In connection with the opening of the new headquarters of the Museum of Modern Art, a rather curious phenomenon has been sweeping through Poland in recent weeks - a veritable rash of self-proclaimed architecture critics. On the one hand, this is a good thing, given the continuing shortage of competent specialists in the field, but on the other hand, in the flood of spontaneous, laconic and sometimes "memetic" reviews of this new development, there is often a lack of deeper reflection, analysis or reference to the broader context in terms of history, politics, art, museology or location in such a sensitive spot in the center of Warsaw.
Of course, it is possible to speculate what the building might have looked like if it had been planned by Frank O. Gehry, for example. In 1998, just after the stunning success of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, he gave an interview to the Polish press in which he expressed his desire to design a new museum in Warsaw - even for free (Gehry's family came from Poland, so his dream was to build some significant building in the homeland of his ancestors. In later years, he designed the Camerimage Festival and Convention Center in Lodz and a building for the Academy of Music in Krakow, but neither of these concepts lived to see fruition). One may also wonder what the museum would have looked like if the vision of Christian Kerez, who won an international competition in 2007, for which more than a hundred works were submitted, had been brought to a happy conclusion. The project had evolved in a very interesting direction and was already at a fairly advanced stage when it was abandoned in 2012. One can also speculate what would have happened if any of the renowned international studios that tried their hand at it had been selected (in 2007 Kengo Kuma & Associates, Snøhetta or ALA Architects, andin 2014 Foster + Partners, UNStudio or Henning Larsen), not to mention those who were lost in the initial qualification stages (such as Herzog & de Meuron and Zaha Hadid Architects). One can also analyze interesting designs for this museum by Polish architects more familiar with the local context and history, or.... prepare an alternative, classicist concept for the edifice, gaining momentary attention from local media and politicians. However, such divagations are just non-committal fortune-telling in the face of concrete, built architecture by the New York-based studio Thomas Phifer and Partners (in cooperation with APA Wojciechowski Architects).
It seems that after experiencing many years of work on Kerez's project, looking for his successor commissioned, they already knew exactly what they wanted and what they didn't (paradoxically, this new museum is based on a similar spatial layout as in the Swiss's original competition concept - a freed-up, glazed basement and a massive, top-lit exhibition area). Phifer's realization, at first glance, resembles a rather literal interpretation of the neutral scheme of the multifunctional museum white box - the white cube, favored by most curators and artists around the world. Only upon closer inspection can one see here an interesting interplay of forms, details, materials, textures and colors, which paradoxically present a whole range of shades close to white, while the latter appears only in the main exhibition spaces. Amid this subdued design, the only extravagances in the interiors seem to be the wood-finished relaxation and contemplation spaces between the exhibition halls, the sizable skylights on the top floor (which, for conservation reasons, will probably be covered up quite often) and the spectacular central staircase, somewhat reminiscent of the realization of M.C.'s graphic optical illusions. Escher. One can only regret that the museum's rooftop did not have room for a public garden or terrace, offering unique views of the dynamically changing center of modern Warsaw.
The new MSN headquarters is background architecture - it recedes into thebackground itself, putting art first, which can appear in a variety of forms and dimensions in such diverse spaces. This museum similarly works on the outside: it provides a massive horizontal contrast to the Palace of Culture and Science and the glass skyscrapers dominating the capital's skyline, as well as a potential backdrop for multimedia activities (perhaps Pipilotti Rist?). An interesting procedure is the complete glazing of the first floor, which promotes the connection between the nearby traffic routes and the new Central Square, but also the introduction of art into the public space - it can be viewed not only by determined connoisseurs, but also by casual passers-by or the hundreds of drivers and passengers crossing Marszałkowska Street every day. It is a building that, on the one hand, alludes to the ideals of modernism (it almost literally illustrates Le Corbusier's five principles of modern architecture), and on the other, is part of the popular trend of minimalist "anti-iconic" museums, seen in the work of David Chipperfield, John Pawson and Richard Meier (under whom Phifer worked for many years), among others. It is the apotheosis of simplicity, logic and synthesis - a design in which proportions, details, materials and divisions (including expansion joints on facades or floors) are of great importance, not to mention the precision of execution.
I think it will be realistically possible to judge this museum in a few months or even years, and this will be based mainly on what will happen in its interiors and immediate surroundings, how it will be received (and perhaps sometimes taken over?) by visitors and artists, but also how it will cope with the passage of time (may it do so with dignity!). It will also be interesting to see how this larger architectural and urban composition will be complemented next door by the TR Warszawa theater (also designed by Phifer), which will irrevocably change the view perspectives in the immediate vicinity of the Palace of Culture and Science. For now, as is usual in national debates: for some such a museum is too little, for others too much, for some it is just right, and the rest have no opinion. We can only rejoice that we are beginning to talk about contemporary architecture at all in a slightly wider circle.
Bartosz Haduch
more: A&B 12/2024 - THIRD SITES,
download free e-publications of A&B
