Embracing History

By: Khris Kirk

Berlin is a center of many different styles of architecture. It has a vast range of historical architecture within one city, and the history is what defines the architecture. There are several examples of how the history is the defining feature of the structure and they are Peter Eiseman's Holocaust Memorial, David Chipperfield's Neues Museum, and Daniel Libeskind's Jewish Museum. Each building or structure enhance historical feel in their own way.

Peter Eiseman's Holocaust Memorial embraces the history of how people were treated during the Holocaust, but does it in a minimalistic way. The memorial itself is placed upon around several locations that "housed the office of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, and nearby was Hitler’s Chancellery and the infamous bunker where he ended his life" (Quigley). By placing the memorial in this specific spot, creates the feeling of a person being right at the center of where all the tragedy happened. The memorial is comprised of concrete pillars that are very thick and have a wide range of heights. They are also linked together in a tight grid. A person walking through the memorial would get a feeling of how the Jews felt during the war. There is nothing in the memorial to tell you how to feel, but one must feel it on your own. Therefore, the minimalistic architecture of the memorial represents the history during the Holocaust without having to tell people what they feel, but feel it on their own.

David Chipperfield’s Neues Museum approaches this concept differently. The Neues Museum is a combination of the existing architecture and a more modern style of architecture. Chipperfield took the restoration of the Neues Museum in the direction that he wanted to add onto the current building while “respecting the historical structure in its different states of preservation” (David ChipperfieldArchitects). Within the museum, the renovated parts of the structure do not distract from the original elements. For example, the new exhibition rooms are made of white concrete. The white concrete is bland in order to put the focus onto the existing structure. Also, the façade of the building has two sides. Where the existing structure is, there is ornaments on the façade; however, the new wing that was added on is stripped of all ornaments and only matches the structure symmetrically. Overall, Chipperfield embraces the historical aspects of the architecture and designed the new structural aspects to not take away from the existing one.

Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum takes the historical approach in a more drastic direction in comparison with the other two structures. The Jewish Museum’s entrance is through the Baroque Kollegienhaus, and then a person must travel underground to reach the museum. The Jewish Museum takes you through an existing structure, then through certain paths that bring you to important aspects about the Holocaust. One takes you through the museum and presents historical documents from the Holocaust. Another takes you to a garden that has several pieces that represent those who suffered during the war. And finally there is one that leads you to the dead end of a Void. This void represents the unknown, those who are lost, and the absence that has come from the Holocaust. Overall, the Jewish Museum takes many approaches towards embracing history. It connects with physical aspects of history, which are the historical documents and the Baroque Kollegienhaus, and it has an abstract representation of the Holocaust with the void.

These three structures connect with the historical aspects of Berlin and embrace them. They all were shaped and molded to produce the structures that are standing today.    

Links

"Holocaust Memorial, Architect Peter Eisenman, Berlin 2005" By: Sarah Quigley

David Chipperfield, Neues Museum, Berlin

Daniel Libeskind, Jewish Museum, Berlin

Berlin's Struggle Toward Cultural Identity

By Tyler Silvers

 
During the reign of Nazism in Germany, dating back to the 1930's, the leaders of the political party set out to radically change the culture of the European continent and, if possible, the world. Under Hitler’s direction, Albert Speer became the chief architect of the new style of Nazi Architecture. Buildings designed with the new style quickly sprang up across the Nazi regime, and in effect grew to provide a new cultural identity for the people of the time period. Nazi Architecture seems to have been based largely on the party’s idea of creating an Aryan race – an ideal that essentially seeks to create a population of perfect people, all of whom possess an identical culture. This idea was expressed in architecture through the monumental scale of the buildings constructed at the time. If we take the opportunity to zoom out and look at the structures from afar while thousands of people are gathered in and around the building, everyone, in effect, becomes the same - we don't see individuals, we just see people, thousands and thousands of seemingly identical people; almost like looking at an anthill. The speed in which the Nazi leaders were able to establish the new cultural identity of the population is simply astonishing. In less than 10 years, they were able to undo the previous way of life and reestablish a new life (albeit one of oppression) supported thoroughly with the architectural works of the time.

 

The collapse of the Nazi regime, and its architectural style, came with the end of World War 2 and left the masses void of any significant cultural or architectural identity, a void most notable in the capital of Nazi Germany – the city of Berlin. As a result of being heavily bombed at the end of WWII and the sequential Allied takeover, the city was purged of any and all remnants of the so-called Nazi Architecture, giving the city a clean slate on which to redesign its cultural identity. Without an absolute direction (like that offered by the Nazi party, which allowed an identity to be forged quickly), the city would enter a period of cultural uncertainty. The monumental task at hand was to undo the culture based on an all-powerful political party and to reestablish a culture that focused on the value of the individual as present in the modern world. The movement toward the modern world, while largely avoided in Soviet controlled East Berlin, was encouraged in the western half of the city. Architects from around the world, such as Hans Scharoun and Mies van der Rohe, flooded West Berlin in efforts to redefine the culture of the city through works of design. The culmination of design led to the development of the Kulturforum, a new cultural center based on the arts (and, thus, the individual rather than the party). Each building was designed to be free standing, however, and no clear relationship existed between the structures. Despite the cultural complex bringing a touch of modern architecture into the city, representing their willingness to move on from the once prevalent Nazi Architecture, Berlin had yet to address the one group whom it had shoved furthest into the corner – those of the Jewish faith. It wasn’t until Berlin united as a city that the cultural transformation would culminate in a new identity for everyone in the city. Architects such as Daniel Libeskind and Peter Eisenman were commissioned to implement Jewish memorials to lament the occurrences of the past. At this point, the city could declare its new cultural identity complete – one which focused on every individual without discrimination based on race or religion.

 I find it interesting that over 50 years go by before the city fully regains an culrural identity through the use of architecture equal to that established by the Nazi regime in only a few years. The city's new identity, however, offers more centrally focused ideals that incorporate rather than oppress the masses. After over half a century of turmoil, the city finally finds peace cultural peace with the assistance of architectural design.

 

Contemporary European Architecture

A part of the seminar is dedicated to the realization of a common architectural blog. 

During or after class, each student is requested to post texts, drawings and photos, fixing and discussing ideas, concepts and critical observations with a direct reference to the topics treated in classes and the building visited in trips. 

The posts should have a clear original title, different from any previous post, the name of the author in the first line, useful labels, a minimum length of 500 words and can include a maximum of three images.

When possible, posts will be elaborated in class time.

Excerpts and quotes of other texts are welcome, but they have to be mandatory presented in quotation marks, otherwise it is plagiarism.

Mid term exam

Each student will show his/her posts, with a reflection about “writing on architecture”, and trying to make evident his/her specific point of view on the treated topics.

Final exam

At the final exams, every student has to present his contribution to the blog in an organized form, explaining his/her own critical vision of the subjects and themes treated in the seminar’s classes.