Space Planning for the Over-artistic

Some general rules of exhibition design:

Maximum density: 1 sm/ visitor
Preferred density: 1.5 sm/ visitor
Clearences: 1500mm (5ft)
Distance from objects on open display: 1m
Curators will always want to include more objects
Objects must always be placed in neat groups
Flat works hanging height: 1500mm (59in) o.c. (alter for larger works)
Label Font Size: 18pt min.
Benches are never planned

All this, although the briefest of requirements, can reign in even the greatest of artistic gestures and exhibition flamboyance. It is the reality of design, though.

"The World in a Box"

A fantastic program was on the BBC the other night.
The World in a Box
The main idea in this program was that the origin of modern museums is curiousity that blends art and science, reason and wonder. The Wunderkammern of the 16th Century, which juxtaposed so many fragments both strange and beautiful, is finding new interpretaion in 21st century display techniques. It seems like the appeal of collecting has never lost its power, and the influence of placing items in a close juxtaposition still creates unique associations that chronology or minimal exhibition techniques - so typical of modernism and most museums through the 20th Century - loses all sense of comprehensive wonder. The narrative of "history" as the strict categorization of "Impressionist" or "Egyptian" objects totally negates the power of an object within a greater context.
Although the examples in the program are not the best, I think that the author is on to something. I would suggest the reorganization of the Tate Modern and the reinstallation of the Enlightenment Galleries in the British Museum as two more interesting examples.

Round Reading Room

The British Museum is one of the greatest museums in the world. It is the ultimate Enlightenment estblishment, the physical representation of the idea that knowledge should be made available to all to view, interpret, and understand.
In an argument for the preservation of the museum, Hugh Thomas gives a brief summary of its development:
"The British Museum was established in 1753 as a universal Temple of the Arts. Its modern history has, however, been a process of fragmentation. In 1825, the paintings which it owned went to Trafalgar Square, to become the Nationla Gallery. In 1883, the collection of natural history went to South Kensington. In 1905, the nespapers and periodicals went to Colindale; and in 1970, the holdings on ethnography went to Burlington Gardens” (Thomas 1983, 11).
In the mid-90s the library also moved out of the museum. What was once the collection of research materials of the museum, were moved a mile north to a new building on Euston road. This new building was titled "The British Library."
The symbolic value of Enlightenment-based pursuit of knowledge was best represented by the Round Reading Room, the domed, circular structure in the center of the museum's open courtyard. Thomas, on behalf of his “International Committee of the Campaign to Save the Round Reading Room” was campaigning for the "creative" conservation of this majestic space.
The problems with this space is extremely complex, but some features I have recently discovered are extremely interesting. One, the Round Reading Room was a revolutionary peice of environmental engineering rendered useless by modern intervention. A "spider" underneath the library floor circulated cool air through submerged passages up into the library via custom cast iron duct work in the desks. The air was circulated solely by the stack effect of the tall dome. This system worked for 150 years. Foster's intervation in 1995, the Great Court project, sealed the outdoor space, shut all the windows, and replaced the passive air circulation system with a modern HVAC system. Praised as one of the world's leading practitioners of environmental architecture, Foster negated the entire Round Reading Room design.
Second, the Great Court is not part of the British Museum. Technically and leagally, it is a public space that happens to be in the center of the museum. Since all public spaces must be open for use during the day, the British Museum was leagally bound to leave its doors open from morning till night to let people walk through the very center of its collection. This has changed recently, but considerable regulations and restrictions still apply to the Great Court space. For example, you cannot move the tables and chairs without a formal act of the Camden Council.
I will have to elaborate on these points later, as I develop my precedent study, but for now, I think this post is enough.
SOURCE:Thomas, Hugh. The Case for the Round Reading Room. Centre for Policy Studies: London, 1983.

The Beginning of the of the Beginning

Eisenmann writes:

"An origin of value implies a state or a condition of origin before value has been given to it. A beginning is such a condition prior to a valued origin. In order to reconstruct the timeless, the state as is, of face value, one must begin: begin by elimination the time-bound concepts of the classical, which are primarily origin and end. The end of the beginning is also the end of the beginning of value.

...

This formula, part of the fictions of reason and history, reduces architecture to an "added to" or "inessential" object by making it simply an effect of certain causes understood as origins. This problem is inherent in all of classical architecture, including its modernist aspect. The idea of architecture as something "added to" rather than something with its own being-as adjectival rather than nominal or ontological-leads to the perception of architecture as a practical device. As long as architecture is primarily a device designated for use and for shelter-that is, as long as it has origins in programmatic functions-it will always constitute and effect" (Eisenmann 1996, 220).

I apologize for the lengthy quotation, but I can't help thinking there is something terribly wrong about this passage. This is what I think is the core argument of Eisenmann's essay "The End of the Classical," the strongest argument I've read against historical, rational, and representational value in architecture. I don't think he truly disproves the value of history and I certainly am not convinced about his evidence for a purely "arbitrary" design approach.

But this is enough for now. Defining and expanding on what is wrong with this statement is the starting point for my architectural thesis. This "End" will become a new beginning.