“the public space is
replaced by the public image” - Paul Virilio
Kunsthal, architectural image and social media
With the proliferation of online platforms, the rise of online critics has become unprecedented. The ‘critic’ in the internet era has no defining lines. Social media has given everyone a platform to voice their opinions. As described by Paul Virilio, the public image has become a defining point for how we design our spaces. But how does this shape our image of the buildings and spaces in which we inhabit?
The following essay proposes to analyze the image of a building / public space, from different perspectives (initiator-architect vs recipient-public) through the medium of social media, focusing on instagram as a source of memory of public image. The architect has the ability to produce powerful images for the public. But there is no guarantee that the public will receive the intended image, or message of one’s design. That is the case for all artworks, and it could be argued that sometimes the public’s interpretation, although different from the intended image, resonates and creates a powerful connection with the art piece. However, in architecture, there is a combination of art and practicality. Since the intention is for it to be used by the recipient, it brings into question; ‘How is the image of architecture a reflection of the architect’s intentions versus how is it perceived by the general public?’ This will be the main topic of this essay. In order to answer this question, the chosen case study is the Museumpark and its museums located in Rotterdam. The research focuses on the exterior appearance of those buildings as representing images.
For the purpose of this essay, the “image” is more than the official (historiography and corporate publications, advertisements) or unofficial (sketches, flyers, pamphlets), but a collection of architectural means that communicate to the public the essence of the building. Modern architecture within the public realm is heavily based on images, and more so on their quantity, rather than quality.
The Museumpark offers an interesting setting for the discussion of the image of architecture. If ‘today’s architecture tends to project purely retinal images, architectural pictures as it were, for the seduction of the eye’, then in a sense this essay will also discover how relevant old architectural images are for the modern public.
The Kunsthal in Rotterdam was designed by OMA in 1987, and officially opened in October 1992. It lays between the busy highway Maasboulevard and city’s Museum Park. The building program is an exhibition space without a temporary collection. The Kunsthal is more of an “art hall” rather than a museum. Therefore, the primary task was to create flexible spaces: exhibition rooms, auditorium and a restaurant which could all function independently. Kunsthal is significant for Dutch Architecture and OMA because it is one of the earliest works in which Rem Koolhaas could implement his renowned design philosophy into tangible architecture. Image analysis through social media focusing on Instagram is the main method for comparison of the public impression. Through a wide range of images published with the geotag of Kunsthal, the perception of public on the building is analyzed. Also, this method aims to point out the fact that even though the building was designed for a period which social media did not exist, it is still one of the most “instagrammable” buildings of both the Museumpark and Rotterdam.
Intention of the Architect
Koolhaas was highly influenced by revolutionary approach of Andy Warhol in the sixties on “image” and “perception” in the pop art movement. Mass media and pop culture resulted in a shift in the notion of arts into a new sense of freedom in the opportunistic quality of things generally considered banal or mainstream. Koolhaas similarly rediscovered the inherent complexity in everyday scenarios in the nineties. As a result, Kunsthal is designed while seeking an understanding of balance between mass-cultural and high-cultural production, a suspension between critical avant-garde and commercial architecture. In her critical essay Anna Klingmann states: “OMA makes effort to reconcile the lingering schism between architecture and the public by raising the critical potential of addressing a non-specialized audience, inserts itself into the cultural divide of mass culture and critical practice.” The square mass of the building is enveloped by the façade changing on four sides. The mass is split into four by two crossing routes, one existing route running east- to west and the other public ramp running north-to south which leads to the entrance to both the park and Kunsthal. Philosopher Walter Benjamin argues that in order to experience a place in multiple dimensions, one has to approach from all four cardinal points. The building’s various façades are equally approachable and each completely different in material and sensibility from each other. The variation results in transformation of the “static box” into a play of consequent pictures, reminiscent of Jean Luc Godard’s filmic cut. “Time has to split the present in two heterogeneous directions, one of which is launched towards the future while the other falls into the past”5 The building opens towards the street and dissolves towards the park. Visitors are subtly invited inside. “ Extending into their respective surroundings, OMA’s works form unstable infrastructures that mercilessly draw in local milieus and ambiances. The urban context is no longer merely “accommodated” but moreover interiorized and digested.
Koolhaas combined cheap, ‘common’ materials such as corrugated plastic, bare concrete, galvanized steel gratings and rough tree trunks with classic materials such as marble and parquet. In his book The Socius of Architecture, Graafland describes OMA’s choice of materials as follows: “Expressive elements that please the viewer are omitted. But what we consume is not concrete, steel or grids, but their meaning”.“Dirty realism” of the material palette echoes pragmatism in design, and an ephemeral character. The building appears as a mundane object, approachable and acquainted with the eye of the public. It invites the audience in with its interplay of transparency and light games.
The architect emphasizes through design that museums should not be heavy and enclosed fortresses of stone, masonry or brick but rather “open and adaptable, in Koolhaas’ words, a museum can be “a boxing ring or lion’s den with the public around”.
Perception of the Public
“Just as water, gas, and electricity are brought into our houses from far off to satisfy our needs in response to a minimal effort, so we shall be supplied with visual or auditory images, which will appear and disappear at a simple movement of the hand, hardly more than a sign.” Kunsthal became highly popular in media even before its construction; besides its architectural quality as a landmark, also a recurring hot topic with its renovation in 2014 and the theft of artworks in 2017. It is one of the most popular spots of the Museum Park and Rotterdam, also in social media. When Koolhaas’ aspiration for popular culture is taken into consideration, this research further investigates the appearance of Kunsthal through Instagram to analyze the perception of the public.
Diversity
The building attracts visitors from various backgrounds (figure 3), ethnic origins, age groups and physical constraints. It is a popular location for fashion shows, the gay pride as well as being part of daily lives of citizens and children’s playground. OMA was successful to transform the typology of museum into an everyday object attracting a diverse target audience.
Journey through the Building
Multiple visitors have photographed the building as a set of sequence images rather than separate visual pieces. The above photo set (see figure 4) shows the route of visitors moving along the ramps, through the building. This aspect portrays that Koolhaas was successful in communicating his design intention to generate architecture where time dissolves and architecture becomes a dynamic experience rather than a “static box”.
Dissolving into the landscape
OMA aimed to create architecture beyond tangible borders and boundaries dissolving through the landscape and inviting the observer in. The set of images captured by visitors reflect disappearance of these limitations and an emergence of extreme fluidity and transparency.
Material Palette
Mundane material palette of corrugated sheets, raw tree trunks, bare concrete, steel mesh, raw I-beams are highly reflected in the social media. The popularity of these images show that unexciting materials might transform into an attraction through clever design decisions, and communicate the message that it gives which is similar to pop art.
Popular Views
The most “instagrammable” view of the building is the tower. Various viewers have posted significantly analogous images trying to capture similar architectonic effects with angles and lighting. The correspondence of these images with the official photographs shared by Kunsthal generates an insight towards the collective visual memory of the public obtained from media or publications.
Conclusion
OMA’s design intention for Kunsthal was to transform the notion of art and architecture targeting a privileged group of people by keeping it private, inaccessible and highend into an everyday object through evident and straightforward visual design strategies. Literature review and social media supports that he was successful to create an “image” of the building that is sublime, accessible and ahead of its time.
