The first essay I read this week was Michlaela Giebelhausen’s “Museum Architecture: A Brief History.” This essay, as its title implies, provides a brief history of the development and function of museum architecture. Giebelhausen discusses how artifacts were predominately held in royal, religious or personal collections throughout ancient history. However, during the eighteenth century, many collections began opening to the public. As this became a cultural trend in western Europe, museum specific buildings started to develop organically. By the nineteenth century, museums were constructed with the intention of permanence. They were monuments, holding a civic responsibility for education and cultural preservation. Giebelhausen then discusses museum architecture in the twentieth century, explaining modern and postmodern archetypes. Throughout this piece, she offers several examples which represent the development of the respective architectural movements. Giebelhausen concludes by emphasizing the diversity of museum architecture and its inclusivity within the parameters of monument and instrument.

I also read Vittorio Lampugnani’s “Insight versus Entertainment: Untimely Meditations on the Architecture of Twentieth-century Art Museums.” In this essay, Lampugnani discusses the radical changes museum architecture experienced in the twentieth century. He begins by commenting on the nature of museums before WWII, relating them to a Marinetti quote which describes museums as “public dormitories.” Lampugnani then comments how a search for renewal and distinctiveness dominated post-WWII museum architecture. He laments how a desire for abstraction and flamboyance defines the modern museum. The architecture becomes the landmark and art itself, minimizing the contents within. Visitors come to see the building, not experience the art. Lampugnani thinks that modern museums have adopted an “entertainment ideology.” He concludes that the greatest challenge for the new millennium of museum architecture will be “keeping a narrowly defined view of art.”

The last essay I read was “Interactivity: Thinking Beyond.” This piece was written by Andrea Witcomb and discusses how museums have placed a new emphasis on interactive exhibits. However, Witcomb argues that “interactivity” is often falsely reduced to a combination of “interactives.” She explains that there is a distinct difference between meaningful interaction and simple attributes which use human agency. Witcomb discusses the pedagogies involved in interactive learning, and weighs the effectiveness of each. She then points to the importance of dialogue in creating a new understanding of interactivity in museums. Witcomb concludes with an exhortation to reconcile the museum as an institution with the participating audience.

This week’s discussion of architecture was incredibly fascinating. 2018 is the ten-year- anniversary of the Taubman’s current building. To celebrate the occasion, we are designing a specialty exhibit. I am helping with the design, focusing on the fascinating architecture of the Taubman. The readings provided a helpful context from which to approach the task.