Maybe you know about the Romanian-Bulgarian pseudo-rivalry. Beyond tourism or corruption issues, we, for instance, have a contemporary art museum for which the Bulgarians do envy us; however, in Sofia, they have sidewalks better than ours, their traffic seems more civilized, and why not saying it, they are net winners on the side of cafés or public spaces, parks and squares. This is to set lights and shadows rightly in this nice picture of an imaginary battle.
This weekend I have been invited to Sofia to attend a pleasant dispute about what it means to build a museum, mainly one of contemporary art. The slightly rhetorical and ironic title of this series of conferences – “Do we need museums?” (as if, this question could ever accept a negative answer) – was displayed almost over the entire city, for common citizens and the media to understand that the subject does not concern only local authorities or the ministry of culture, but they are addressed directly.
The story started from some images of dubious projects arising out of the blue, obviously without any competition, public debate and consultation with any professional body, embodying some rude and non-functional proposals for a museum of contemporary art. This looks quite familiar: on this side, no one seems having scored decisively within our famous competition.
Our colleagues from Abitare magazine in Sofia (now the prestigious Italian magazine has a Bulgarian version, too, that deserves all respect) organized this debate (http://abitare.bg/en/talks) and on this occasion, they successfully managed to bring together politicians, curators, museum directors, artists and stars (Jean Nouvel met also the authorities, which may be called a success).
The debate clearly focused on explaining that prior to start a building to which the red ribbon would be cut pompously, you should know that a museum first means an institution. This involves museographers and curators, operating resources, exhibitions, collections, a program and a strategy to implement a cultural project, etc. According to one of the speakers (David Cascaro) about the Palais de Tokyo in Paris, the building can be reduced in importance when the cultural project is a valid and clearly expressed one, if you know the audience and truly understand their desires.
A very interesting opinion came from another country with a totalitarian past, namely China. Presenting some very interesting projects for museums, Wu Wenyi said that the success of the operation is actually a constructive-critical attitude towards the customer (the local authority or government officials). As an architect, you need a coherent multi-criteria vision and a real understanding of data and information of the background as well as of the history of the place. The professional honesty side is essential when, for example, you ask your client to redirect a part of the museum money to the institutional part for collections and programs. It is true that in China things run at such a speed that sometimes architects are required a museum from one day to another. But maybe just this mixture of boom and strong authority determines a proper orientation of investments in education and culture to the public while, although seemingly more relaxed and closer to Western policies, the Romanian or Bulgarian State make minor investments that are vaguely effective in this field.
Speaking about total freedom, I could call into question the case of the Tailors’ Tower in Cluj. Although the enormous enthusiasm and voluntarism of the design office moved a whole mechanism and the space in the tower was built just like a space for exhibition, in fact there is neither a coherent cultural program nor any money for exhibitions. Nobody is responsible for this situation, a reason to look for companies that might sublet the space and exploit it as they like, but take out money for maintenance or taxes.
I could think of a similar scenario for the future Romanian museum of architecture. Prior to starting building, we should rather understand some aspects: who exhibit there, what and for what purpose, how it would run overnight (for very active young people) and also on Wednesday morning, who are the visitors and how many, what we expect from this future museum to make for our profession, the city or the Romanian tourism, the costs (software, maintenance, salaries) implied per year and how it could, actually, explain its existence over these times. Dragos Neamu, President of the National Network of Museums in Romania, told me rather clearly: “There are three main things required for an innovative museum: the content / the information, the design / the atmosphere, but also the bcontext, which pertains to the community expectations and needs, learning styles and availability for interaction and knowledge. Romania’s problem is that first, museums were equipped on the grounds of a pre-defined collection and then the search started, in a fortunate case, for a typology of the ideal visitor. Since the state covered the existence of the museum, nobody thought that maintenance and economic and cultural efficiency should be provided via strategies, feasibility studies etc.”
The more so, under today’s dramatic financial conditions the issue cannot be approached in a Danubian style offering answers like “first have the building, then find what to exhibit and to whoever pay salaries.”
Certainly, we think like our colleagues in Sofia that a state partnership (which has a mission of compulsory education) with culturally active groups having the support of some experts and consultants in cultural management could lead to a clear theme of a museum and why not, a design theme too, just appropriate to be launched in a public contest. Then, it will be the designers’ turn to respond to urban and technical issues. Until then, all the best.
Photo: Constantin Goagea
