of jime, space and. $.~te.l.~As society

changes and new soda I needs arise, new building fOrIlI.lJS will be produced in

order to f li l U i l t h a t social need. Simi]aJI'ly, architectures, the physical structures

0 '£ b u.iM . in g s a nd theuses to which they are purwill change shape over time as

needs and priorities shift. As Anthony King noted ] : 1 1 1980, buildings areinformed by a society's ideas, ltsforms of social organizatinn.the beliefs andvalues ehat dominate ar a particularmoment and its distribution of resources.P

Understanding buildings as. social and. eulrnral, racher than physic.a~ entities,m eans build in g som e lev e l o f unders tand in g o f the society o f w hich rhey a rel3J.art.!"

TheWl3JJke:rhas, changed shape I :n :a JUY times as irs social contexts have shifted,

Existing research into the social condirions tbat ledro the establishment of

museums andgalleries in the industrial towns and cities ofth ...;:norrh and the

midlands begins to provide a context for the perceived need for a gallerj' of an

in Liverpool, 18 Towns li.ke Liverpoolhad grown exponentially over the courseof the eighteenth and early nineteenthcenturies - changesthat had dramati-

c : 8 J l l y altered th.e organizat .L.61l o f s~:)ciety.19 B y the e : a . d y nineteenth c e n t m y ) thesocial problems brought about by mdustrlalfzauon and urbanization were

signdling the need. for civic r e f o r m . High mortality rates, S IUH.1 h O I , i l. :s i n g and

B



S i4Za tme MacLeod

poor sanitation characterized the poorer quarters of the industrial townsandciv:iJ u nres tha d . erupted in ciies such as Liverpool, Nottingham and Bristol. By

the mid- to later decades of the nineteenth century, governance in the provinceswas s,hifting from local councils withrdatuvdy few powers following the 11.835

m u nicip alre fo rm s .to in crea s in gly p ow erfu l and interventionist coun c ils a c tiv e ly

involved i l l ! municipal develepment.-? In the second half of the nineteenthcen tu ry, tow n eoun cils clea red s lum hous ing , established hig h.e r s an ita ry s ta n-dards arid regalations, installed s,ewersand fresh water supplies, improvededucation provision and Qpenedpubl icp<J i . rks . The develepment of publicrrmsenms and au galleries 'Was one pan of thlsronnicipal development, Culture

hadcometo be recognized by central government as one possible solution cothe C(}UnI1T's incre'l3J.sil1g.~yufficllh social p.rob[ems.H

In Liverpool, severe poverty, the highesr mnrtalhy rates of any town in. the

countrg includmg London, lack of sanitation and no [enable water supply were

th e main causes for concern. 22 Liverpool had grown. dramatically over the eight-een th and n in eteen th cen tu rie s . the p op ula tion of 7 ~OOOIn 1 71 0 bad, accordingto P. J . , \Va.u.e :r ,increased elevenfold by 1801 l l and 3. further three fo ld by. 184,L"3

By the nineteenth century, alarge proportlon of the country's cotton and other

t rades passed. dl.rollgh Liverpool ~ 1 1 . d , for an entrepreneurialTew; for tunesw e:re m ade .. T he majoriry o f Liverpool's population however comprised the

labouring classes, mostly unskilled, in S J . market chiefly devoted to distribution

rather than mauufacturmg, the concomitants of which were, as WaHer phrasedit, 'irregular wages and. irregular vilays,'P Crime was .high and. alcolml abuse

a cause fo r co nce rn ; in ] 874 L iv erp oo l co uld boas t ],92.9' p ublic houses , 383

beer-houses ..... and 271 cff-licences and refreshmenthauses, outnumberirrg thecombined total o:f an the othee eypes of shop in the tOWH,.~S

A s the problems o f liverpool w ere p ublk ized," an d. as the Conservative counci lfollowed a prQgnuume of public healrhimprnvements act ive ly taking an interest,

albeit art a distance, ] : 1 1 the public heelth of its cHize]}~~:li'Liverpool Liberals

focused on the temperance campaign, The temperance movement emphasized

education and 'counter-arteactions' such as flee Iibraries and friendly societies,OVe'J! the course of the 18705, numerous missions and. other public sPaJcesopened.

where the POOI' could rub shoulders with th e middle classes - exposure that

would encourage them to res is t the tempta t UQHS , of drink and . the fnr ms ofsocia l behav iour a ssocia ted w ith it. A g alle ry o fa .1 it of fered ye t an o the r fo rmof alternative recreation ..

U the perceived social need ff)1~ :1 gallery of an: in . the town. linked into fears.

o ve r so cia l unrest <l ind3. genuine philanthropic drive to improve the lor of the

w ork ing classes , the architectura l and spatia l :fOI.'.m o.f t:he gallery was .~ll1!.keddirectly to the desire on the part of a number ofpwmlriLent Liverpool men,

across the political spectrum, to raise the cultural profile of Liverpon], W.idl

this in mind, the gallery was based upon already existing precedents for what

H1J:JJ.deood mnsenmarehirecture, Ibmh in London and on dl.e Continent, Likemany early museums andgalleries in.the northern towns and cities, th:eWalket

w as established upon the enfilade of galleries, ~Jbe:ut on an exceptionally sma l l



sca le . T he new build tn g , sec o n the s ire n ex t, to the public l ibrary at the top o fWilh:ill1l Brown Street, comprised an entrance ham, ten gal~.eriesand. s few small

spaces around the staircase forIavatories, cloakroom and the newly appointed.Curator; Charles Uyal!. The building was constructed from polished sand-

stone wi th a pedimenred portico supported by six Corinthian columns. On top

of the building was placed 8 colossal female statue of commerce, representing

Fi .gure . l ! . . • 1 T h.eW .lI lk er., N ation a l Museums L ive rpoo] . Courles-y o J N~ [ i,( ) j1 i ~. iMmmm . s

Liverpool,



S i4Za tme MacLeod

Liverpool, and ro th e sides of the entrance large sculptures of Raphael andMichelengelo mad e a claim rna prestigiou S artistic heritage, Bas reliefs were

placed along the front and sides of the gallery representing King § ohngrantingthe Charter to :Uve rpoo l ,WnUa .m . III emibarkhlg at Hoylake for Ireland, Q:ueen

View ria ~svisit to Liverpool and th e la yin g o f the foun c i a ! don s tone (I the t'\rt

GaUe:J1 'yhyH ..R .H . the Duke o f Edinbur:gh/8 further s ig na~ling the ltis ro ry androyal associations of the town,

Ins ide, w here . a lm os t the en tire sp ace w as g iv en ov e r to ' display, the entrancevestibule, off w hich led . the lOiwergaUeeies~w.as richly decorated with a Minton

t il ed . f lo o r, heavy marble pilasters and dark woodwork. A centra] sta.lrCaS€ led.

f rom [he e n clo s ed e n tr an ce vest]bu~e to the g ; a ll er ie s on r Ile f i. rs r. fl o o r.E~ r~yp ho tn -graphs of the gaUe.l'uesshow deep-coloured walls with <I dose and <lit times

cluttered hang ..The opportunity to view the picnues attracted a broad audience

and visitor f igures reached 2,349 a day in 1880, a ]],gure not exceeded slnce.,i9

B y the 1910s, ihe fortunes and. popularity of the Walk.er seem to have dimin-

i shed somewhat as the gallery lost i[s tradinonal core audiences and becamethe subject of a. good am eun t o f criticism in the pres.s.. Liverpool 'was , : 8 1 . very

differentp~.aoe and was suffe .ri ,ng frorn the downturn i:n.~he econumyand

declining trade resulting in high unemployment, strikes and civil unrest:1(l The

p olitica l g ro un d had . :s .h .H teddram a tica lly s in ce the W :t.rker \ ; fO !. l!ndat ion~w idl

liberal values of free trade.jndividualisrn and phibnrhropy giving way following

the warto increased state control and highei[~~:xes , T he introduction from theearly twentieth cen rury of n atio n al a ss ura nc e s chemes h.a,d, in pa. r t ,aUecviated

some of [he ex t r eme povertyissues

and 'the drink question' hadd.im.i.no.dn.ed

inimportance as restrictions were put on licensing hours, as the alcohollc cnntent

o( beer was reduced and as t axes were placed . on s[)ur.uts .31 A s the: political

ground shifted, SO did the orgaoizatien of Liverpnol society. Liverpuol's genteelsocial elite diminished in powerfellowing the 'W:;11', a trend IU8Tked. by the

reinvention in 1922 of the WdJington ROOI11s~ previously a focal point for

the Liverpool secial season, as a venue for more popularenrerrainmenrs.P

Be twe e n ]925:::1.no 19 '38 the council bu ilt o v er 22 ,000 n ew hom es w hich housed .one-eighth of Liverpoel's population by 1931;33 The majoriry of this housing

'W,lS built in the suburbs, enforcing I:&ieexodua. aided by the motor car, o f

UII[lCh. of the inner-city popelaticn ...H As the standard of Hving increased for agood proportion of [he~ working population, new spaces for leisure opened . inLiverpool, including b S J . U r o O l . 1 l . 1 S and purpose ..built c i n e m a s such as the opulentForum on lime Strreet~which opened in 193 L

n was in response to and as part of these shifts and < ' 1 1 5 Increasing amounts of

public money went into their EI. . l !B[I . i l lg3!i thatmuseumsand galleries aCrO'S :5 the

country began W tale on a more public-oriented role ..~~The profession was

becom in g m ore o rg am zedam i < lJ body o f p ro fe ss ion a l k n ow ledg e cun ce rn in gthe educational role of museums was increas ingly sophisticated. Newexpecta-

tinns were placed on. the Walker in April 193 ] when a series ,of lener:!'> wereexchanged in th e Daily Post' accusing the g :a []e r¥ o f { :c lU in gto fulfil its tru e func-

don and calling fo r it to' take < 1 1 . more act ivepar t in the life 'O f the dty. The



Walker was also criticized for the now outdated practice of the gal lery being]e.dby a gnmp of lncal councillors and. aldermen and the letters called for the

appointment of a professional museum director, The exchange ended with. < 1 .

petition to the City Council, signed by 80 or 90 prominent citizens of Liverpool,

The: ren ov ation < lin d.ex pan sio n o f the: gal lery (1831-3) by L iv e r poo l architectSir Arnold Thorneley and the decisions to create amore open) public space in

]ine whh the architectural precedents of the ~Jaymust be understecdwithln this

co ne ex t. In rrneentraIlce:, . w hich had, as [he Mwscums ] o u r n : . a l p oin ted o ut un19 '33~resembled. the entrance to the Roy.~l Academy~~i the main staircase was demo 1-

ished, along W U d l the Sinian ancillary ronma.to create a spacious entrance hall,

As shown by the recent ellangesatthewalker, which. have returned the entrance

haH~o its t930s~ co~our scheme, the eutranoe hall was transformed from an

enclosed and somewhat forbidding space Low a bright, open public circulationarea ...From 1933, under the direction of the newly appointed director, Frank

Lambe r t (previously Direc tor at Leeds City A rt Gallery), it became pol icy to:Jippe~dto areas of broad pl1h~ic interest and offer a J. wide rangeof temporary exhi-

bitlons." Loan C<l.S!Z!; of exhibtts from the V&A were Introduced in 19'34 and inrh at sam e yea r m ns ic alconcer ts were o ffe re d in the g oaH e ll'. ' The b al a n ce ha d .

shifeedfrom an architecture more suited to a gentlemen's club, to an architecture

increasingly allied, in form and in use,.wo the creation of a ptubHc spl3Jce.

B y 1 Il9 39 .) theWaJket Art Galle.ry h.ad closed once again as i i t was taken over

forthe duration of the war an d beyo nd . bythe M.[l1![stryof Food. The gallery

would not reopen until ll951 and ()n~ythen afteJr significant refurbishment ..As

Lambert commented on the gaHery'1'ireopening, the Walker was a very differentgallery to thar 'which we < I n knew before Sep t embe r 4,. 193.9' . J9 Once again, asugnific<liutspatial, arid hence social, reshaping of the galleryhad taken p~.ace.

The bOl!mdaries . a . n .d P ' Q $ s : i b i l it i e s of architecture

As this selective and schematic consideration of. the architectural history of. theWaller hegins to suggest, howeve r , the shaping o f our built environment is not

an arbitrary process dependent upon broad social and polincal structures and

this brings us . to our second observation .. Specific: associations and organiza-

tions <lireactive in the setting of ag endas and the establishing of boundaries andpossihilities ..f 'or~he rna king ofarchirecture,

At["h.e present time, it is possible to think broad]}' about o r : g : 3 J f i u z e d groupsandbodies, such :Ji.Slocal councils, and governm.ent !bodies. such. as the Heritage

Lottery Fund, English Heritage and the Museums Association, as impacting

upon th e decision-making process through the setting of specific agendas and

priorities for museums. Each of these groups may differ In their perception

of:'the roles ofmuseums .- of what a museum should be - and. the institutional/client vision win gradually sharpen or shift as these various bodies and groups

are n e g oriS :.l:e d..W e .m . i.g h l: ::11:'>0nclude here the myriad of cnnsultatlve docu-ments from access consultants, architectural planning consultants and! lighting

consultants, to name justa few.



S i4Za tme MacLeod

T he architect a nd use r bo th p roduce a rch itecture , the fo rm er by des ig n ,th e latter by use. As architecture is experienced" it is ,1].1J;1,de by the use r as

muchas the architect. Neither are the two terms mutuallyexclusive, They

exist within each ether, Just as the architect is also. a LISe'J!~the HseE cam be

an i l legal archuect."

In the m useum then , a ran g e o f use rs - p ro fe ss iona ls , researchers f<1 lm iHe s~tourists, Qrganizedg:rcmps, repeat visitors and so 0:11 ~ll1JI)]:s,t abo be recognized

as con tin ua lly rem ak in g the a rch itecture o . f the museum rhrough the use s cowhich ]t is put. Such uses ~.[e)t:o a great exren tof course, closely controlled hy

th e in div id ua l and o rg an iza tion a l v is io n s o f m useum sp ace dom inan t a t < ' ! , n y

particular mumeut, This said, 1]10S, i I : of us could. pl1'Ob3h~y call 10 mind : < 1 memory

o f < 'L m useum sp ace sudden ly tran sfo rm ed th roug h the uses to which it . w asput, even i f .it d id return to its established chaeacter with its requisite spatial

practices 800n afterwards.

[1 1 ] 877 there w as no perceived IlIe:€{1or the visitors to the W a lk er to feed their

thoughts and needs into [he architectural and spatial deve l opmen t process ..

Silnilady~ p o ss ibilitie s fo r the appropri~~'tion o f m useum sp ace thro ug h use w ereti.g:hdy controlled as specific behaviours and uses, of space were programmed.

into the architecture: MI.d management o f the: insti tution. [0 the current re-

developments at the W~Jker, however, considerahle public consulration has beenunde rtak en in the development of the p lan s fo r the g a lle ry, T he bounda rie s andpossihilities for how that information is used w in of course be influenced by

the institutional v is io n s, o rg a uiz atio n al expectations <lindpersona l agenda s 0 :£

these involved ill the gaH.e:ry'sfun.me reshaping,

Taking these fcur observations into aceountrdominant definitions of archjtec-

ture < 1 1 8 . the creative output and activity of the architect carl be recognized as

lim ited ro , and in the Interest o f, one ve ry specific commun i ty of practice.

Professionals protect thdr territccies ! b y deriding in c ursicns from 'outside"

as ignorant or mistaken, implying there is a truthful andcorrecr inter-pre ta t ion of a . fix ed body o f k n ow ledg e , ro which theyalone hav e access.

F 01' the pl,.HpOSe o f eCQ [I(U 1 I.1 LC a . n& social se~f~pl!"Qte(:tio1:li.)he architecturalprofession provides the products and practices of it s members with am

.uconk sC atllsa n.d . cu ltu ra l v alue , in . order to sugges t that only tile work of

architects deserves the tide of 'architecture' ..;'

Clearly. to begin to understand museum architecture, we must move beyond.

this partial view and shift our arrentien towardathe relations between social

organizatlon, govemrnent andprofessional bodies and the mot i v e s of i.mdIvid-

uals involvedin rh,e production o fm useum sp ace O l E speci f ic historical momen t s ,Wo r k i n g to our newly expanded definition o f a rch itecture , the architec-

tu re o f the museum js, in fac t, the result . o f the actiO 'I1 LS(if a whole host ofg roups . organizations and individuals, Here. the architecture of the museum

is no longer ]~mited to a static physica l bui~.d.i,ng,burexpanded to include the

2()



physical stmcture.the hymn of functions in space, the layout of collectionsin :space,. the management, the prcgrammiugand so (ill,in acnnstant state of

(relprcducticn through ruse.

Returning to Charles Dyall 's U S ~ of <lrt :g:al leries cstablisbed be tween 1.877

<lind1901~ and. bearing in . mind the dominant definition 'OFarchitecture as thecreative product andactivity of the architect, it Is perhaps nowpossible to see

why existing histories ofmuseum architecture tendto ign.o.re all bu t the l :d.gh-

p ro fi[e ,'a rch ite crura Uy im p o rta n fe x< 1 Imples, Pro v in cia l m u se um s an d g a lle rie sin Britain are rarely considered !3!tall, reduced as they are H)~n.nmu.dp!3!.Punter-

pretatlens of rea] architecture« mean and parochial versions, of ten designed

by the town architect, of th e rea] thing. A6Waher Benjamin's observations on

the Pads arcades have shown, however! styllsticallj; tbe replica arcades devel-oped across oth!er cities may have shared certaincharacteristjcs with. the Parisian

'originals' but each rep lica is bound to its particular time and location, th<iJf .is,

to the l ived. complexuy of place. .41 l

Conclusion

Since the firstarchitectural histories of the museum were written. a de.llni~iO'fiof architecture as <linaesthetic object and. as the privileged realm. o.fthe architect

has dominated in museums, The problemsassociated with this understandingof museum archirectnre have become particularly pronounced m recent years,

< ' 1 1 8 new museums have been built and asexisting museums hav e undergene

significant architectural expansion and change ..Clearlj, we need to understandmore about the ways in which (museum] architecture gets bunt.

Identifying existing underlying conceptions of architecture as unhelpfnl, thischaptet~ has argued £ 0 . 1 " < 1 .1 1 understanding of tile :3Jt~Gh[tecnu"eof rh e museum < " I S

3. social and cultural product, whose need is created through the social and

politicalexigencies of the day and whose form. is in H ue no e:d th ro ug h the various

government organizations and. professional bodies active in setting the bound-

aries and d.efin~tion:5 . r themuseum at that particular hisecrical moment, Thesevisions may nor overlap ~ X < 1 J c : r [ y and ma.y~indeed, he oppositional,

The produerion of th e architecture of the museiun must also be recognized ast:a.king place atthe [eye! of the individual, and here we are concerned with the

pl.:JJYsf power between architects, designers) project managers, directors, cura-tors, users andall those involved <litan indivldualJevel in (he production 'O f a

specific site. [IillpOrtantly, this producdon does mot stop whena new building

u s c omp l ee e <lindbefore the doors of the museum open; rather, production is

continual and. o[i1goung through occupation and use,

A s the frag m en ta ry gli . l .npses o : rr rhe W a lke r ': s architectural p ast beg in to sugges t )such an understanding of the architecture of the museum could potentially

rewrite the architectural histJ O lT o f themuseum, producing instead: a historywhichexposes the social contexts, relariens aridpractices through which archi-

tecture [ 5 0 produced; a . view of [he space of the museum asconrradictcry and

21



S i4Za tme MacLeod

encap sula tin g m any. som e tim es o pp os itio n al, v alues an d be lie fs , < lindan unde r-standing of [nruseum] architecture as a complex and contested activ:ity) f';]!l~ from

the pure ideal of archltecture that has domina ted our th inking for so I C I ] ] , g : .

n the rethinking of architecture set forwardin this. chapter seems 1 i : O reduce the

lrnpmtance of the architect, this is not intenrioeal ..Museums are reliant at rimesof architectural development, as the chapters in this book attest, on the know-I!edgeand expertise of the architect. However; as [eremy Till has stated:

Architecture is open to a much wide r range of mfluences and possibilitiesthaa the monolithic professional v iew would have us believe, the com-munjty of architecta js : 8 i . S impure as the communiry for which. they are

designing ..The importance isto SC:e this not as a sign of weakness, bur. as;an oppmn.mily fo r a m ore ex p an siv e de f in itio n of ro les .49

There Is no such thing as a pure space of occupation; "accident, dit~,po]Itks~ten sio n , se ltishness , so cia l s tructu re s>- a ll be sm irch the p urif ied ]ciea J .HO Fo rHln[I .$el l I :m.s,areater crjtical <'Iwal'enes:s o f the range of forces and motives activeIn the shaping of museum space may enable museumpractitioners to act inten-

ti.o n aM y )ra th er th an :re ac tiv d y) c re atirs g museums which a re o f their placeanddesigned to fnHi~. 3. number of uses and rnles,

This chapter only begins to scratch the surface of this subject and its author

is wen aw are that it is l3 JHtoo e ,;u .syto make statements and judg em en ts at a

schematic and theoreticallevel that are not borne OHt in practice. Much research

remains to be undertaken into the ways in which theseactivelyinvolved in thereshaping of specific museum spaces, now and in the past, negotiate the range

o f ag endas and co ncep tion s o f m useum sp ace w hich com prise any m useumbuild, H ow ev er, a pp ro achin g t he a rc h it ec tu re o f the museum as sugges tedherea ls o hU ;g hH g hts th e inevitability <l ind .necessity of such chan ge s If museums are

co playan active part in society, Such ail approachhighlights the 50da~. signi..-

icance of the architectural and spatial rearrengemenc of museums and. g<3!neries~

increasing, rather than d imin i shmg , the need. f or f urth er research into the natureand p roduction o f a use fu l and re lev an t sp ace fo r cultu re .

Acknowledgements

Thank you to M.oUnl l indls~y. A.lex Kidsou and. Ad.r. i~.IlJForty forconvcrseticns over the last

~ ·t; :~ ra n d to [ilea,n BOQ per-Greenhi l l who k : ind~) ' r e acl :1 lnd commented on ~ draft o f th.i~;chaprrer" - .

Notes

1 H, Pearman, "No concessions', T"h·1!Stmda:y Ti,1\F:lll·S. A"ai~;!! iM.c 3 . 1 " : I:Mtf!dfds.pa,;;'c.d~aLp.iF.x.

wm/i!:owll/p3.['k/cli2.S /walsall.htrn [.acQe(>~ecl19 § r l . i l l y 2004}.2, J . StewaJ~·t·Young. ·'BuHdlUg barriers .inWaballr·, M~iseums jo.urJur.lj Vol. 100, No.6,

2001: SO.

22



3 J'OllIllth3[1 Hill discussesthe fallacy of a pure arehitectura] space, ..h~JilMj ,g!h t i :ngthe centin-

geacies o farclueeceure ~u ev ery $~ef ' o f 1 T . S ; p I'o Jn Jcrjo m a nJ us;e , S ee J , H m (ed.}; O('cJ ,~pybtg

Arc},#ec:nm2i fj~~W'e~lt ri,e Arehisec: tmd tJ'l~ Uscr, London and New York: Roudedge~

199·8,,II The I:'e~m'cot'!'lmu~li~ O~pi:S!ctke" is df~\W~ ftomE.Wet~gef., CommtmitilM of Ptcu:Jit.lt.

i!,JeanhJg a~d lae.m:ity" C~lnb.r.iolge: Ca.lubricl.ge University lP . re&~,TI .998."

.:; H. Lefebvre ( I F . < l I : l S , D, Nicbo l son ·SmJd t ) , Thr t P rodf, rc~ io~~o f Spa ('e., Oxford: Blackwejl,:1991,

6 Th .m ' t ]ghou t this. chaptee, the te.r.n.~s,rchieecrure and sp ace are used hHel ' d . l ange<l .b IY i t o

oc~e[ to the rhysi~.l structure and spatiel layout and. U.5C o f the museum, Ahholl tgb not

ideal, this ·[ermhw.logy ls < 1 i . Ine~U!S of immediately e'xp9Jt'i.d!ing upon tnee::dS[LiJJg ~.imhedl

notieu of archaacrure as the aesthetic outcome and ~l!;;ti",~tyofthe aechirect,

7 L norden end I. E t cm i k .i l ( cd s) , bl t er Se cJ im .1 5 .•A rc »it:ec rn ra l H i ~f;o rig s tm d Critical Th,r !cnies ,

Londom Routledge, 2.000 . p, S.

8 In 1986 thcW 'a .lkcE An Ga l k : EY received national :status,. The g.1.1kl1'W3 s rena med the

W alk cr, N ;iltiOlla~M u seam s l ivc:rr f)[J ~!lftt:[itfi receurrefurbishmem,9 LhJi8t'jUJOj Lihrary, .M.M~!:.'.um, .A.i"t Gall<Jry 49.th Aumtwl RfJjuJi't fM tbi2 );~ar fJtu:t:i1.tg .Jt~t:

Dec r.n n b r! /' 1 . 901 .

1 0 Q uo ted in S . Dsvies, 'Reduru.:_1ng m useum v alue s ~ t l J . d :ur.uegies· , in G . K ~v ~t.J Jilg h(ed . ) . ,Ml~eum P rw:J l:S icm ,(me l .P:mflY.3si01.UJli's:m.~London and New York: Routledge, 1994~ p ..35.

:n J, T i ll, < A [ ~ h.it« :m r t: 'O f rbe im pure .;om mi)!iity" in lE U . Occupying A.r(.hitet'{PIT,e,

pp. 61-75.

12 FOorexample, H". Searlng; 'The development of iii. I . r iuseum tY'pol,o'gy'.,~n S , Step.nel1s [ed..)~

fhtildhtg ~bt$N(!tv j \1MsBJi rm, Ne, ." , York. jp r. iil:lc em nA rr ;-b ~te ctuKa~Pr es s, H l8 6 ,p p .. 1 4~H ,'1 3 See, fo r e xa m ple , V. M. t . ampL lgnB.n i . " 'The archieecture of arr: [he mnseums of the 1:990:;;'.)

]1 1 V. M. Larnpugnani and A" Sa.chs [eds], .M~ISetl;J:F:lSor iii New Mill! ;mlJtIJn, Concepts,

Pr'oicds, . 'Bui ldings. M~.m ich " .London, . N ew Yorke Pres te l , [999, .PP. U-14 .1 4 See, for example, L~.lllpl1gl19Jn.i.The a.ochitectme of ;JJrit \ ~nd!V. Ne·w.nolJS>e. ToWt~:rJ3a

New Mt{Si1'U1r~, New Yor.b The Monacelli Press. ]998.

H A. D. King (ed.). lJ~tildings and Sodeit:;: .Essays em the' Social De;1Adopnumt of the B~riftEnviroI1m~mt, Londom R,ouded !ge and. Re g a n ~~'1ui"1980.,

:]6 lhid., p, t,:]7 Ibid., p. 4.t B S ee,fr.:r eXilmr"e, J ' i .W o H f !H~d1ee d ( e d ; ~ h Tlte OdrUfe of Capital: Art , Pow<!!: i " tlt~d tho!!

Nineteenth Cel~f,ur)' M.iddJe Class. Manche5t,er: Manebester University Press, 19S3.

19 D , S tev enson , Cities mui Udxm CU#~INJ$, Maidenhead, UK,['Iliil.addp~i""~ Opel : l

Universul : "Y Press" 2.00J.~ p. 1.3.

20 D. '[iII~.r, [ . > c J o r V l : r aruJ [1.~~~horit)i~l tiN;: Vi(;~r)1'i~l~Cify> Oxford: . i : l < a , : 5 i ~ . :J~;a,(,:kwd~~: H ' i S i . ,p, ~"

2.1 O nit~ le chang ing role '0'[ CIJ.ltLll:leand the lnceeasing state inY<Q'~veIMiel1t .in the arts see

J . Minihan, The Nat ionaJi sat ion of Cllittfr'C'; T h i 1 ' De'IJciopn'umt of S t; a, ttJ S lu b si clie s to the'

Artil h~ Great .Britain~ London: Hsrmish Hsmllron, 19'77.2.2- Fraser, J'o~&'e,and .A.~I,thority,pp, 28:-31.

23 P. J . WllHc[, Democracy a~td Sgctaria~ti5m: A. rolit:ical ~nd Social History of Li'V>erpool

1868-1939, liverpool: liverpool. Ulliversh:yPress, 198:~~ [p , '].

14 Ibid., p, xvi,

25 nsa, p. 23.2.6 Ibid., p, 2L27 Fraser. J 'ow er and .!hllhorify. p, 2 . I.

28 A no ril.• Walke1"$ Wtn·r.in gum A le'J ' lllpf$t:1'ated, Mi!Ji I lCnes te r . ; rc~erW ll lk¢[ and Son s ,.;:.Ul97.

29 .E. Mon: .u5 [ed.], Til!! Walker t'l1'1Gallery, London: Scala BQolicslN:at joI!l,a1 Museums llm~

Galbi ies 0 1 : 1 Merseys ide , 1994,.p, [L30 On :l2. Sepremhe .• ~.92,1. the' Unemployed ·Workers' Mnl,le~1I1en[occupied. the' Wa~k,er Art

GaUer:!, before ro~i~~ fo[~:ibh evicted them, Fif ty of the 156 protestors were arrested,

Wal le t , D~mQc:.ra.;y (Jlzd S<$(:t,;l,km~~sm.,.. 2:9(L

23



S i4Za tme MacLeod

31 Ibid., p. 271.32, U)id.; p, 277,

33 Ilbi&~ p, 2, .118.

34 $. MilrrirllieT, T he 'Ec{l11tnni(; ~ ru t S od at fJ(t1. 'et.opment o f Merseytide.. LOI l . J on : CW()m

[-[e~!'!'l, 19'B2, [i. 1!47,

35 11]]92.5\ Liverpool 00m{::~~made .nn annual graIH for the 'pm'chase of pictures for the

f irs t tim e .36 M inihall~ j'lhrtiomdist!timt of C]~ltt/;rej.p.I.7:L

37 Anon .., 'Th.eWa.lker An Ga.~.lel.'Y'. j\11JSCUrnS Joumal,Vol .. 3·3.,No .. '7 , I 933t 248.

38 Anon., 'The Director Qhl:u:: Wll~.ker Art Ga.lle:.ry" .Liverpolit.m, Vol. 3, No.7, july 1934,

p.27.

39 f. L nuib£ .F t,. 'A 110(:: \ '" W a.lke.r A rtt GaUery', Li~u'Po()1 Daily Post {Wa.lkm· .An GllH(l[ 'Y

Supplement], 14 July 1951, r- r,40 C. Yanni, Na~~r e> : 8 M , .t sc !l Ji T /1 s .' Vic:torl.m Seiellceaml the A.rch#ectl€re of Display,

Baltimore, MD: jolms .[-lopkillr~ UllIivcr..;:iry Press. -n999 .41 A, Forty, 'The modem hospital in ElIgl .a . l Id . and Prancer rh e ~ () t: :i; il !1nd medical U.~~$of

&i'chi!l:ecmpe', .it! K~tlg. Bttildhtgs atul 8o.ci!l.l'j~p .. 61.

42 P. H. Rathbone, Tbt! .Political Value of Art to the M.ur~icipa! Life Q f~ Naticm: A Lecture

D~H~ettd(t~ tbe Frtit Lib.rary, Lh!(tft) ()ol, 187S, Live.l])(I(JJ; Lee <lnd Njghting~le" ]895,

p.40.

43 W.tH.cr,D.~mQ"r~t)!a?'~d$tt(;.r~!'imr;$m, p, 160"· 411 ·E . Mor r is " Vi,cto,riat1 ar! .d Edwarditm Pahtt;i t lg;s itl th q Walker A rt G aU ery am J at SuJltty

Hot~!;e~.Lo.lldlon: HMSO ~ ] 996, p..6.

·45 R a!thbo ne , T he [ '0## . (: (11 V41 t. te of A 1 ' 1 ; , p, 3 S .<,!,6I1iU, Occul)'yh~ Ar~hitec,t~r€, p, 6.

47 llbid!., p, 5...

48 Srevenson, Cities, .me l (hluw Cur/ures,. p, 65.

49 Til], 'Archi.tect[lre of the .i~.npu.reco.mnm:a:nity\p. l'3.

SO Ilbid!" p. 65.

References

Auon., Walker's WarriJ~gtQj\I Al~~1 Ulustrat!l1d. Mi1iflChester, Peter Walker and ! Sons,

cJlS97.

--, < 'T hr::Walhr A rt Galk:[y"., M~~$,~lpnS .!owl'n&il,. Vol. 33, N o .7 ,. ]933: .2 .+8 ,--, 'The Director off the Walker Art Galk:ry'., Li1.rortJOlitan, Vol. 3, No.7,. July ]934,

p,27,

Borden, l and RelldeU,. J . {eds), b~t~rSf!~~i<ms,.A.rchit~ct!Jr(lt Wstorle$ ~md ethical Th~orl~$,lond.on: iR~yuI1Jfdge, 2 : O()O.

Davies, $,.,'R{:'thlnli;i[lg rmrseum values am.l!;m:m::gic:s·, in G. Kavallagh {t:d")., M~.\ie.H:n~pj'ovisi.mt and I'Toft:$$imwlism, bmt:iunnnd New York: ROllu!eJge. ; 1994"PiP.· 33-40.

FQrty~A., "The modern hospital in ]E n gla nd . a nd. Francer the social and medical uses of archi-

~er;:~!JR:',n A. D, :King {~,d.,).,fhf;.rdh~gs ~rul SQdi#y; E $ s~ )!$ (m th e So (.;~ l DeJ}~.r()fim.~jtt. of

the Huitt Erw.irc)nnumt, London, RoudeJg~& Kegan raul, ~.980tpp ..6~.-93. -

Fraser, D" Power aI~d AutbDl'ity in the Vic;torim:1 Cil)!'. Oxford!~ BasH BlackweU, 1979.

H.il~ J . ,(e"L); Oc.(:t~pying Ar~biti,!!~ll~re1B.;lh~telt ~h(f!Ar(.hil~(.t ({ltd th(;t U~i,!!r.n llldo na lld N ewYO.[ 'h Routledge, 199.11.

King, A . D. {ed.} , .Buiidi,~g~ ,and SoGiM-y: .Ess0:7)! 's O [ l 1 c l the Soc.j:al De:[.!dopmem of the Built

.Envirvnme11t •.Lollidon~Roml(:.d.gr; &; K"g<'1r1.P·anl. 1930.Lambert, F., 'A newWa lk e . r AI., t G<!I.lIery'., I-i:[.ii!!rpool Dady Post (Walker Ali: Ga.Hery

S U . .pplement), 14 July 1951, p. ].Lampugnani, V. M., 'The arcbitecture (lfi!JI.m~bt:: museums (I f the 1990~'•. in V. M.

Lampugnaui and A. Sachs (ec!s) , Muse.!m1,:lf rH ' a Ne~(f Miile1mtum:, Concepts, .P1'Oje.cts•

.Bl,:~ldi,~g5. M U I l I J . . .; h , . London, New York: Pressel, 1999. p r. :n -1 4.

reshaping museum space- architecture- design- exhibitions by suzanne macleod

Documents