Power, urbanism and art in the history of two centuries
Museuminsel in Berlin – The museum theory questions
MúzeumCafé 26.
The island in Berlin where today mainly museums can be found is a naturally formed geographical location in the city centre embraced by the Spree and the Kupfergraben. For several centuries it has been the site of buildings housing works of art owned by emperors, private collectors and later the state. Today it is a tourist centre and, since 1999, a designated World Heritage Site. Is it a model to be followed from which lessons can be drawn? The beginnings of the island as a museum complex began in 1830 with the opening of the Altes Museum, which reflected the ideals and architecture highly esteemed at the time. Under Humbolt’s influence the scientific enlightenment of citizens was embedded in humanism, but on Schinkel’s initiative the possibility of ‘beautiful’ subjectivity and accommodating individual works of art was integrated into the given art historical approach. The building of the Altes Museum and its artistic conception did not derive from a commission on the part of imperial authority but from democratic impulses. In 1840 a plan for a new museum was formulated and virtually at the same time, in 1841, the first Master Plan for Museum Island was elaborated. The plan not only envisioned the construction of the Neues Museum, it also involved a comprehensive architectural context. The symbolic order of the Neues differed from that of the Altes. Opportunities for acquiring knowledge, teaching and the basic principles of learning were essential elements of both institutions, yet the collections appeared in a quite different manner. In the case of the Neues Museum the role of the collection was determining, but the diverse character of the holdings (covering Egyptology, classical archaeological materials, papyrus items, drawings, prints and antique plaster casts) in the halls of the Neues stood “in a clear evolutional system” in created spaces decorated with allegorical paintings amidst a lively, colourful atmosphere. However, the spatial order didn’t take account of expansion and the possibility of exhibiting new works of art. For example, in 1912 the museum acquired the Nefertiti Bust, which has since become the icon of the institution. It was kept under lock and key for more than 60 years, then after restoration lasting a decade it reappeared in the museum in 2009. Although it seemed that Museum Island was both unique and fascinating for its time, its space and role has benefitted from reconstruction (in line with plans drawn up by the architectural practice of David Chipperfield and under the direction of Julian Harrap, an architect specialising in listed buildings). The reconstruction uncovered the historical and conceptual levels of the museums, but in a wider sense of Museum Island as a whole. In line with original plans, the late classicist building of the National Gallery (since 1968 the Old National Gallery) was suitable for several functions. The museum was a free space for the arts and sciences, its large empty hall and park in front of the building being used for public events. Within decades of its foundation the National Gallery was transformed into a symbolic institution. Works of art relating to heroes and events expressing ‘national identity’, reflecting imperial power were exhibited. In the central focus of Ernst Ebenhard von Ihne’s renaissance Bode Museum (until 1956 the Kaiser Friedrich Museum) and its exhibition spaces divided into ‘style rooms’ (Stilräumen) stood a ‘masterpiece’ (Meisterwerk), in a space radiating the atmosphere of a living room where every element reflected the given period. The museum’s concept was developed by Wilhelm von Bode whose artistic perceptions were rooted in the Renaissance, though he was also strongly influenced by Hegel. Bode died in 1929 at the age of 83, and thus he didn’t live to see the opening of the Pergamon Museum in 1930. A century had passed between the inauguration of the Altes Museum and the opening of the Pergamon. Following the reunification of Germany, 1999 saw the launch of the ‘second’ Master Plan for Museum Island on the initiative of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, established in 1957. From a professional perspective criticism can be raised since such a large-scale investment upsets the balance in museum organisation and causes unavoidable harm to institutions not on the island. It also seems there is precious little cooperation between the more favoured Museum Island and other institutions in the museum network. According to plans, when the investment is completed the number of visitors, which currently stands at two million a year, will rise to four million. However, there is a fundamental difference between the first and the second Master Plan – the new one deals not only with the history of humanity as part of museum tradition, but also includes the museums, the collections and the works of art themselves. The project is truly monumental, nevertheless it embodies the understandings and traditions of German philosophy, its own image of a culture of memory, intellectualised and worked out in society, and the desire for refinement (the most elegant example so far being the Neues Museum, which re-opened in 2009).