SERGIO MIGUEL FIGUEIREDO

Architect turned historian and critic of architectural production and consumption. Currently working at UCLA on a doctoral dissertation on the Nederlands Architectuurinstituut (NAi)

[sergiophd]

Towards an Architecture Museum

cover of Wonen TA/BK special double-issue on architecture museums, #11-12, June 1985

 Rotterdam or Amsterdam? This was the question that throughout 1985 dominated every conversation on the plans for a new national architecture institute in the Netherlands. The controversy had been unexpectedly started a few months earlier (December 18, 1984) by one single letter sent by Minister of Culture Elco Brinkman to the Dutch Parliament. Without any public or official discussion, Minister Brinkman’s letter simply reported that the decision to locate the forthcoming institute for architecture and urban planning in Rotterdam had been made. Such definitive and unforeseen decision surprised Dutch architectural and cultural circles in general, and the NDB (Nederlands Documentatie Centrum voor de Bouwkunst), the SAM (Stichting Architectuur Museum) and Stichting Wonen in particular. For over a year, these three institutions had been involved in lengthy conversations preparing their merger and subsequent foundation of the new architecture institute with their governmental supporters, the Ministry of Culture (WVC) and the Ministry of Housing (VROM). However, the question of the new institute’s location had never even been posed. Since all three organizations were based in Amsterdam, there was a tacit assumption that the new institute resulting from their merger would also be located in the capital. By circumventing discussion with the involved parties, the unilateral decision to establish the future institute in Rotterdam was not only perceived as an undue political imposition, but also one that suggested difficulties for the future institute’s (political) independence.

  discussion on the location of the future architecture museum in Amsterdam’s Beurs van Berlage on April 21, 1985 

The escalation of the confrontation between merging partners and Ministry of Culture reached its peak in May 1985, when SAM followed Stichting Wonen’s lead and also abandoned the merger negotiation table. While effectively halting the official preparatory work for the new institute, Stichting Wonen and SAM still aspired to found the future architecture institute. Thus, throughout the negotiations’ interregnum, it was important not only to continue preparing the new institute, but also to keep the public interested in it. Besides organizing public meetings and discussions to garner more support for their position, Stichting Wonen published in June 1985 a special double issue of their journal Wonen TA/BK entirely dedicated to architecture museum(s). The purpose of this issue is quite clear: to assert Stichting Wonen’s position in the (architectural) public opinion and pressure the government into action. By publicizing their position and the issues at stake with the establishment of the architecture museum, Stichting Wonen was attempting to enhance the likelihood of the museum’s implementation under the negotiated conditions. Stimulating public discussion and increasing public expectations could only make it more difficult for Minister Brinkman not to follow through. 

Through articles by Hans van Dijk and others, Wonen TA/BK’s issue #11-12 discussed the historical and current conditions for the proposed merger, while also forcefully arguing for its inherent benefits and necessity. Beyond the activist reflection of domestic questions, the issue was comprised of a comprehensive benchmarking exercise analyzing the practices and objectives of architecture museums in Finland, France, England, Germany, Switzerland and the USA. Beyond suggesting that staffing, funding, policies, objectives and activities were some of the major concerns in the preparatory discussions; this published analysis also indicates how the NAi was modeled on several of these institutions, combining features of each of them.

  drawing by OM Ungers for a “House within a House,” the concept of the Deutsches Architektur Museum (ca. 1980)

 While conventional narrative has (essentially) established that the NAi was modeled on the Deutsches Architektur Museum (among others, Bart Lootsma in “The Art of Architecture Exhibitions,” Nai Publishers: 2001), this issue of Wonen TA/BK disproves such assertion. Instead, it suggests that the NAi was modeled not only on the German DAM, but also on other architecture museums and institutions like the RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) in London, the Institut Français d’Architecture in Paris or the Suomen Rakennustaide Museo (Museum of Finnish Architecture) in Helsinki. Several themes and considerations that became central to the NAi’s organization and policy were already present (and common) in many of the examined museums, from the importance of reaching a wide audience to the support of talented young architects. But this analysis also served to highlight specific issues in the organization and everyday functioning of an architecture museum, which would also be considered in the foundation of the NAi.

For example, the review of both German examples (Bauhaus Archive in Berlin and the Deutsches Architektur Museum in Frankfurt) commented on the institutions’ buildings. While Berlin served a cautionary tale of inadequate conditions which created several obstacles to ambitious exhibitions and that could exhaust the resources of any organization, Frankfurt showed how a remarkable building could articulate the concept of an institution and enhance (almost immediately) its notoriety. The positive influence of captivating regular patrons was also explicit in Berlin. A welcoming atmosphere with an inviting cafeteria and a tasteful library appealed to visitors and compelled them to become “supporting member” with yearly fees.  Such system would be implemented in Rotterdam as the Leliman Association (currently named the “Friends of the NAi”) which, at one point, was refined to a class system of members, donors, patrons and special patrons. Likewise, the DAM’s emphasis on models for the articulation of architecture to a wide audience (in stark contrast with several other museums that only collected drawings and/or photographs) set the example for the NAi, eventually leading to the opening of its model storage at the Van Nelle Fabriek and to the permanent model-based populist exhibition Stad van Nederland/Dutchville. Identified as the main reason for the DAM’s early success, the engagement with international debate would also become a leading focus at the NAi, albeit in a significantly different form.

  “Suomen Rakennustaide Museo” by Juhani Pallasmaa and Asko Salokorpi (1982)

 While the international orientation of the DAM did not privilege German architecture in any way, the NAi adopted an international engagement more akin to the approach of the Museum of Finnish Architecture. Like Helsinki’s MFA, the NAi promoted international architecture domestically and domestic architecture abroad. In fact, the NAi seemed to have much in common with the Finnish Architecture Museum. Like the Helsinki museum, the NAi produced television series for architecture to reach a wide(r) audience (“Architectuur in Nederland” was aired throughout 1993-94) and published a Yearbook of national architecture (“Architecture in the Netherlands Yearbook” was first published in 1988). Moreover, the very organization of the institute -as a foundation run by a board with daily operations being managed by the museum director- and its funding arrangements -with the state being responsible for the larger portion and the rest originating from the host city and ticket proceeds- were reminiscent of the Finnish Museum. 

 The Helsinki Museum demonstrated how an architecture museum could be almost fully funded by the central government and remain independent, but the Institut Français d’Architecture offered a stark contrast. By being closely associated with the political structures, the IFA’s fate was always volatile. The uncertainty of each election cycle endangered the funding and staffing of the IFA, which paralyzed the institute for several months at a time and prevented it from adopting a truly critical stance regarding the (architectural and heritage) policies of the government. Conversely, the Basel Architekturmuseum and the RIBA Drawings Collection and Library enjoyed complete political independence, as their funding was secured from private contributions. Both would influence the NAi in different ways: the Basel museum through its production of exhibitions that challenged both the boundaries of architecture and the ‘exhibition’ medium; and the RIBA through its archival policy and management of complete archives.

 guided visit to NAi’s archives for MuseumWeekend, 1993

 Archival and acquisition policies diverged considerably among the analyzed architecture museums and centers. It ranged from a complete lack of archives, to collections composed by only photographs and drawings, to collections composed by discrete representative projects, to comprehensive collections of complete archives. The different attitudes toward archives reflected different goals, but also different perceptions of architecture. Rather than a “product-oriented” perspective, the NAi adopted a “process-driven” perspective on architecture, to which its collection of complete archives was central. The NAi archives established a comprehensive resource for architectural research which encouraged new readings of history and allowed new arguments to emerge. Given the NAi’s focus on comprehensive archives and research on ways to make them culturally productive, the absence of the similar minded Canadian Center for Architecture (CCA) in Montreal from this comparative analysis becomes even more noticeable. Perhaps due to logistical difficulties, or perhaps because the center was not yet open to the general public, the CCA was not included, but since its foundation, the NAi has shared a close affinity to the Canadian Center. Beyond the collection of comprehensive archives, like the CCA, the NAi has also been dedicated to the idea that architecture is a public concern, which must be positioned within a broader societal context, or “the cultural dimension of architecture.” 

Through the review of these foreign institutions the implicit agenda of Stichting Wonen remains clear. The analysis of these architecture centers and museums regarding staffing, funding, organization and political independence, suggest a criticism for the government’s decisions that are confirmed by the complementary articles sympathetic to Stichting Wonen’s position. The dispute between merging partners and government took another year to be resolved and a compromise was only reached in the summer of 1986, in which a new building rather than location was the main issue.

NAi’s Urban Augment Reality (UAR) app visualizing the future Rotterdam Markthal

 While over 25 years old, it is remarkable how the lessons of this Wonen TA/BK double-issue remain valid -and are being pursued by the NAi- today. Most notably, as the NAi reinforces its role of intermediary between a wide audience and the discipline through the recovery of its “platform function” for the discussion and engagement of architecture. The same strategy identified in this 1985 issue as being crucial for the establishment and development of architectural museums and institutes, from Helsinki to Paris.

[sergiophd]

A Renovated NAi

postcard announcing NAi’s renovation

  In mid may 2010 the Netherlands Architecture Institute (NAi) in Rotterdam closed its doors to the visiting public for a much needed renovation of the building. The entrance was to experience a complete overhaul, in a renovation work that was initially anticipated to last seven months. Instead of seven, it took thirteen, but on July 1st, 2011, the NAi reopened its galleries to the public, revealing not only a brand new entrance, but also a renewed direction and a reinvigorated strategy for the activities of the institute. The renovation work was commissioned to the original architect of the building, Jo Coenen. Presented with the opportunity to reconsider the connection of the building to its immediate surroundings, Coenen reorganized the entire ground level around a penetrating glass volume. Clad in metallic mesh, the new block, besides announcing the entrance to the institute on both street and park side also accommodates some new spaces. The J.B. Bakema-Serre meeting room occupies the north end, while most of the remaining space is taken by the new Hands-on-Deck (DoeDek in the original Dutch) equipped with construction blocks, legos and webcams, to engage younger visitors with the NAi’s educational programs. Inside the original building, the new block’s metallic mesh cladding is manipulated to form large openings, establishing strong visual connections to the lower floor. Such visual porosity allows for an immediate immersion into the lower floor spaces of the bookstore, café and ticket counter. Despite such proximity, its elevated position ensures a significant distancing from the bustle of those contiguous areas, enabling a panopticon-like survey perspective of these (particularly) public spaces of the institute. 

the new entrance block within the existing building

The renovation not only reorganizes the entrance, but by reinforcing connections to its surroundings, it is also intended to translate in spatial terms the current policy and objectives of the NAi. During the 13 months of construction, and with the exhibitions program on hold, the NAi experienced an unusual sabbatical period. During this interlude, the institute had the opportunity to reconsider its position in the current contemporary cultural landscape and revise its strategies, instruments and objectives. Thus, besides a new entrance, also a new integrated branding strategy was presented on July 1st. Such rebranding included not only a new logo and graphic language, but most remarkably, also the renaming of the institute as “NAi Museum of Architecture” (NAi, museum voor architectuur in the original Dutch form).

with the reopening the NAi has been now renamed "NAi, museum of architecture"

While the genesis of the institution’s title as NAi (or institute rather than museum) can be traced back to both pragmatic and conceptual considerations of the institute’s founders in the 1980s, the current “museum of architecture” title might prove misleading to most. Seemingly the title was devised in order to clarify both the content and the focus of the institution, particularly, in its communication to a lay audience (mostly in the sense that “museum” has a stronger name recognition among the general public, and it is therefore easier to understand what it is supposed to do). However, once inside the actual institute, the definitions of both “architecture” and “museum” are manipulated to a point that is bound to topple any facile expectations.

Architecture, as it seems, is not confined to the practice of construction or the discourse of ideas (a vision of the discipline that current director Ole Bouman has championed for almost two decades); nor is a museum confined to the enquiry of a cultural dimension. From the outward projected reductive title, expectations are subverted as definitions and boundaries within the NAi are invariably pliable. Such underlying perspective on both “architecture” and “museum” permeates both temporary and permanent exhibitions, as in these, not only social implications explicitly displace most cultural assertions, but also the traditional distance between visitor and artifact is fundamentally challenged. 

temporary exhibition “Testify! The Consequences of Architecture”

Installed on the top floor gallery “Testify! The Consequences of Architecture” not only converges on (global) social issues, but also expands upon “Architecture of Consequence,” one of the last exhibitions presented at the NAi before the renovation (February 20 to May 16, 2010). Specifically, “Testify!” complements the previously Dutch-only response to the role of architecture (in its widest possible sense) to social innovation by presenting 25 projects from around the world that attempt to meaningfully impact local social conditions with global implications.  From a skate club in Kabul to a collection of flashcards exploring the “drivers of change” for the upcoming century, the range of projects at “Testify!” is quite eclectic. However, the argument of the exhibition is clear from the start, as all of the projects favor a social engagement (primarily by procuring some form of inclusiveness of the local community) over an architectural or even spatial one. The reliance of these projects on social engagement is inevitably reflected on the material presented, as social processes are not always easily represented in images. Despite such difficulty, the argument of the installation is both sharp and challenging, appealing for a reconsideration of what constitutes architecture, and its intrinsic agency.    

models behind walls in the permanent exhibition “Dutchville / Stad van Nederland” 

A similar strategy of displacement is found in the permanent exhibition on the Balkonzaal. In Dutchville (or Stad van Nederland in Dutch) it is not our expectations of architecture that are challenged, but instead, it is the conventional museum presentation and processes and that are destabilized. The installation is divided into two main areas dividing the stable past/present and the fluid future of Dutch architecture, landscape and urban planning. Transition sections are used as sorbet between courses, that is, to cleanse the palate for a fresh dose of architectural visualizations and speculations. A cleansing that is required in order to fully appreciate the theatricality of the array of devices used for the defamiliarization of architectural presentations and knowledge. There are light effects continuously looping; doors that open automatically and mysteriously; concealed architectural models only visible through slender apertures; circling lights in mirror constructed infinite space; amorphous blobs and volumes intimating an unknown future.

audio guide device for the permanent exhibition “Dutchville / Stad van Nederland”  

But what really sets “Dutchville” apart from other conventional exhibitions of architectural models is undoubtedly the audio guide system, namely the format it uses to deliver information on the works exhibited. Instead of a dry read-through by an expert (with impeccable accent) of facts and figures regarding the different objects, information is codified as a conversation between six different “regular” people openly discussing their opinions on these projects. By using an accessible language unhindered by architectural jargon, this unusual delivery method attempts to captivate a wider audience and express an architectural debate that is inclusive and open-ended. Moreover, by listening to the different conversations, at the end of the installation, the architectural preferences of the six (fictional) characters have become apparent. The success of this permanent exhibition is still unclear, but if in “Testify!” architecture was looking into society, in “Dutchville” it is society that is found looking back at architecture.

temporary exhibition “Daring Design / Dwarsdesign”

Unfortunately the underlying criticality of “Testify!” and “Dutchville” is largely absent in the third and largest exhibition installed for the NAi’s re-opening. Occupying the prestigious main gallery, “Daring Design” (Dwarsdesign in Dutch) presents the work of eight Dutch and Chinese designers. Rem Koolhaas/OMA, Hella Jongerius, Irma Boom, Alexander van Slobbe, Ma Ke, MEET YOU, Urbanus and Ai Weiwei are “designers with guts” as the NAi brochure rightly extols, that “do not evade commercially or politically sensitive issues,” but whose critical fangs have been manicured to a point of dullness in this exhibition.

Each designer’s work is represented by one single project, presented on an installation design by TomDavid Architecten. The layout is basic, yet provocative. A large deck covers the most of the main gallery, creating two separate levels: an upper floor for individual work, and a lower floor for exhibition material and video profiles. While the lower floor is structured along a central axis, the upper deck defines an oversized table divided by three accessible secondary cross axes. The result is an open landscape in which not only the conventional gallery wall space is replaced by table space, but the play between break and continuity is also constantly instrumentalized.

the open landscape of “Daring Design / Dwarsdesign” designed by TomDavid Architecten 

But despite the original arrangement of material, there is no real dialogue between the different work, as the (restrained) ideas investigated by (any)one designer do not resonate in the work of the others, even when they operate in the same field. The critical depth for which each designer is recognized in their individual practice is oddly absent, as the overlap between the work presented seems to be merely the tenuous idea of being either Dutch or Chinese.

The lack of critical punch and unquestioned promotion of Dutch and Chinese designers is odd for an exhibition in an architecture museum. Thus, it is revealing that “Daring Design” is actually a homecoming for a promotional exhibition that toured China (Shanghai, Beijing and Shenzhen) in 2010, but was then titled “Taking a Stance: 8 Critical Attitudes in Chinese and Dutch Architecture and Design.” In China, the original exhibition was produced by the NAi in collaboration with the DutchDFA, an organization created with the sole mandate of promoting “Dutch Design Fashion and Architecture” in emerging economies like India, Brazil, and yes, China. Despite only being listed in Rotterdam for its “financial contribution,” the DutchDFA is (still) the driving force of this exhibition. From the selection of the design fields presented that neatly fit the DutchDFA’s realm; to its tacit dual purpose of reinforcing the branding of Dutch designers as “critical pragmatics” and appealing to the enormous Chinese market by strategic flattery of its domestic design (despite of its own merits). It was not the DutchDFA that collaborated with the NAi, it was the NAi that collaborated with the DutchDFA by validating its promotional efforts.

credits for Rem Koolhaas' video profile in “Daring Design / Dwarsdesign” 

Just as “Testify! or “Dutchville” articulate the repositioning of the NAi as increasingly engaged with the social rather than the cultural, “Daring Design” articulates how architectural cultural institutions are increasingly pressured to serve the prevalent economic systems and interests. It is disingenuous to believe that this is a recent development, as the NAi has always engaged in the tacit promotion of Dutch architecture. However, the biggest distinction from then to now, -besides the obvious increase of scope from architecture to other fields of design- would be the transfer of control from the NAi to others (in this case the DDFA) in the definition of its message. Not only does it tarnish the “NAi brand,” it also risks turning the NAi into an idea-empty megaphone, used to disseminate other organizations’ agendas. 

Moreover, the NAi’s dual purpose of criticality and economic reality is already resulting in an increased tension on the institute as contradictions begin to emerge. Just as it was welcoming other disciplines in “Daring Design,” it was also fiercely opposing the inclusion of architecture into the “creative industries” category in the reorganization of the cultural sector (and allocated funding) by the current neo-liberal State Secretary Halbe Zijlstra. Nevertheless, and since almost 20% of its operating budget was at stake, the NAi still attempted to sustain an argument for architecture’s autonomy and uniqueness despite being undermined by its an exhibition in its own gallery.

Ole Bouman, director of the NAI, signs a cooperation on low cost housing agreement with Mao Daqing, vice-president of VANKE, in the presence of the Dutch State Secretary Halbe Zijlstra. photo: Xun Huang

But as the realpolitik of “Daring Design” begins to produce results, forceful arguments and combative positions are quickly forgotten, and photo ops are properly staged. Under the watchful eye of Secretary Zijstra, Ole Bouman has signed a cooperation agreement between the NAi and VANKE, the “largest real estate developer in China,” validating the view of Secretary Zijlstra and the DutchDFA on the role of cultural institutions: the facilitators of business. Now it is up to the NAi to maintain the uneasy combination between criticality and promotion by validating its own social-cultural ambitions and meaningfully impact Dutch architectural culture.

Regardless of condemnation or praise for the current positioning of the NAi, in the end the institute (or Museum of Architecture?) only reflects what Rem Koolhaas bluntly states in his DutchDFA produced video profile: “Architecture can never be [truly] critical as it always has to support someone else’s interests.”

 “They are critical, raise questions, extend boundaries and do not evade commercially or politically sensitive issues. At the same time they are realistic.” Excerpt from "Daring Design" promotional material