Centre Georges Pompidou. Visione esterna dell’edificio.

Today, questioning which museums and ideal exhibition spaces are, means freeing oneself from the fetish of the new, of architecture at all costs, of construction anxiety.

The day after the inauguration of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, designed by the architect Frank O. Ghery, the controversial relationship between container and content regarding a museum has taken on a debate of international scale. There are two opposing theories: the first one is more in favor of the content, and sees the museum as a simple container that is respectful and not at all harmful to the collection; the second is in favor of the container, itself a work of art, an attractive pole and a scenographic manifestation.

The idea of a museum today is no longer a mausoleum, a theater, an academy, a show, no longer a garden of the Muses, not a machine for dissemination, no longer a laboratory, not even a school, even if it is part each of these things, the museum has become the latest and most anomalous form of expression, and it still holds a popular and social grip, it can make people move, make them discuss, make them live experiences together. In this it partially failed some tasks, but it also invented others, unthinkable only a few decades ago.

The introduction and technological innovation in the museographic field, in fact, has led to changes in the relationship between content and container.

The Museum has gone from being a place of conservation of works to being itself a work of art. The most illustrious example of the museum as a container – at least initially, is the Guggenheim in New York, and its legitimate heir is the Guggenheim in Bilbao.

It is not always possible to reach the desirable level of balance, at the beginning of any museum project, between “content” and “container”, and the Musée d’Orsay in Paris is a clear example of this, to the point of exhibiting minor works of art in the large central hall, where architecture risks overwhelming works, and reserving those of greater aesthetic, cultural value, etc., in less impressive rooms.

The contemporary museum is based on the spectacularization of the museum container that frees itself from its role as a silent co-star, to take over and become a real urban sculpture that, like a performance, invests in its own image to attract visitors. From an architectural point of view, the new museum is completely detached from traditional models – even if it is interesting to note how contemporary museum architecture is constantly inspired by two museum archetypes that history has given us: the Rotunda and the Gallery – and it emerges with full freedom of form and it is equipped with new accessory spaces.

The Guggenheim represents the emblem of this passage: its spiral shape entails many difficulties in setting up the works of art, also hindering their use.

To make a good museum, architecture must take one step forward and one backward: it must excite the visitors who feel like protagonists when they enter, and it must take a step back immediately afterwards to make the works it preserves become the protagonist […]. To prevent the museum from becoming a self-celebratory architecture, it should transform itself into a “shadow museum”.

The museum must be capable of overshadowing the objects it contains, while maintaining the same weight as the latter, because:

without architecture […] the installations become scenography, and the objects remain suspended in the imaginary space of fiction.

It is also true that:

There is nothing wrong with visiting a museum primarily as a container, and indeed the appeal constituted by the container can encourage you to discover the works of art. But, continuing along this road, we arrive at the situation of the Beaubourg in Paris, where the container is certainly the greatest attraction, and the rest are either services (library and video library) or temporary exhibitions.

The container as a work of art. From the Guggenheim Museum in New York to Bilbao

As previously mentioned, in the long debate – still current today – regarding the relationship between content and container, the real “points of no return” are the Guggenheim in New York (1943-58) designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, and the Guggenheim of Bilbao designed by Frank O. Gehry (1991-97).

Solomon Guggenheim Museum, external view

Solomon Guggenheim Museum, external view

The Solomon Guggenheim Museum in New York, the first museum entirely dedicated to modern art, develops through a large circular cavity, illuminated from above. An exhibition promenade takes place around it, thanks to the helical ramp which not only represents a functional path, but it also overlooks the full-height entrance hall.

According to Wright, the visit, which starts from above and then develops into a comfortable descent, allows for the visitors to see where they hav been and where they are going.

Solomon Guggenheim Museum, inside

Solomon Guggenheim Museum, inside

The intent was to merge art and architecture, and the imposing building had to appear as a gigantic sculpture, as if it were a piece of the collection, questioning the twentieth-century principle according to which the museum container should maintain a secondary position with respect to the contents.

In fact, the walls and sloping floors, the color of the walls and the lighting system, were in stark contrast to what some considered to be the basic need for neutral vertical surfaces for the display of works of art.

Wright believed that architecture was the mother of all Arts and the Guggenheim represented the full demonstration of his ideal of organic architecture, in which form, structure and space merge.

Bilbao Guggenheim Museum, external view

Bilbao Guggenheim Museum, external view

About forty years later, the situation is repeated in Bilbao, where Frank O. Ghery is called to design the new museum, the result of which was so spectacular that one can speak of a real “Bilbao effect”, as well as being a clear example of a museum in the era of the starchitect.

The Guggenheim in Bilbao is a large open-air sculpture that reflects on the waters of the Nerviòn river and is composed of a series of interconnected volumes in a scenographic way.

The internal compositional fulcrum of the Museum is a spectacular atrium, illuminated both by natural light that penetrates laterally from the large windows overlooking the river, and by the window covering the highest point of the building where the light comes from above.

Around the atrium are then placed the three levels of the galleries, which remind of the spiral path of the Wright’s Guggenheim.

Bilbao Guggenheim Museum, inside

Bilbao Guggenheim Museum, inside

Frank O. Ghery has created a place with unprecedented shapes, creating a sort of titanium arch-sculpture that started the architecture of spectacle. He aims to raise architecture to the autonomy of sculpture, and said:

I thought that a museum building should be subordnate to ots art. The artists I spoke with said “no”: they wanted a building that was admired by people, not a neutral container. Thomas Krens also pushed me to be more aggressive, pointing out that in New York, artists had criticized or hated Wright’s rotunda, but had still done exciting things there.

No longer simple neutral containers, contemporary museums dialogue with the collections, or they separate from them completely, manifesting their autonomy.

Historic buildings and modern installations: Carlo Scarpa at Palazzo Abatellis in Palermo

In Europe and in the rest of the world this spectacularization takes place with the birth of the so called “super museums”, while in Italy the museum finds space in historical structures (already works of art in themselves) through a wise reuse of them, assuming vital importance, for the architect – in order to give a contemporary imprint, to the layout rather than the architecture of the museum container.

As mentioned elsewhere:

the choice of historic buildings, to be made into museums, in Italy is a topic already discussed in the twenty years preceding the Second World War. Carlo Scarpa and Franco Albini were the first to carry out a radical change in the museological and museographic logics on the theme of setting up new exhibition spaces inside historic buildings. The creations of these architects have become important examples of museum design within historical settings and can still be a source of inspiration and research today.

The contributions of Albini and Scarpa were remarkable, as well as the ones of BBPR, who were not only architects but also brilliant crafters, guided by three key aspects: the balance between the needs of the new function and the quality of the product, the individuality of each work, and the need to make the museum visit a unique experience.

Scarpa’s work is visible in 1953 Palazzo Abatellis in Palermo, where each work of art seems the summit of an imaginary perspective and it represents one of the most significant episodes in the modern conception of architectural restoration and modern museography in Italy.

Scarpa’s attention was focused on the isolated object to be exhibited and on the building that contains it. His contribution separates the pictorial works from the sculptural ones, dedication a whole floor of the building to each one and puts the modern in close contact with the ancient, combining the works of art with modern elements designed by Scarpa: a clear example is the location of the “Triumph of Death” fresco, set up in the apsis of the chapel and mounted on a rotating frame to ensure that the work can benefit from the best lighting at different times during the day.

Abbatellis Palace in Palermo. The Triumph of Death installation

Abbatellis Palace in Palermo. The Triumph of Death installation

Scarpa’s contribution revitalizes the rooms in light of the new exhibition needs of Palazzo Abatellis, drawing each new element in detail, respecting the old and as an exceptional support to the works on display. This relationship is successfully achieved thanks to a calibrated and careful use of natural light, filtered through curtains, and thanks to a chromatic and tactile choice of the works through Venetian stucco background panels.

Abbatellis Palace in Palermo. The Triumph of Death installation

Abbatellis Palace in Palermo. The Triumph of Death installation

Zevi says:

Among the numerous exhibition and museum crafters, Scarpa was perhaps the only one who intimately loved paintings and statues, who examined them for a long time with passion, before establishing their location and interpretation.

Conclusion

Today the museum presents itself more and more as a content in itself, both for the potential it offers from a creative point of view, and for the strong attraction it exerts on the public. It has become an important communication tool and, at the same time, a reference point in an urban landscape.

Museums have become objects of fashion, for the masses, and have entered the circuits of consumerism and the so called culture of consumption, so much so that they are perceived as a “cultural” alternative.

It must be noted that the change in the role of the museum is a direct consequence of the change in the social scenario: the new audience is increasingly demanding and tired of the traditional museum, and it requires a new space, capable of offering services.

Just as the change and evolution of art took place starting from the 1960s and 1970s inevitably required a new environment, free and characterized by large dimensions.

Art has changed, art formats have changed, but also today’s society, dynamic and articulate needs, by reflection, an innovative museum that presents stimulating paths to the visitor.

Museums are therefore a mirror of today.

 

Bibliography

BASSO PERESSUT L., I luoghi del museo. Tipo e forma fra tradizione e innovazione, Editori Riuniti, Roma, 1985;
BONARETTI P., La città del museo, Il progetto del museo fra tradizione del tipo e idea della città, Edifir, Firenze 2002;
CANELLA G., Architetti italiani nel Novecento, Milano, Marinotti, 2010;
CANELLA G., Su certe devianze dell’archetipo museale, Zodiac numero 6, 1991;
CANELLA G., Per un museo metropolitano, Hinterland numero 4 ,1978;
CATALDO L. e PARAVENTI M., Il museo oggi. Linee guida per una museologia contemporanea, U. Hoepli, Milano 2007;
CRICONIA A., L’architettura dei musei, Carrocci, Roma 2011;
DEZZI BARDESCHI C., Franco Albini e il Museo del Tesoro di San Lorenzo a Genova, Quaderni di ‘ANANKE n. 5, 2015;
FAGONE V., Teorie del museo contemporaneo, Facoltà di Architettura, Milano, 1984;
FIORIO M.T., Il museo nella storia. Dallo “studiolo” alla raccolta pubblica, Mondadori, Milano 2011;
GIUNTA S., Carlo Scarpa. Una (curiosa) lama di luce, un gonfalone d’oro, le mani e un viso di donna. Riflessioni sul processo progettuale per l’allestimento di Palazzo Abatellis, Marsilio, Padova 2016;
HUBER A., Il museo italiano, la trasformazione di spazi storici in spazi espositivi. Attualità dell’esperienza museografica degli anni ‘50, Lybra Immagine, Milano 2017;
MARINELLI S., Carlo Scarpa: Il museo di Castelvecchio, Mondadori Electa, Milano 1996;
MARINI CLARELLI M. V., Che cos’è un museo, Carocci, Roma 2005;
MAROTTA A., Atlante dei musei contemporanei, Skira, Milano 2010;
MONTANER J.M. e OLIVERAS J., Musei dell’ultima generazione, Hoepli, 1988;
MOTTOLA MOLFINO A., Il libro dei musei, Umberto Allemandi & C., Torino1991;
RANELLUCCI S., Il progetto del museo, Dei, Roma 2007;
ROTOLO, P., L’Accademia di Belle Arti di Palermo e le sue collezioni. Progetto di allestimento museografico, Aracne editrice, Roma 2022;
RUGGIERI TRICOLI M.C. e VACIRCA M.D., L’idea di museo: archetipi della comunicazione museale nel mondo antico, nuova edizione riveduta e aggiornata, Aracne editrice, Roma 2021;
VACIRCA M.D., Dalla periegesi di Pausania alla moderna museografia. Sites-museums in Grecia, Aracne editrice, Roma 2012;
VIRDIS B., L’architettura dei musei, Regionale Editrice, Roma 1960.

 

Iconography

WIKIPEDIA, alla voce Solomon Guggenheim Museum di New York, fig. 1 e 2;
GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM DI BILBAO, fig. 3;
BIOEDIL PROGETTI MAGAZINE, alla voce Bilbao: la città rigenerata dal Guggenheim Museum, fig. 4;
ARCHITETTURE CONTEMPORANEE – BENI CULTURALI, alla voce Palazzo Abatellis, fig. 5;
ARTRIBUNE, alla voce Architetti d’Italia. Carlo Scarpa, l’inarrivabile, fig. 6.
GIONI M., Musei ideali, Domus 4 ottobre 2011
RUGGIERI TRICOLI M.C., I fantasmi e le cose. La messa in scena della storia nella comunicazione museale, Lybra Immagine, Milano 2000, p. 231.
Ibidem, p. 226.
Ibidem, p. 231.
ECO U., Il Museo nel Terzo Millennio, in: http://www.umbertoeco.it/CV/Il%20museo%20nel%20terzo%20millennio.pdf.
Le opere sono illuminate da una luce diffusa proveniente dall’alto – sia dalla grande cupola di vetro che sovrasta l’ampio spazio, sia dalle suggestive fessure che le spirali superiore della struttura creano sporgendo su quelle inferiori – riflessa dalle superfici curve e bianche, che conferiscono un senso di naturalezza all’intero ambiente e che accentua la sinuosità delle forme.
Cfr. ROTOLO P., L’Accademia di Belle Arti di Palermo e le sue collezioni. Progetto di allestimento museografico, Aracne editrice, Roma 2022, p. 18.
BBPR era la sigla che indicava il gruppo di architetti italiani costituito nel 1932 da Gian Luigi Banfi (1910 – 1945), Lodovico Barbiano di Belgiojoso (1909 – 2004), Enrico Peressutti (1908 – 1976), ed Ernesto Nathan Rogers (1909 – 1969). Ricordiamo il restauro e il progetto museografico del Museo Castello Sforzesco a Milano, con l’allestimento della Pieta Rondanini di Michelangelo, riallestita di recente secondo il progetto museografico dell’architetto Michele De Lucchi.