Kerstin Brandt refers to three points
in the Neues Museum’s history that illustrate the buildings “ruin discourse.” These three points are the Soviet invasion of
Berlin when it was originally damaged, its fifty year vacancy before beginning of its fully restoration starting 1997, and the
choices made in its restoration.
The damages the museum sustained in the
war are merely the start of the story. This ruined the museum to the point that it
needed restoration. The second and third
points are more significant to the discourse part of the conversation. The time between the Neues Museum’s
restoration and its ruination was filled in a
support role. The more stable
sections of the building was used for storage for Museum Island. It was neglected while other facilities on
the island were restored. When some
restoration started in the 1980’s it was interrupted by the fall of the wall
and unification.
The restoration team that started the
project in a unified Germany choose to
work through the ruination rather than cover it up. This leaves it with the slightly damaged
appearance on the outside of the museum.
The inside of the museum only scarcely suffers from any ruination. The restoration team planned to restore the
original purpose and vision of the museum without quite making it a modern
building like we see with the Reichstag.
The museum has not been restored to the point of being totally usable
and safe but has not sought to move past its past.
Bibliograpghy
Brandt, Kerstin. "Working
Through Ruins: Berlin's Neues Museum." The Germanic Review.
no. 4 (2011): 294-307.
4 comments:
When I walked through the museum I had a totally different perspective. I thought that the inside of the museum does show major signs of it's damaged past. Why do you think that the inside of the building only slightly shows ruination?
I saw a particular lack of bullet holes, a I can see they've done their fair share of restoration inside.
I didn't see anything like that wall of the Reichstag that is preserved from the war.
They hide it and restore because that is not what they are about.
I thought that the lack of bullet holes in the inside of the museum simply means that there were no guns fired inside the buildings and since this building is concrete, bullets fired outside of the building did not go through to the inside. When I walked through the eastern side of the museum (the section that was not completely destroyed in the war) I saw what the museum originally looked like. The other sections of the museum had half-paintings and different material on the same wall. I thought that museums are about displaying history & the past. Can you expand more on why you don't think that is what they are about?
I agree with Brooklyn. I think that with the architecture on the walls of the destruction of Pompeii, as well as the artifacts used within the Greek Courtyard it would show signs of the damaged past. Can you make any connections between the walls of the museum and the Reichstag?
Post a Comment