CC BY
7УДК: 72.01
ББК: 85.11
DOI: 10.18688/aa2212-09-60
D. A. Karelin, E. G. Litvinenko
Reflection on Architectural Image of Contemporary Archaeological Museums with Monuments In Situ
Introduction
The article is devoted to the planning features and to the figurative component of the architecture of archaeological museums with monuments in situ. The main aim of this paper is the study of architectural and spatial features of the museums containing archeological objects in situ and meanings of their architectural imageries. Our goals are, first of all, to examine and classify architectural methods of interaction between museum public and exhibition spaces with archeological monuments in situ. The next task is to reveal the principal stylistic direction and conceptual trends of the archaeological museum architecture of the last two centuries (classical temples of arts, eclectically palaces of sciences, modernism and 'white cubes', and metaphor of postmodernism). The last goal is to emphasize how these conceptual trends and stylistic directions could be a basis of architectural concepts of archaeological museums.
Archaeological museums with monuments in situ (its history and the state of the art)
In the 18th century, ancient ruins began to be perceived as intrinsically valuable objects; they became objects of interest, were studied and poetized. Restoration emerged 'as a special, specific type of activity, and the Colosseum became one of the first restored objects [19, p. 9]. However, the most significant progress in the archaeological and restoration sciences occurred in the 20th century. This period coincides with the appearance of the first archaeological parks and museums that exhibit museums in situ. The explosive growth of such exhibition spaces in the last four decades allows us to compare a number of examples, to identify the planning, compositional, constructive, and artistic techniques of archaeological museum buildings with monuments in situ, requiring, on the one hand, careful treatment of the monument and, on the other, its visual demonstration.
The first criterion on the basis of which archaeological museums were reviewed is the location of the building relative to the immovable monument. In other words, the architectural and planning structure of museums was considered (Fig. 1).
The most common route of the inspection is circular since it allows, on the one hand to get a complete picture of the main exhibit immediately, on the other hand it allows not to lay routes directly on the monument, thereby guaranteeing its greater safety. As a rule, the spaces containing circular expositions are similar to each other — they are large-span structures that leave a lot of air in the center — above the object of display, so that even over the minimally preserved foundations there literally is space for imagination and representation of how much space the
360 perimeter inside the monument From above Up close Along the monument
archaeology, jr exploration Wffifflft structures for viewing
exposed in situ routes z/ piSSs 5? the monument {ramps, lowers)
Fig. 1. Scheme of the relative position of the monument and the exhibition. Drawn by Elizaveta Litvinenko
destroyed buildings could have occupied in the past. Examples are: the Archaeological Museum 'Berestye' in Belarus [3], Lepenski Vir Museum in Serbia [12], the Museum of Qin Terracotta Warriors and Horses in China.
The transformation of the idea of circular inspection and its development at different heights leads us to the next scenario of the monument inspection — perception from a height. This can happen both inside the museum building at the expense of the floors or can be presented in other ways: by entering a roof of a pavilion, as in the Archaeological Park near the Castle of St. George in Portugal [9], or by climbing to a free-standing observation tower, as in the Arche Nebra Museum in Germany [2].
The perception of the monument, contrasted with the rise to a height, is the penetration on the monument and viewing it from a short distance. As a rule, tactile contact with the archaeological heritage is prohibited in order to preserve the object, but a sense of contact with the history can be also achieved by visual methods. So, for example, in the Museum of the Roman Villa in Chedworth (England) [6], you can bend over the mosaics thanks to the platforms suspended above them.
If we are faced with a partial disclosure of the monument, then we go to its planar inspection, when the movement is directed along the exhibit. This approach is used near the Wall in Regensburg (Germany), found during the construction of an underground parking [8], and at some metro stations in Athens (Greece).
A special case (and the fifth in our conditional classification) is the location of the museum space inside the monument — this is possible only with a high degree of preservation of the archaeological object, such as in the Nero's Palace in Rome (Italy), or in the case of archaeological park with dissolved small pavilions on its territory designed carefully for architectural site landscape or allude to local vernacular architecture, as it done in some sites of Commagene [17, p. 678].
Next, we proceed to consider several methods of reconstruction of the monument or its parts. It is worth starting with the infamous story of the controversial restoration of the Palace
of Knossos which clearly illustrates the approach of 'fantasy restoration' (in other words, stylistic or artistic), when the object is restored in the form in which it never existed, but at the same time, it outwardly claims authenticity. Another example is the Castle of Pierrefonds, where Viollet-le-Duc made the object on the ruins of ancient walls, where free additions and changes were actively used. On a side note that the appearance of the Venice Charter did not stop the appearance of free interpretations of the historical appearance of the monuments — the Great Tsaritsyn Palace [4] was restored in the form in which it never existed, in 2007.
The second method is the use of fabric stretch marks on the frame with drawings or printing, as in the demonstration of Roman Limes Gate of Dalkingen (Germany) [13, pp. 83-85] — the details there are almost unreadable, which means that the original plastic is highly distorted, but the outline of the structure is shown, which is easily recognized. This method allows you to show the main volume cheaply and without affecting the monument with the possibility of quick dismantling, which is especially appropriate for the temporary structures.
The combination of wooden and metal structures, in contrast to the above cases, can not only successfully demonstrate the plastic and tectonics of the lost parts of the monument, but also it can emphasize the boundary of new inclusions in relation to the stone foundations. The combination of different materials, as a rule, gives the objects of restoration a new interesting resonance: the Convent of St. Mary and Jesus in Italy [15] (Fig. 2), the Museum of the Medieval Mile in Kilkenny (Ireland) [14], and the ruins of the Monastery of St. Catalina in Spain [21].
Fig. 2. Bruno Messina and Emanuele Fidone. Restoration of the convent of S. Maria and Jesus. 2008. Italy. Photo by Bruno Messina
A special case of using metal structures is a frame structure, which, depending on the density and thickness of the cross-section of elements, gives a completely different effect. So, in the Aguntum Museum in Austria [1], the frame is welded, which indicates only the outlines of the gates and towers, thereby fixing only the linear parameters of the structure. The construction of galvanized mesh over the foundation of the Basilica of Santa Maria di Siponto in Italy has other
characteristics [20]: on the one hand, it tries to accurately convey the plasticity of architecture, on the other, it creates the effect of a mirage and lightness over the excavations.
The frame itself can be an auxiliary structure and support the original elements of the monument — here we refer to the method of anastylosis developed by N. Balanos during the restoration of the Acropolis [5].
The sixth variant of the treatment of the lost parts of the monument is partly visually similar to anastylosis — the restoration takes place with the help of contrasting dense filling, that is, 'patches' or full-fledged volumes of stone surfaces. At Bayana Castle in Spain [22], sandstone blocks with slits that give a contrasting texture to the surface both day and night were used. At the excavations of the St. George Castle in Spain [9] white walls were raised above the foundations with a gap leaving the effect of floating and easy dismantling in case of access to the ruins.
Simple solutions are sometimes the most effective — thus, the visual overlay that was used in the Gate of the Gentiles in Austria [11, fig. 2] turned out to be the most sparing method of all considered, as a glass panel with printed pattern did not affect the physical monument, but it gave a clear and understandable vision of the original image of the object.
Architectural images of archaeological museums
However, the most important question for us is the look of an architectural space, against which an archaeological immovable monument will be perceived. We have analyzed about 70 archaeological and historical museums built in the 19th-21st centuries and concluded that the main trends in the formation of their architectural images do not differ much from the typical architecture of this period as a whole, but there are present features associated with historical specifics. The style of the considered museums can be divided into four main areas.
First of all, we would like to draw attention to the creation of classical spaces that are not associated with the national color of the objects displayed in the museum. It is believed that this architecture is based on the association of the museum with the temple of art and science, which prototype is an idealized Greek temple1 [7, pp. 46-53], presumably this architectural theme comes from the concept of the 'ideal museum', which was initiated by the project of Leonard Christophe Sturm in 1704, and the most striking projects are the project of the Etienne-Louis Boulle Museum and the project of the Universal Museum of Jean Durand [7, pp. 39-46].
The next direction is the promotion of heritage, where the architecture of archaeological museums contains quotes from the cultures that are the main subject of the exhibition, which makes the architecture of these museums eclectic. There are many examples of such museums and galleries dating back to the 19th century [7, pp. 54-59].
We cannot forget very simple and functional modernist architecture, which in fact is a neutral background for the exhibits on display. Very accurately, this phenomenon was called a 'white cube' by Brian O'Doherty [16]. Despite all the criticism, both the simplicity and lack of connection with the cultural origins of modernism in general, and the abstract white spaces of modern galleries in particular, this approach seems to be successful and appropriate, as it creates a truly neutral background for the archaeological site.
1 In the thesis research of Catherine Didzhionis [7] there is considered in detail the history of the museum's architecture formation from the Renaissance to the beginning of the 20th century and significant material on the topic is collected in one place. Regarding classical and eclectic museums, we will refer to this work.
And of particular interest are the images of the building formed at the expense of postmodern metaphors. It is very important that in this case they can be targeted and closely related to the informal rethinking of the associations that the specifics of the museum and the displayed culture give us. To understand this trend, leaving aside the multiple discussions about the essence of modernism and postmodernism and their relationship to heritage, we turn to the concept of metaphors by Charles Jencks [10, pp. 40-52]. It can both quite direct, just primitive, and complex and allegorical.
Later in the article, we will analyze in more detail each of the identified areas on specific architectural examples. Given the fact that archaeological museums with immovable monuments are a very recent phenomenon, basically our analysis is made on archaeological museums in general.
Classical "Temple of Arts" and eclectic "Palace of sciences"
The first two trends identified by us are related to the reinterpretation of the ancient heritage. In principle, we can say that at the beginning of the formation of the modern concept of the museum, from the Renaissance studios and the first museums built into the palaces, their style was inextricably linked with the classical heritage, as well as the architecture of that time in general. Renaissance and Baroque, Classicism and Eclecticism to some extent spoke the language of classical and order architecture, the global change of style occurred only in the 20th century.
However, within the first two directions, there are significant differences, both in the use of the language and the ideology behind them. In the first case, the ideal image of a classical temple is taken as the primary source. It is the image of an ancient temple that has a special meaning [7, p. 46]. The second trend consciously uses the artistic features inherent in the art exhibited in the museum, its period. In terms of the history of architecture, this difference is clearly explained by general style changes, the transition from Classicism to Historicism and Eclecticism, which began to occur in the middle of the 19th century. One can relate these changes to the transition from Romanticism to Positivism. If Romanticism set itself the goal to create the perfect space — the universal space of European architecture, where the primary source for the architects of the Classical could only be a Greek temple, taking on 'the sacred function to give and make meanings' [7, p. 46], the ideal of the positivists became a 'Palace of science' [7, p. 54]. Philosophical and ideological attractors of these changes were the division of knowledge by industry and the tendency to divide expositions by subject, the allocation of specialization in museums, in particular the emergence of Natural Science museums, as well as the active use of the latest achievements in construction science, for example, metal structures with glass stained windows. As a result, all this led to the change of the classic 'temple of art' to the 'palace of science', built in Historicism and Eclecticism [7, pp. 54-55].
We examine only two examples of such museums but they are numerous. 'Temples of art' museums include the Munich Glyptothek, commissioned by the future King Ludwig I of Bavaria for his collection by architect Leo von Klenze (1816-1834). The museum has a fairly simple and symmetrical plan, with a central eight-column Ionic portico with a courtyard in the center. A rather cruel historical irony is that during the Second World War, this building was seriously damaged and the restoration did not completely recover the colored interiors, and as a result
they became much more simple and white, which acted as a very delicate background for the displayed sculpture, and the classic interiors themselves acquired a conceptual resemblance to the modernist 'white cube'.
The next well-known example is the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow built by Roman Klein (1898-1912). The building is designed in the classical style with an Ionic colonnade around the perimeter of the facade, which uses the proportions of the eastern portico of Erechtheion. The layout was based on the traditional scheme proposed by Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand, resulting in 4 courtyards with exhibition galleries around. The building received two spatial cores, a staircase at the entrance and a hall with an excedra located further along the axis. Initially, the lighting of the exhibits was provided through a massive glass roof, the facade of the museum is decorated with friezes with images of the Olympic Games, made by sculptor Hugo Zaleiman. The interior rooms were graced with architectural decor, paintings and panels that were directly related to the art of the countries and eras displayed in these halls. The most eloquent examples are the Greek (white) Hall with the replica of the interior of the Parthenon temple and the Egyptian Hall made in Egyptian style. The latter is already the feature of Historicism and Eclecticism, so in our opinion this museum demonstrates the features of both directions.
'White cubes' of modernism
The era of modernism brought a completely different view of the museum architecture, which consisted mainly in the creation of neutral and simple buildings, whose interiors served as a background for various arts, which, however, did not prevent them from being very expressive, such as the Kimbell Art Museum (Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 1972) Louis Kahn.
The aesthetics and constructive achievements of modernism concerning exhibition of vast archaeological sites were primarily expressed in the construction of significant canopies, which allowed creating more comfortable environment, both for the monument and for visitors. The most eloquent example of such kind is the museum built over terracotta warriors in China (Vault No. 1 opened in 1979). This example shows a rather utilitarian approach, which does not solve any problems of creating an architectural image and space.
Clear modernist architecture is demonstrated by another museum in Serbia — Lepenski Vir [12] (Fig. 3), where architects created a neutral space, openwork and neat, most of which is a huge metal canopy over the Mesolithic archaeological site moved higher from the shore dating back to 7,000-6,500 years BC.
Another example of carefully drawn neutral environment for an archaeological site in situ is the Museum of Villa Romana la Olmeda by Paredes Pedrosa Arquitects (Spain) [26] (Fig. 4, Ill. 77). The building covering the Roman villa of the 4th century has very simple and proportional facades, which are based on the contrast between the light plinth and the dark terracotta openwork structures of the overhanging part, while the rather strict interior allows you to show the ruins of the Roman villa as expressive as possible.
Metaphor of postmodernism
If modernism gave us simplicity and neutrality for the creation of museum spaces allowing us to identify exhibited art, then the architecture of postmodernism opened up the possibil-
Fig. 4. Paredes Pedrosa Architects. Villa Romana La Olmeda. 2009. Spain.
Photo by Roland Halbe
ity of creating conceptually and philosophically meaningful images. In relation to museum architecture, this allows us to indirectly rethink the theme of the museum and the features of its exposition. To understand the mechanism of such an appearance of images, it is necessary to turn to the concept of metaphor. The most complete and profound concept of metaphor in architecture was explained by Charles Jencks [10, pp. 40-52]. It makes sense that an architect can lay down and depict something in architectural language, but other people can give another interpretation of the building. Moreover, a metaphor can be embedded in the work without author's knowledge. The simplest example of the latter can be 'negative metaphors', roughly speaking nicknames that can be given to an architectural object. In addition to the '+' or '-' sign, a metaphor in both literature and architecture can be distinguished by its depth and ver-
satility. It can be both direct and allusive, refer to something very well-known, or to something barely perceptible.
Jencks refers us to the duck and the decorated shed of Robert Venturi [25] and polemics with him, saying that the metaphor can be much more complicated and that this division of the entire architecture into two categories is an unwarranted simplistic approach. The very concept of 'duck building' is a caricature that discredits the whole field of architectural communication, which makes the option of decorated canopies more meaningful and preferable [10, p. 45].
Speaking about the metaphor, Jencks shows that its simplification, thanks to which the very concept of a 'duck house' or a house in the form of a 'hot dog' appeared, only harms architecture and significantly narrows the possibilities of our imagination: 'In architecture, to name a metaphor is often to kill it, like analysing jokes.' [10, p. 45]. At the same time the depth, complexity and number of metaphors is very important: 'A mixed metaphor is strong, as every student of Shakespeare knows, but a suggested one is powerful.' [10, p. 45].
As an example of a complex and suggestive metaphor, he cites Le Corbusier's Chapel in Ronchamp. From Jencks' point of view this building suggests many associations at the same time: it may resemble a duck, a ship, or hands folded in prayer. The visual codes of this building are hidden from direct view and work mostly on the subconscious level, unlike the 'duck building'. The chapel in Ronchamp evokes many associations and visual images, and we are not even aware of the author's intention to create them [10, p. 48].
Another striking example is the residential tower of Kisho Kurokawa modules, which was identified by Charles Jencks with washing machines, or with sugar cubes, but everything turned out to be both simpler and more complex at the same time, Kurokawa replied: 'They aren't washing machines, they're bird cages. You see in Japan we build concrete -box bird nests with round holes and place them in the trees. I've built these bird nests for itinerant businessmen who visit Tokyo, for bachelors who fly in every so often with their birds' [10, p. 40]. What according to Jencks: 'A witty answer, perhaps made up on the spot, but one which underscored very nicely a difference in our visual codes.'
The above shows that a complex, multifaceted, witty and accurate metaphor can formulate and create an interesting and deep image of any building including a museum. Moreover, a metaphor itself can be a source of image formation for an architect, which is very important for him, and it may be not so important if somebody in the end would understand the metaphor or not. After all, we are very fond of well-drawn classical architecture, regardless of whether we understand its inner meaning or not. Below we will consider examples of archaeological museums both with a monument in situ and not, in which in our opinion postmodernist metaphors are embedded.
The concept of the Paracas Cultural Museum (Peru, 2016) [24] (Ill. 78) is an example of local tradition usage. When creating the facade design, the architects reinterpreted the fabrics and patterns of the culture represented in the exhibition space. Note that the described metaphor was suggested by the authors of the building — demonstration drawings and diagrams are posted on the electronic resources of the project, but even in the absence of explanations, the allegory can be read without difficulty. A similar phenomenon is observed in the Museum of Archaeology in Taiwan (2018) [23] — the main social and communication space in it looks like the line of evolution going from bottom to top.
Fig. 5. Yalin Architectural Design. Museum of Troy. 2018. Turkey. Photos by Emre Dorter, Murat Germen
The interior of the Troy Museum in Turkey (2019) [18] (Fig. 5) looks like if the world was observed by the Greeks from inside the Trojan horse through the cracks of the wooden structure. Perhaps this meaning is our guess, and it was not intended and was not laid into this architecture by the author. The described museum shows that a metaphor is not only an image embedded in the architecture and necessarily understandable to the viewer in this interpretation. Examples of the complex metaphorical nature of the Ronchamp chapel, in which everyone sees something different, and the image formulated by Kisho Kurokawa, which is difficult for a non-Japanese to read, show us that the metaphor is valuable in itself. On the one hand it can create images in the viewer that the author did not consciously think about, not only 'negative metaphors' such as 'box' or 'shed' can be assigned to the architectural work by other people. On the other hand, a metaphor can be a way of creativity, a method of formulating the essence of an architectural statement, and it may not be understandable to the viewer, because if it exists — it is read subconsciously. In other words, it seems to us that both options are possible, and we can say that this relationship is mutual. Moreover, the good architecture can eventually acquire metaphors that were unknown or unconscious by the author, and also, the author's attempt to lay down a deep metaphor creates a complex and multifaceted image in which the viewer can later discover completely different metaphors.
Conclusion
An important and complex question is which of the reviewed areas is the most preferable in the work of an architect. Of course, all of them have the right to exist, but almost always the location of the displayed monument determines the choice of the appropriate configuration and image of the building of an archaeological museum. For example, in 2017-2020 "Lozinsky & Partners Studio" developed a project for the museumification of the Pantikapaeum Hillfort on Mount Mithridat, and the architectural image of the museum was mainly determined by the nature of the surrounding urban and natural environment. First, Mount Mithridat has
a distinctive silhouette that cannot be destroyed, but it is necessary to restore its lost dominants — the Museum of Antiquities and the Stempkovskiy Chapel. Secondly, on both sides of the Mithridates Staircase there was an interesting and integral morphotype of the classical building characteristic of the 19th century, which was replaced by the scattered development of buildings and now has mostly lost its historical appearance. Third, under this development which is in disrepair, there are terraces of the ancient Greek city of Panticapaeum, which can be covered with a museum building. At the same time, the ground part of the archaeological complex can be made in the form of restoration of the historical urban environment with point inserts of new inclusions in the form of walls made of large-scale stone blocks. Thus, three diverse tasks are being solved here: the silhouette of the city is not disturbed, the historical environment of the 19th century and the ancient texture (at least at the level of the morphotype) are returned to Kerch, as well as the access to archeology hidden underground
is opened (Ill. 79).
The specific example described above shows how the architectural context, together with the features of the exposed monument in situ, very accurately suggest the necessary architectural solution and at the same time strongly restricts the architect. It seems that when designing a museum, whose main core is an immovable archaeological monument, the most important thing is to create a neutral background to emphasize the object on display. But the abovemen-tioned example of the Panticapaeum Museum concept shows that this is not the only solution. We also know at least the modern Munich Glyptothek, where the classical space has become a very successful neutral background for ancient sculpture. It seems that any of the architectural trends mentioned in the article can become the basis for creating the image of an archaeological museum.
References
1. Aguntum, SpottingHistory.com. Available at: https://www.spottinghistory.com/view/7357/aguntum/ (accessed 29 January 2021).
2. Arche Nebra. ArchDaily, 2012. Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/197854/arche-nebra-holzer-ko-bler-architekturen?ad_source=search&ad_medium=search_result_all (accessed 29 January 2021).
3. Berestse Archaeological Museum. Available at: http://berestje.brest.museum.by/ (accessed 29 January 2021).
4. Buckler J. Beyond Preservation: Post-Soviet Reconstructions of the Strelna and Tsaritsyno Palace-Parks. Revue des études slaves, 2015, vol. 86, pp. 41-59.
5. Cardillo M. Restoration of the Acropolis, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies (Internet site), 2012. Available at: https://iirps-athens.org/blog/restoration-of-the-acropolis (accessed 29 January 2021).
6. Chedworth Roman Villa archaeological site. Inexhibit. Available at: https://www.inexhibit.com/case-stud-ies/roman-villa-archaeological-site-chedworth/ (accessed 29 January 2021).
7. Didjionis E. Arhitekturnyi tip khudozhestvennogo muzeia: istoriia formirovaniia (Architectural Type of the Museum Of Art: The History of Formation), Master Thesis. Moscow, Moscow Institute of Architecture, 2016. 77 p. (in Russian).
8. Document Legionslagermauer (Document Legion camp wall). Available at: https://www.ostbayern-touris-mus.de/attraktionen/document-legionslagermauer-d3c4a44a4c (accessed 29 January 2021).
9. Hoban R. Musealization of the Archaeological Site of Praça Nova of Sao Jorge Castle. ArchDaily, 2010. Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/89460/musealization-of-the-archaeological-site-of-praca-no-va-of-sao-jorge-castle-jlcg-arquitectos (accessed 29 January 2021).
10. Jencks C. The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. London, Academy Editions, 1984. 168 p.
11. Ledermann F.; Schmalstieg D. Presenting Past and Present of an Archaeological Site in the Virtual Showcase. Arnold D.; Chalmers A.; Niccolucci F. (eds.). Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Intelligent Cultural Heritage. Aire-la-Ville, Eurographics Publ., 2003, pp. 119-126.
12. Lepenski Vir Museum. Ancient History Encyclopedia, 2020. Available at: https://www.ancient.eu/im-age/12156/lepenski-vir-museum/ (accessed 29 January 2021).
13. Matesic S.; Sommer C. S. (ed.). At the Edge of the Roman Empire: Tours along the Limes in Southern Germany. Mainz, Nflnnerich-Asmus Verlag & Media Publ., 2015. 239 p.
14. Medieval Mile Museum Kilkenny Ireland. ArchDaily, 2017. Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/875457/ medieval-mile-museum-kilkenny-ireland-mccullough-mulvin-architects (accessed 29 January 2021).
15. Messina B.; Fidone E. Restauro convento di S. Maria di Gesu. Divizare, 2009. Available at: https://divisare. com/projects/88082-bruno-messina-emanuele-fidone-restauro-convento-di-s-maria-di-gesu (accessed 29 January 2021).
16. O'Dogherty B. Inside the White Cube: the Ideology of the Gallery Space. Santa Monica, the Lapis Press, 1986. 91 p.
17. Ozkaya B. T.; Ozkaya I. Y. The Object of Archaeology: From "Marbles" to the Archaeological Landscape. Maltseva S.; Staniukovich-Denisova E.; Zakharova A. Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art: Collection of Articles, vol. 8. St. Petersburg, Saint Petersburg University Press Publ., 2018, pp. 672-680. DOI: 10.18688/aa188-8-66
18. Pintos P. Museum of Troy. ArchiDaily, 2019. Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/911479/muse-um-of-troy-yalin-architectural-design (accessed 29 January 2021).
19. Podiapolsky S. (ed.). Restavratsiia pamiatnikov arkhitektury: uchebnoe posobie dlia vuzov (Restoration of Architectural Monuments: Tutorial for High School). Moscow, Stroyizdat Publ., 1988. 264 p. (in Russian).
20. Rutigliano G. Siponto, la magia notturna della basilica illuminata. La Repubblica, 2016. Available at: https:// bari.repubblica.it/cronaca/2016/03/15/foto/siponto_di_notte-135555146/ (accessed 29 January 2021).
21. Santa Catalina de Badaya. revistaad.es, 2015. Available at: https://www.revistaad.es/arquitectura/galerias/ santa-catalina-de-badaya/7585 (accessed 29 January 2021).
22. Santibanez D. Baena Castle Restoration. ArchiDaily, 2019. Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/779486/ baena-castle-restoration-jose-manuel-lopez-osorio?ad_medium=gallery (accessed 29 January 2021).
23. Shuang H. National Museum of Prehistory. ArchiDaily, 2019. Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/922485/national-museum-of-prehistory-kris-yao-artech (accessed 29 January 2021).
24. Site Museum of Paracas Culture. ArchiDaily, 2017. Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/868465/site-mu-seum-of-paracas-culture-barclay-and-crousse (accessed 29 January 2021).
25. Venturi R.; Brown D. S.; Izenour S. Learning from Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1977. 192 p.
26. Villa Romana La Olmeda. ArchiDaily, 2011. Available at: https://www.archdaily.mx/mx/02-101276/villa-ro-mana-la-olmeda-paredes-pedrosa (accessed 29 January 2021).
Title. Reflection on Architectural Image of Contemporary Archaeological Museums with Monuments in
situ
Authors. Karelin, Dmitry A. — Ph. D., professor. Moscow Institute of Architecture (State Academy) (MARCHI), Rozhdestvenka ul., 11/4-1-4, 107031 Moscow, Russian Federation. [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-0846-0381
Litvinenko, Elizaveta G. — student. Moscow Institute of Architecture (State Academy) (MARCHI), Rozhdestvenka ul., 11/4-1-4, 107031 Moscow, Russian Federation. [email protected] ORCID: 0000-00031231-4851
Abstract. In the second half of the 20th century, archaeological and restoration sciences took a significant step forward. Furthermore, the museum industry and the way in which monuments should be displayed was also changed. In recent decades, museums that mainly exhibit an immovable archaeological monument emerged. It seems that the creation of such exhibition spaces requires special approaches, methods and planning techniques that enable to display the monument in the most successful way, to ensure its preservation and to organize the immovable archaeology inside the building, the route of its examination and the rest of the exposition harmoniously. We consider a variety of techniques for the reconstruction of the monument unfinished parts and for the reconstruction of its three-dimensional characteristics, ranging from the widely known and used anastylosis to modern unique solutions, which are peculiar 'scientific installations'. However,
the most interesting aspect of the topic under consideration is what the image of architectural space (against which an archaeological monument will be perceived) should look like. The examples of archaeological museums show that their stylistics can be divided into four main directions: development of the heritage, when the archaeological museums' architecture contains quotes from the cultures that are mainly exhibited inside; creation of neoclassical spaces unrelated to the national color of objects that are displayed in the museum; very simple and functional modernist architecture, which is essentially a neutral background for exhibits; images of the building, formed from postmodernist metaphors, which, in this case, are closely related to the informal redefinition of the museum's specificities and cultural features. The main purpose of the report is to consider all the 'pros' and 'cons' of the approaches described above to the architectural solutions of archaeological museums. It seems that all directions are valid and the choice is always relatively subjective and depends on a variety of factors, including the specifics of the museum exposition, the volumetric-spatial characteristics of the monument, the context surrounding the museum building, etc.
Keywords: museums, archaeology, architecture, monument, in situ, restoration, Neoclassical Revival, modernism, postmodernism, anastylosis
Название статьи. К вопросу об архитектурном образе современного археологического музея, содержащего памятники in situ
Сведения об авторах. Карелин, Дмитрий Алексеевич — кандидат искусствоведения, профессор. Московский архитектурный институт (государственная академия) (МАРХИ), ул. Рождественка, 11/4, корпус 1, стр. 4, Москва, Российская Федерация, 107031. [email protected] ORCID: 0000-00020846-0381
Литвиненко, Елизавета Геннадьевна — студент магистратуры. Московский архитектурный институт (государственная академия) (МАРХИ), ул. Рождественка, 11/4, корпус 1, стр. 4, Москва, Российская Федерация, 107031. [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0003-1231-4851
Аннотация. Во второй половине XX в. археологическая и реставрационная науки значительно шагнули вперед. Кроме того, музейное дело и представления о том, как нужно экспонировать памятники, также подверглись изменениям. За последние десятилетия появились музеи, главным экспонатом которых является недвижимый археологический памятник. Представляется, что создание подобных выставочных пространств требует особенных подходов, методов и объёмно-планировочных приёмов, позволяющих максимально удачно экспонировать памятник, обеспечить его сохранность и гармонично скомпоновать внутри здания саму недвижимую археологию, маршрут её осмотра и остальную экспозицию. Мы рассматриваем разнообразные приёмы реконструкции несохранившихся частей памятника и воссоздания его объёмно-пространственных характеристик: от широко известного и применяемого анастилоза до современных уникальных решений, представляющих собой своеобразные 'научные инсталляции'. Однако наиболее интересным аспектом рассматриваемой темы представляется ответ на вопрос, каким должен быть образ архитектурного пространства, на фоне которого будет восприниматься экспонируемый археологический памятник. Рассмотренные примеры существующих археологических музеев показывают, что их стилистику можно разделить на четыре основных направления: освоение наследия, где архитектура археологических музеев содержит цитаты из культур, являющихся основным предметом экспонирования; создание неоклассических пространств, не связанных с национальным колоритом предметов, выставляемых в музее; очень простая и функциональная модернистская архитектура, которая, по сути, является нейтральный фоном для выставляемых экспонатов; образы здания, сформированные за счёт постмодернистских метафор, которые, в данном случае, тесно связаны с неформальным переосмыслением специфики музея и особенностями выставляемой в нём культуры. Основная цель доклада заключается в рассмотрении всех 'за' и 'против' применения описанных выше подходов к архитектурным решениям археологических музеев. Представляется, что все направления имеют право на существование, а выбор всегда относительно субъективен и зависит от множества факторов, в том числе от специфики музейной экспозиции, объёмно-пространственных характеристик памятника, контекста, окружающего здание музея и так далее.
Ключевые слова: музеи, археология, архитектура, образ, памятник, in situ, реставрация, неоклассика, модернизм, постмодернизм, анастилоз
