Saturday, May 16, 2015

Field Question - Neues Museum


Field Question #2

Kerstin Barndt identifies many moments in the Neue Museum’s history that illustrate the building’s connections with ruin discourse. Firstly, the rediscovery of Pompeii’s ruins and its excavation was a key moment in the museum’s history. After the rediscovery, the Neues Museum hired Hermann Shievelbein to construct a thematic frieze on the walls of the Greek Courtyard which represented “the destruction of the ancient city” (Barndt, 2011, 298). This obviously illustrates a connection with ruin discourse, as it is a scene of destruction.

     




Barndt identifies World War II as a key moment in the Museum’s history as the Museum was heavily damaged during the bombing raids during the final years of the war. Instead of a complete restoration, the damage on the exterior and interior of the the building was not repaired and now the museum is identified as a frozen ruin. Barndt states that the restoration “followed aesthetic principles that preserve and render visible the traces of ruination throughout” (2011, 299).





The final key moment was the reunification of East and West Berlin. Shortly after reunification, the government revised earlier plans to restore the museum. It was decided that David Chipperfield would be the architect in charge of the project.  According to Barndt, Chipperfield, the project “achieved a delicate balance between respect for the old building and contemporary museum architecture” as demonstrated though his design of the main staircase. (2011, 300).



These three moments in time illustrate the museum’s connection to ruin discourse. The rediscovery of Pompeii’s ruins, World War II and the reunification of East and West Berlin are the reasons that the museum is considered a frozen ruin.


Bibliography:

Barndt, Kerstin. “Working through Ruins: Berlin's Neues Museum,” The
Germanic Review: Literature, Culture, Theory, Vol. 86 No. 4 (2011): 294-307.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Do you think that David Chipperfield achieved this combination between past and future? Or does one seem more prominent?

Unknown said...

I believe that David Chipperfield did achieve a combination of the past and future in the staircase he designed in the Museum. I believe it depicts the scars of the war as many buildings were destroyed and lost during World War II. The modern design in an old building shows that the original design of the building was destroyed and lost and the fairly basic design was a deliberate to show this loss. I do believe that the Museum in general gives an older feel as a frozen ruin. Any other thoughts?

Emily Pletz said...

I agree with Brooklyn, the museum definitely felt like being transported in time. Especially with the bullet holes in the walls and the architecture of the disaster of Pompeii in the Greek courtyard. There is so much history within the museum building itself that each room feels like a frozen ruin.

Anonymous said...

I agree as well. I really enjoyed the historical vibe that the 'ruins' aspects gave. It was almost as if you could feel what the building had lived through walking down the halls. I honestly am not a huge fan of the stairs though... they seem too functional/simplistic. To me it felt like they had run out of money or something as opposed to there being an attempt to tie the past with the future.

Emily Pletz said...

I agree. In the article I read about it, it stated how they re-designed the stairs after the war. Therefore it's not the same feel as it used to be and definitely does not have the same effect as the rest of the building!

Emily Pletz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

I agree with the fact that I actually do not like the look of the design as to me the whole museum is so elaborate and interesting whereas the staircase looks simple and in my opinion unattractive. With that being said however, I believe that this was Chipperfield's goal. The simple design of the staircase was meant to display the scars of the war and illustrate that major parts of history such as that beautiful, original staircase were completely destroyed in the war. To restore the staircase to it's original condition would have seemed like an attempt to cover up the war and the effect the war had on the museum. The war did have a major effect on Berlin and Germany as a whole and I believe this staircase almost acts as a monument to the destruction of the city during World War II.

Anonymous said...

True, I suppose that is maybe what he thought too. I think some times art and architecture is "in the eye of the beholder" as they say, because even something as simple as a staircase can have various opinions.