The Jewish Museum – A Review Susannah Reid

SITE AND AUTHOR Introduction

The Jewish Museum  Opened September 9,  Completed in 1999, but stood empty for 2 years.  Architect = Daniel Liebeskind  His first actual built project. Susannah Reid  Author of this review  From University of Newcastle, London.  Visited and wrote in 2001 – two weeks post opening.

Purpose of Reid’s Review  Focus on the interaction between architecture and building function to determine how successful the project has been in creating a modern museum for the public. What Is Examined 1)Visitor Orientation 2)Exhibition & Exhibition Design 3)Museum Fatigue 4)Additional Facilities

VISITOR ORIENTATION #1

The Jewish Museum – Inside and Out Outside façade.

Overview of Viewer Orientation  Difficult due to building Intended to be “confusing and threatening”  Entry through Berlin Museum Through tunnel Splits into three tunnels  Each represents a way Germany lot its Jews  Display cases – individual use, not museum’s! 1)Garden 2)Holocaust Tower 3)Stairs to Exhibition  Exhibition itelf: Long, narrow, and zigzagging Interspersed with “voids”

Reid’s Judgment:  Recommended order of touring: 1)Exhibit 2)Axis of Holocaust 3)Axis of Garden  Confusing  Not designed with visitors in mind.

EXHIBIT & ITS DESIGN #2

The Original Purpose – Exhibition! Beyond architecture…

Overview of the Exhibit  Covers ALL of Jewish history in Germany.  Lots of “namedropping” Source of controversy! Too “Disney”-fied?  Highlights similarities and differences between German and Jewish life.  Aimed at people w/ little background knowledge.  Includes interactive elements.  Interspersed with “voids”

Reid’s Judgment:  Exhibition doesn’t have much to do with the architecture of the building, BUT…. … the exhibition and architecture complement each other.

MUSEUM FATIGUE #3

What is “Museum Fatigue”?

Reid’s Judgment:  Avoided in this exhibit!! Voids and architecture keep your attention fresh.

ADDITIONAL FACILITIES #4

Overview of Additional Facilities:  Offices, workshops, libraries.  Not enough space! Designed for 150,000 visitors per year, but getting 700,000.  Difficult disabled access.

CLOSING REMARKS & DISCUSSION In Conclusion

Reid’s Conclusion:  Iconic building  Works well with the exhibit  Bad visitor orientation Overall, a very good museum – must see!!

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:  What would the Jewish Museum look like if you designed it?  To what degree should the building and exhibit complement each other?  Is the “confusing and threatening” visitor orientation beneficial to the purpose of the museum? Why or why not?  Critics have argue that there is too much empty space in the museum due to weird angles and slants – do you agree?