Posted by: atreulieb | February 27, 2008

Architecture and Historical Context in the Postmodern Era

  The two case studies “The Museum In A Postmodern Era: The Musee D’Orsay” and “The Sainsbury Wing and Beyond: The National Gallery Today” presented in the book Contemporary Cultures of Display both encompass the effects of architectural design and its influences on how historical artworks are viewed.  While the Musee D’ Orsay created a unique architectural renovation within the confines of a former railroad station, the National Gallery implemented an additional wing to expand its viewing capacity.  Although there are distinct differences between the two architectural projects, both take into consideration the historical context of the artworks to be displayed and try to simulate an architectural style that may have been experienced during the artworks era of creation.                                                                                 Both the Musee D’Orsay and the National Gallery were challenged by the constraints and limitations of creating an architectural structure that functioned as a gallery space, while maintaining an authentic style that would refer to the historical underpinnings of not only the building itself, but also the artwork held within.  According to Emma Barker, the creation of the Musee D’Orsay instigated a wide and often contrasting response as to whether or not it functioned successfully.  However, Barker depicts the National Gallery as a clearer and more successful use of space and design. The contrasting response or degree of success between the Musee D’Orsay and the National Gallery is perhaps due to the fundamental differences within their frameworks.  The Musee D’Orsay was working within the elaborate architectural layout of the train station, a building whose functional design was  not to display works of art.  The architects had to construct an environment that was conducive to the display of artworks, while being confined to the limitations enforced by the station’s original shell.  In contrast, the National Gallery’s expansion had the flexibility and freedom to create its own exterior structure, a structure that was designed specifically for the purpose of hanging and exhibiting art.                                                                                     However, despite their differences in architectural design and limitations, both the National Gallery and the Musee D’ Orsay inevitably create spaces that are facades.  It does not matter that their historical references differ or whether they are pointing to a 19th Century aesthetic or to an Italian Chapel of the Renaissansce – both still reflect the sentiments of the postmodern era.  As Barker states, “we can conclude that all museum design is bound up with changing architectural fashions and also that the style of specific examples will depend on place as well as time” (Barker 60).


Responses

  1. I agree with your assessment of the Musee D’Orsay’s space limitations–having to design within an already existing framework. This did have a negative impact on the display and may have been a distraction negating the value of the art.

  2. I feel that the exterior architecture is some what important, but compared to the intetrior design, it is quite as important. The interior reference is just a holding place for the art, but on the other hand influences the audiences first thought. Interior design exceeds the exterior in my opinion by far.


Leave a response

Your response:

Categories