So I'm not going to lie, the talk wasn't exactly what I thought it was going to be. Last year I went to an incredibly interesting talk by Professor Christopher Brown, Director of the Ashmolean Museum about the 'New Ashmolean' project, where he talked a lot about the architecture and layout of the new museum, and how this was conceived in relation to both the remaining old parts of the museum, and the collection itself. Dr McLeod's lecture wasn't really like this. Instead, she took as a case study the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool (to which I have never been. In fact, I've never even been to Liverpool…), and talked a lot about the context in which it was conceived and constructed in the 19th century, with passing mentions to how this relates to the design and form of the building itself. Despite the fact this wasn't at all what I was expecting, it turned out to be really interesting!
I won't bore you with the details, but here are some things that she said that stand out in my notes (yes, I took notes. I also had to do this in a scruffy school notebook as I've filled up my moleskine notebook and am not getting a new one until Christmas. Sob):
- Architecture is not an object - it's a physical museum embedded in a sensual world
- In 19th century Liverpool, the creation of a sweep of civic buildings, of which the Walker Gallery was a part, were built in a very mixed, rather rough area of the city, and were meant to be a new entrance to the city and act as a way of providing cultured, moral entertainment to its inhabitants
- The Walker Gallery has changed a lot since it was first built - extensions, lighting, and at one point after WW2 even being 'domesticated as social space' in line with Scandinavian ideas - this mostly involved shoving a plant, some sofas and a coffee table in the middle of a gallery.
- There's an interesting contrast in the way that the press at the time focused on the conservative Grecian design of the museum, when it was actually being constructed in a controversial political context (most of which arose around the fact that Walker, who funded the construction of the museum, basically as a private project, had made his fortune in the alcohol industry, which upset people in the temperance movement. The fact that Walker was a conservative with no real interest in art other than as a way for him to advance politically within the town/country also upset some people, especially liberals who'd championed the cause of a gallery in the city from the start, but just couldn't get enough money and support).
- The building's eventual physicality was 'a space for the negotiation of political tensions and mediation of divides in Liverpool'. Numerous images of the gallery produced by different parties - most notably a set of amusing cartoons produced by some tee totalers - show the various interpretations it was given. Many groups were attempting to fix a particular meaning to the building. However, what won out in the end was an official image of civc worth associated with the parades and celebrations that accompanied the opening of the Gallery
So there you go! It turns out that museum architecture is about a lot more than just pictures of pretty ceilings and galleries. The history of museums is something I've only ever really thought off briefly, and it turns out it's quite interesting! Although not at all how I imagined spending my Saturday morning, the lecture really made me think, and I definitely am keen on finding out more about the political and cultural contexts in which some of my favourite museums were conceived and constructed - although when I'll have time to do that is anyone's guess. Maybe a resolution for 2014...
0 comments:
Post a Comment