Museum Architecture: Form or Function?

As a museum-lover, I was really interested in this week’s theme surrounding the architecture of museums. The question of what should a museum be is one that I find myself going back and forth on, and I’m looking forward to the class’ thoughts on it. At first thought, I agree with the “box” approach discussed in Lange’s “What Should a Museum be?” I just always assumed that people go to museums to see the collections housed inside the buildings. This seemed like a no-brainer to me; the museum’s architecture should support the viewing of the collections as best as possible. Thinking about my recent experiences at museums, however, I have noticed myself paying much more attention to the architecture itself, taking form as another piece of art belonging to the museum.

Thinking of my recent trip to the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, it is certainly true that the architecture had more of my attention than the collections. The light and airy atrium lobby was so unexpected in such a historic area, that I spent most of the visit more focused on the building. 

Because of this experience, I found Weisgall’s “A 21^st Century Museum with Puritan Bones” interesting, as she asserts that “nowhere does the building upstage the collections.” I didn’t totally agree with this assessment, though I’d be curious what others in the class think. Even when walking through the Yin Yu Tang house, I was amazed that the museum was able to accommodate the house so effectively. Overall, I think the architect did an amazing job fusing old buildings with the renovations, as the Peabody Essex seamlessly fits in with the neighborhood’s style. The fact that the exterior of the building doesn’t stand out too much, yet the interior is so unexpected for Salem just adds to why I feel that the architecture steals the show. This is distinctly different from Gehry’s Guggenheim in Bilbao, which is so divergent from its surroundings.

What I found most fascinating about Muschamp’s review of the Guggenheim was that it was written when only one piece was installed in the museum. With this fact in mind, it’s clear that the review of the building, which solidified Gehry’s celebrity architect status, placed little if any emphasis on how well the building suited the actual art in the museum. It seems more like this building was designed to put Bilbao on the map, not unlike the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, than to showcase the museum’s pieces most effectively. As such a distinctive building in the neighborhood, the architecture itself becomes a piece of art. It is instantly recognizable as a body of Gehry’s work, just like “Guernica” is so clearly a Picasso. Thinking of the architecture as art in and of itself, I can absolutely see the “blob” method Lange writes about as a valid approach to museum architecture. I can see how one would look at it like the branding of a retail store – if the store’s exterior is unappealing, why would you want to go in and see what’s inside, let alone purchase it? If a museum has dynamic architecture, doesn’t it make you want to see what the pieces inside are like as well? One can make the assumption that the unique architecture of a museum would be indicative of the collection housed within. From that perspective, I can again see architecture as an advertising tool.

I wouldn’t say that this week’s readings answered the question of what museum architecture should be, but they certainly provided compelling arguments.