By Adelle Hegyvari
ABSTRACT:
The Jewish Museum by Daniel Libeskind is a deconstructivist memorialisation that opened to the public in 2001 which captures the identity of an absent group of people. Libeskind’s masterpiece focuses on the deconstructivst concept ‘the absent’ to capture the event of the Holocaust, however, it’s execution is not without the use of the concept ‘the present.’ Internally, the building forces users to engage emotionally through aural, sight and touch senses. These concepts, presented by Peter Eisenman and Jacques Derrida’s in their respective discourses, are supported by John Macarthur through his critique of the relationship between ‘the present’ and ‘the absent.’ The two concepts, which refer to Plato’s concept of the chora, are reflected within the Jewish Museum through the use of obvious symbolism. The 9-11 Memorial is used comparatively, employing the ‘the absent’ through the symbolic light feature representing the two missing towers, whilst ‘the present’ is reflected at ground level. It is concluded that the relationship between ‘the absent’ and ‘the present’ is not dependent of each other for their individual execution. Their collaboration does not detract from the focus concept and can enhance it’s communication through their conjunction.
This paper will discuss the relationship of deconstructivist concepts ‘the absent’ and ‘the present’ as identified through the philosophical discourses of Peter Eisenman and Jacques Derrida. Using Daniel Libeskinds Jewish Museum in Berlin (2001) as a case study, these concepts will be analysed to address their relationship and to determine how reliant they are on each other in their execution. The analysis will include a internal and external breakdown of the Jewish Museum which will demonstrate how the use of both concepts are asserted by Libeskind. The external analysis findings are conceptually symbolic, this is demonstrated through the aerial view where symbolic jewish iconography is represented. Internally of the building, the relationship of ‘the absent’ and ‘the present’ coincide in an evocative and emotive experience which is activated through the aural, touch and sight senses. This experience is one of insecurity, as you are forced through a poorly lit labyrinth of unstable surfaces, changing temperatures and concerning sounds you are confronted with an experience that symbolically reflects the Jewish faith during the Holocaust – you experience the identity of an absent group of people. This experience of ‘the absent’ is in total contrast to the 9-11 memorial in New York where the gravity of the event is depicted in the missing skyline through a visual light display that memorialises loss, like the Jewish Museum. This execution of ‘the absent’ does not use ‘the present’ to pluck and tweeze at our emotions unlike Libeskinds museum. Ultimately it will be concluded that the relationship between ‘the absent’ and ‘the present’ is not reliant but a collaboration of their abilities, as demonstrated through Libeskinds masterpiece, your experience of ‘the absent’ can be truly captivating through a sensory experience enabled by combining the concept of ‘the present’.
As described by John Macarthur, Deconstructivism is “The metaphorical death of a concept, the humanist body” – it is an anti-humanist movement which sheds itself of the constraints of modernism[1]. It’s philosophical background and ideology was brought into Architecture through Peter Eisenman and Jacques Derrida whose critiques will be tested against various examples throughout this essay including the Jewish Museum (Berlin) and the 9-11 memorial (New York). Traditionally, memorialisations were celebrations as they captured and framed events and individuals from a point of praise, glory and are often worshiped or were worshiped. Take the example of the Egyptian pyramids, they are tombs which signify an important individual of society and represent their wealth or status through the bold structure itself but also through the contents and gifts contained within[2]. Take another example, The Statue of Liberty, a representation of freedom and celebration of friendship between France and the U.S which is again characterised through its significant size as a structure[3]. Deconstructivism rejects traditional styles and their representation – it rejects traditional methods of memorialisation which focus on literal physical representations of figures and objects. It is a historical shift in architectural style which challenges the way we experience, represent, signify and memorialise.
The fundamental concepts of Deconstructivism Architecture include ‘the absent, the present, the solid and the void’[4]. These concepts were developed through the works of Eisenman and Derrida and their philosophical exploration of works together when revisiting Plato’s concept of the Chora. Eisenman developed Derrida’s discourse further to concepts which were stressed and pushed by Daniel Libeskind when designing The Jewish Museum (Berlin). To expand on this discourse, ‘the absent’ is regarded as the missing and is characterised by conditions without orientation or direction and challenges how we experience the space. ‘The present’ refers to existence and its recognition within a space and is characterised through materiality. ‘The solid’ relates to the literal mass of a structure and ‘the void’ concerns an intersection between two parts or spaces of a building[5]. This original Deconstructivist framework devised by Derrida and Eisenman is captured in the award winning work Parc de la villette (1987) by Bernard Tschumi who sought the feedback of Derrida and Eisenman and is regarded by Tschumi himself as an “unprecedented type of park, one based on ‘culture’ rather than ‘nature.’”[6] which highlights the founding theoretical concepts and their excellence in execution. It is important to recognise that these theoretical concepts are flexible, challengeable and concern the experience and signification of a space. They are frequently further developed by theorists and that each concept is interpreted and characterised differently amongst the various works of designers and architects. For instance, despite being regarded as a founder, Eisenman is often criticised by Derrida to “believe in absence too much”[7] despite in his fundamental writings where he describes Architecture as “an independent discourse, free from external values”[8]. This controversy between the founding theorists suggests personal preference, bias and subjectivity to the concepts. This uncertainty is supported throughout Macarthur’s writing where there is an unclear distinction between the concepts of ‘the absent’ and ‘the present’ and which concept is at play within the space or design. It is clear that there is a shared and perhaps reliant relationship between these two concepts and drawing a distinction between the two is often subject to the work, the interpretation of the work and how it executes Deconstructivist conceptual framework. Daniel Libeskind’s stressed the theoretical framework of Eisenman and Derrida in his work, The Jewish Museum which opened to the public in 2001[9], and the relationship of ‘absent’ and ‘present’ is analysed and tested through this case study to determine their relationship, and importance to the experience and quality of a Deconstructivist space.
Daniel Libeskind has described his work as “‘Erweiterungsbau’ means extension. The extension of both Berlin’s story and the Jewish history not merely the extension of a building form… it stands for a new relationship between the old history, the Baroque history, and the depth of that in contemporary Berlin; a new relationship to a history that can hardly be matched and pieced together into a whole”[10]. At the heart of his Jewish Museum lays the concept of ‘the absent’. Libeskinds work is a memorialisation of the absence of the Jewish people from society during the Holocaust[11]. The Holocaust is difficult to articulate, the effects of genocide to the Jewish community are lifelong and forever in history. It is something that one cannot fully or even accurately describe, it was an event that changed history. Daniel Libeskind represents this event in history and this tragedy to a group of people with a memorial which captures the loss, the suffering, the exile, the discrimination, the abandonment, the helplessness, and the indescribable. Libeskind conceptualises this event in history through a spatial experience which involves sight, touch and sound, users experience ‘passages from light to dark, hot to cold, from bustling noise to total silence’ – he creates an emotive experience to symbolise what Jewish people endured during the Holocaust[12]. According to Eisenman, the materiality of architecture is always the present[13], it is through this that we must decipher the relationship and importance of ‘the absent’ and ‘the present’ in Deconstructivist Architecture and Libeskinds work. Can we have ‘absent’ without ‘present’? The Jewish Museums architectural features will be examined to explore this.
Figure 1: Aerial view of the Jewish Museum
Figure 2: External zinc facade with irregular windows
The spatial experience created in Libeskinds work starts before entering the building, from the aerial view of the museum. The building or ‘the present’ is built on a series of axes which translates to themes, symbols and geographies of the Jewish faith creating a spatial language which is transferred into the internal spaces of the building[14]. Between the connecting space of the Berlin Museum and the Jewish Museum is the void line. The void line is fragmented into six which intersects with the main volume or exhibition space at multiple points. This feature symbolises the “inexpressible absence of Jewish lives lost in the Holocaust”[15]. Visible from the aerial view are three interconnecting elements of the museum, the main volume, the Holocaust tower and the Garden of Exile. These interconnecting three elements of the structure or ‘the void’ creates an inaccessable interior courtyard and internal spaces which symbolically represent the aftermath and emptiness left by the Holocaust[16]. A closer inspection of the structure shows slashes or cuts made to the facade which house small windows that symbolically relate to the jewish people living in Berlin before the Holocaust[17]. There is a deeper symbolism reference to the materiality or ‘the present’ of the window treatment, internally they offer ‘the absent’ as they disrupt users orientation, however externally – the facade is cladded with zinc, the thinness of this material references how thin the Jewish people became to society[18]. The symbolic features external in Libeskinds work capture the absence of the Jewish faith and is characterised through features only available in conjunction with ‘the present’. While the ‘the void’ is visible with the three connecting elements of the museum it is not the concept at hand. Externally, while ‘the absent’ is clearly the main concept stressed by Libeskind, its execution is not without ‘the present’.
Figure 3: facade diagram illustrating irregular window treatment
Figure 4: plan diagram depicting the cuts across the facade symbolically travel through the building and transcend internally
Upon entering, not yet known to users is that you have entered a rhetorical space. The museum is a labyrinth and exiting is out of your control, you no longer have a choice. Paths are continuous without places to stop and rest forcing you to continue throughout the space against your will[19]. This is to represent the constriction of freedom lived by the Jewish community. Internally, Libeskind pushes ‘the absent’ and ‘the void’ concepts and creates a masterpiece. ‘The absent’ is the key focus, but, its execution is not without ‘the present’ as large expanses of materials emotively cloak the space. Libeskind forces you into a bodily experience to capture ‘the absent’ through sight, touch and aural senses. As you pass throughout the three elements or ‘the void’ you are emotively triggered by these three senses. Throughout the space, large volumes overwhelm and occupy large amounts of the space to symbolise emptiness[20]. This feature as much as it is conceptually ‘absent’ it executed through ‘the present’ as you are visually confronted with a large material. The ‘absent’ is executed through small and irregular shard windows which deliver poor light into space at variating heights. At some points you can see the sky, some points the street, at some points you see the external and inaccessible courtyard but you never have a clear view. This stimulates an emotive response through the loss of direction and orientation, it is a symbolic reference to the darkness experienced by the Jewish people[21]. There are intentionally non-airconditioned spaces to generate a discomfort as you journey through the mental torment of the labyrinth [22]. The aural element is executed in several ways, faint contemporary music plays throughout spaces and represents the echoes of religious faith[23]. There is also irregular sounds of hammering, knocking, breaking, crunching, echoing and construction noises which carry throughout the spaces, giving a feeling of insecurity[24]. Through a sensory overload Lindeskind forces you to experience ‘the absent’ of the Jewish community, through an overwhelming emotive experience of fear, helplessness and overall inexpressible insecurity as even travelling up the stairs becomes an unstable journey as you transition through ‘the void’.
Figure 5: Indicating the play on lighting stimulating an emotive response to the space
Figure 6: Internal windows shows the skewed views and lack of orientation
The concept of ‘the void’ is embodied as part of Libeskinds work through the three elements: the main volume or the museum space, the Holocaust tower and the Garden of Exile. These elements are defined by a ‘the present’ as there are clear material changes from concrete, to zinc, to the vegetation which characterises the Garden of Exile. These three elements are tied together through ‘the absent’ as the Holocaust tower is symbolises the emptiness felt by the absent Jewish people[25]. The Garden of Exile is a reference to the contrast of constriction and freedom as the slope of the topography gives you a sense of unsteadiness and the forty nine tree crowded piers is a garden that is not actually accessible or useable[26]. And the museum space which represents ‘the absent’ through a series of symbolic sensory experiences. The Holocaust tower is the entrance point of the Museum and refers to “that which can never be exhibited when it comes to the Jewish Berlin history. It has been reduced to ashes.”[27]. As identified by Libeskind, the Holocaust tower is not part of the museum, it is not heated or air-conditioned and is not a museum space – it is a symbolic memorialisation. These ‘voids’ contribute the three volumes which make up the aesthetic of the building, they symbolically represent the absence of the Jewish people and are conveyed through ‘the present’ – through a large material blanket signifying and hold a spiritual identity the event of the Holocaust. As much as aesthetics was not the concern of Libeskind, his form is characterised through volumes and zigzags that symbolise and represent the identity of an absent group of people in a society. It is through a collaboration of concepts ‘the absent’ ‘the present’ and ‘the void’ that he has captured loss and memorialised this event in history.
While the Jewish Museum symbolises ‘the absent’ it is still relies on ‘the present’ to activate its sensory elements which are a large part of the experience of the Museum. A memorial which also embraces the guiding concept of ‘the absent’ is the 9-11 memorial which represents the 2001 terrorist attacks where World Trade Center six and eight were lost[28]. As seen in figure 7, light casts up into the clouds visually representing the absent buildings. At a distant view, this light show does not rely on materiality or ‘the present’ to convey its ‘the absent’ concept – it directly highlights the missing buildings from the New York skyline as the light beams shoot into the clouds, a tribute to the meaningless deaths, a breathtaking image[29]. Figure 8 hows the ground level memorial that captures what is missing by recessing the the absent buildings into the ground as a water feature. This a visually compelling play on ‘the absent’ calls upon ‘the present’ for its message. Featured is a very literal ‘portal to hell’ or ‘bottomless pit’ targeting the religious circumstances of the terrorist attack[30]. There are no religious symbols per say, instead there are two three prong tridents, made from steel of the original facade and symbolically represent the monument[31]. While ‘the present’ is embraced to capture ‘the absent’ in the 9-11 memorial, its most striking and confronting feature is from a distance, when the gravity of the event is conveyed through a true expression of ‘the absent’. New York is a skyscraper city, it is its identity as a city, the visual display of the absent buildings from this skyline emotively captures and confronts viewers as they are daunted with the event. This memorial identifies the concept of ‘the absent’ in a direct way that triggers an emotive response symbolising loss which does not rely on other deconstructivist concepts in its execution.
Figure 7: 911 memorial indicating ‘the absense’ in the New York skyline
Figure 8: The ground level treatment depicting the recess and ‘portal to hell’ or ‘bottomless pit’
After reviewing Eisenman and Derridas discourses, it is clear that there is a deep philosophical rooting to their thoughts and strong elements of subjectivity as to how they are interpreted. It was also clear that theorists were of different opinions through the critiques of John Macarthur, particuarly on the concepts of ‘the absent’ and ‘the present’ and their shared relationship when it came to the expression and execution of each concept. Through an analysis of Daniel Libeskinds Jewish Museum, an emotive and symbolic masterpiece, it is seen that the concept of ‘the absent’ is deeply rooted in the heart and within the truest concept of the building from the messages conveyed through the aerial view to the three main volumes of the building. However, internally the expression of ‘the absent’ called upon elements of ‘the present’ for its emotive features and where the main experience of the work is had. This included visual features such as poor lighting through symbolic slit windows, aural moments of hammering, knocking, breaking and crunching noises as you course your way through the labyrinth where you have no points to rest. This communication of ‘the absent’ is in total contrast to the 9-11 memorial where the gravity of the light feature that pierces the sky and symbolically stands in place of the towers highlights their absence and loss from the skyline. This essay concludes that the message and concept of ‘absent’ can be executed without use of ‘the present’, however, their relationship is intertwined, and both concepts are most effective when coupled. A joint union of these concepts does not detract from the focus concept, it can still be effectively communicated – if not better communicated through a shared relationship.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen Saindon, Brent, “A double heterotopia: Shifting Spatial and Visual Symbolism in the Jewish Museum Berlin’s Development”, Quarterly Journal of Speech Vol. 98, No.1 (2012) 24-48
“Bernard Tschumi Architects Projects,” last modified 2015, http://www.tschumi.com/projects/3/
Derrida, Jacques and Eisenman, Peter, Chora L Works (New York: Monacelli Press, 1997) 1-207
Eisenman, Peter, “The End of the Classical: The End of the Beginning, the End of the End.” Perspecta 21 (1984): 154–172.
Gershkoff, Amy and Kushner, Shana, “Shaping Public Opinion: The 9/11-Iraq Connection in the Bush Administration’s Rhetoric” Perspectives on Politics Vol. 3, No. 3 (2005) 525-537
“Jewish Museum Berlin” last modified 2015, http://libeskind.com/work/jewish-museum-berlin/
“Letters Home After 911” last modified 2015, http://news.discovery.com/human/9-11-letters-home-110831.htm
“Liberty Enlightening the World,” last modified 2005, http://teaching.msa.maryland.gov/000001/000000/000156/html/t156.html
Libeskind, Daniel, Jewish Museum Berlin (Berlin: G + B Arts International, 1999)1-160
Macarthur, John, “Experiencing Absence: Eisenman and Derrida, Benjamin and Schwitters.” In Knowledge and /or/of Experience: the theory of Space in Art and Architecture, edited by John Macarthur, (Brisbane: Institute of Modern Art, 1993), 99–123.
Mugerauer, Robert, “Derrida and Beyond.” In Center 4: Buildings and Reality: Architecture in the Age of Information, edited by Michael Benedikt, 66–75: Rizzoli, 1988.
Neuman, Eran, Shoah Presence: Architectural Representations of the Holocaust (England: Ashgate Pubblishing Limited, 2014), 158-165
Prestinenza Puglisi, Luigi, New Directions in Contemporary Architecture: Evolutions and Revolutions in Building Design Since 1988 (Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2008)129-132.
“Reflecting Absence” last modified 2013, http://beforeitsnews.com/power-elite/2012/01/the-symbolism-of-9-11-memorial-1660527.html
“The Symbolism of 9-11 Memorial.” last modified 2013, http://beforeitsnews.com/power-elite/2012/01/the-symbolism-of-9-11-memorial-1660527.html
[1] (Macarthur, Experiencing Absence, 99)
[2] (Mugerauer, Derrida and Beyond, 186)
[3] (“Liberty Enlightening the World.”)
[4] (Derrida and Eisenman, Chora L Works, 1-207)
[5] (Neuman, Shoah Presence, 158-165)
[6] (“Bernard Tschumi Architects Projects.”)
[7] (Macarthur, Experiencing Absence, 100)
[8] (Eisenman, “The End of the Classical, 166)
[9] (Puglisi, New Directions in Contemporary Architecture, 129)
[10] (Libeskind, Jewish Museum Berlin, 19)
[11] (Neuman, Shoah Presence, 161)
[12] (Puglisi, New Directions in Contemporary Architecture, 132)
[13] (Neuman, Shoah Presence, 159)
[14] (Puglisi, New Directions in Contemporary Architecture, 129)
[15] (Saindon, “A double heterotopia, 25)
[16] (Libeskind, Jewish Museum Berlin, 41)
[17] (Puglisi, New Directions in Contemporary Architecture, 131)
[18] (Libeskind, Jewish Museum Berlin, 35)
[19] (Puglisi, New Directions in Contemporary Architecture, 132)
[20] (Libeskind, Jewish Museum Berlin, 30)
[21] (Libeskind, Jewish Museum Berlin, 41)
[22] (Puglisi, New Directions in Contemporary Architecture, 132)
[23] (Libeskind, Jewish Museum Berlin, 25)
[24] (Libeskind, Jewish Museum Berlin, 34)
[25] (Libeskind, Jewish Museum Berlin, 37)
[26] (Puglisi, New Directions in Contemporary Architecture, 132)
[27] (Libeskind, Jewish Museum Berlin, 56)
[28] (Gershkoff and Kushner, “Shaping Public Opinion”, 525)
[29] (“The Symbolism of 9-11 Memorial.”)
[30] (“Reflecting Absence”)
[31] (“The Symbolism of 9-11 Memorial.”)
I M R . D N A 