The following essay was written for an intro to architecture class, where students were required to visit the Nelson Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, Missouri, and write an essay describing their personal reaction to the structure and the juxtaposition of old and new architecture between the 1933 Nelson Atkins by Wright and Wright, and the 2007 Bloch addition by Steven Holl.
As you walk north on the south lawn of the Nelson-Atkins museum campus, the Nelson-Atkins building sits in the distance, poised majestically and with great presence and stability over lawn. To the west, just alongside of the 1933, warm buff limestone Nelson-Atkins building is the Bloch addition, which resemble glass boxes covered almost entirely by a frosted glass facade, that run smoothly down the shallowly sloping hill sides of the east campus. The glass of each glass box glisten and twinkle as the sunlight is reflected off the frosted glass facade. These glass boxes in the shallow hill resemble hills themselves. The different roof lines of the buildings resemble the hill crests, and it is as if you are looking out over glass flint hills, as they gently roll into the distance. Though the Bloch addition to the Nelson-Atkins may be made primarily of steel and glass, its form and relation to the setting makes it just as much a part of the natural setting as the shallow hills in which it is built into. As the architect Frank Lloyd Wright once said, “No house should ever be on a hill or on anything. It should be of the hill, belonging to it. Hill and house should live together each the happier for the other.” While the Bloch addition may not be a house, it serves this idea of being true to the environment in which it exists, and does so through its form, rather than materiality.
The majority of the façade of the structure is curved, concave, frosted white glass. On the interior during the day, this glass allows for a magnificent and inspiring effect, as the natural light of the sun to pours into the building, filling every corner of the structure with pure natural light. As you enter the Bloch building, you cannot help but feel that your spirits have been uplifted by the light, and the sense of openness it creates gives you the urge to move about and explore the masterworks of art that the building presents.
At the fall of darkness, the Bloch addition begins to glow like geometrically shaped lamps implanted into the hill side. The glass boxes of the Bloch addition are illuminated by artificial light which escapes through the white frosted glass, allowing the pure white light to light the hill side in a gentle glow. The light within the building during the day is pure and uplifting, and the light radiating from the building at night is mesmerizing. Staring at the glowing structures from the lawn, one cannot help but feel like a moth, being drawn to an insect lamp, as you become mesmerized by the gentle glowing of the structure as it rolls gently down the hill side.
In many ways the Bloch addition to the Nelson-Atkins fulfills the qualities of a museum that the traditional neoclassical Nelson-Atkins by Wright and Wright fails to do. While architecture possesses the capacity to uplift and depress the human spirit through the aura it creates, the emotional impact on a human being must be appropriate to the context of the structures purpose, and reflect aspects of the structure and its connection to society, culture and the individual human being. In the case of the Nelson-Atkins museum of art, the 1933 structure produces an overwhelmingly powerful aura over the mere individual, creating an emotional effect which suppresses the human spirit. Conversely, the 2007 Bloch addition finds itself as a counterpoint to this, and uplifts the human spirit, by inspiring the embrace of one's humanity.
As you walk up to the massive warm-buff limestone structure that is the 1933 Nelson-Atkins, looming high above you, standing with great majesty and strength, one cannot help but feel dwarfed and insignificant as a mere human in comparison to a structure of such size and grounded stability, and thus one's spirits become suppressed by the overwhelming aura of the structure. But an art museum should not overwhelm the individual, rather an art museum should produce an aura which embraces the human spirit, as it is the human spirit that inspires the creation of art and makes the works of art that it houses possible. It should make an individual feel proud of their humanity, and wish to embrace it by immersing themselves in art. The 1933 Nelson-Atkins building depresses that spirit by making the individual feel small and insignificant. While it can be argued that because architecture is indeed an art, its emotional effects on the individual should not be limited by principals that stipulate its creation, architecture differs in a key way. Architecture is the physical manifestation of the culture in which it exists, and as such, physical projections of cultural ideas and values are the fundamental elements that determine its design. With that said, there is no reason why the emotional connection to the human being should not act as a fundamental principal aspect of its design, and a structure should seek to create an aura which will have an emotional effect indicative and representative of its purpose, in the same way its materiality, form and presence in its setting do. Thus, there are stimulative principals to which a structure’s aura should be rooted, and in the most general explanation, there are right and wrong auras crated by architecture, as some do not properly represent the true nature of the structure's purpose.
Though the 1933 Nelson is in itself beautiful, its design fails to produce an aura representative to the nature of an art museum; a place where the human spirit should be embraced. The Bloch addition, however, does embrace the human spirit through its form which emulates nature, and the inspiring purity of natural light which fills the building. The Bloch addition embraces the human spirit, and encourages its occupants to embrace their humanity by immersing themselves in art.
Though the Bloch addition and the Nelson-Atkins building differ greatly in architectural style, the transition between them is done in a manner that respects the presence of the other structure. The modern style of the Bloch building establishes itself as unique and different from the neoclassical Nelson-Atkins building, but the Bloch buildings presence does not seek to overpower nor distract from the Nelson-Atkins. The Bloch building coexists as one with the Nelson-Atkins, and the transition between the old and the new is done respectfully.
From the exterior, the Bloch addition does not touch the Nelson-Atkins directly, which symbolizes how the Bloch addition is not trying to copy the Nelson-Atkins building, nor is it invasive to the structure. Rather there is a separation between them. In the north courtyard sits the pond above the parking garage, this pond seems to serve more than just as a pleasant aesthetic to the courtyard. Rather it serves as a transition from the old to the new. Water, an architecturally neutral and entirely pure form, lies adjacent to both the Bloch and Nelson-Atkins buildings, symbolizing a transitional space between them. Water symbolizes the purity of the intention of the Bloch addition, as it does not seek to overpower the Nelson-Atkins, and a fluidness to allow for a smooth conjunct transformation of architectural style. This principal of respect that the structures share for one another follows in the interior connection. The open doorways that connect the two structures act as a statement that suggests a reminder that the buildings are indeed different in style, but the openness says that they share a common purpose and work in unity, by allowing both light and people to pass through.
The Bloch addition is a true work of architecture, as it serves a functional purpose and uplifts the human spirit on an artistic level. Its design was clearly based upon the aura it creates through its presence and its effects on the individual. It is truly a beautiful structure it itself, as well as in its surroundings, and in order to fully understand this structure, one must experience it first hand to take all of the aspects of its design into account.
No comments:
Post a Comment