Modern Cult of Monuments: Plural Monumentality

Modern Cult of Monuments: Plural Monumentality

Geneva Sinkula December 7th, 2021

“The mortality of culture is of value to the culture itself.” Alois Riegl

Gaining increasing popularity, designers have been using architecture from the past as a backdrop for their futuristic architectural interventions. In most cases, these old structures do not qualify as historic, however critics of this work historicize these buildings. Many designers, including Libeskind, Calatrava, and Hadid, are using decrepit factories, frequented museums, retired fire stations or even grain silos to serve as a host to their new cultural monuments.i The Royal Ontario Museum, with an addition designed by Daniel Libeskind is no exception. Located in Toronto, this structure completely transforms the site’s context, displaying a rich lifespan of a building. By looking at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) through the lens of Alois Riegl’s “Modern Cult of Monuments”, one will find pluralistic meanings in monuments of this kind. These types of structures, despite public controversy, have become place-makers in the cities they occupy. Understanding what kind of monument and what values apply to their varying forms will clarify why these buildings are more meaningful than a single historic monument suspended in time.

Riegl’s Modern Cult of Monuments: Alois Riegl wrote “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin” in 1903, two years before his death. Living most of his life practicing as an art historian and conservator, he realized there is a question of authenticity both in art and architecture.ii At the time, replication was a frequented practice, but he saw significance in aging. “Riegl uses terms ‘age value theory’ and ‘theory of historical evolution’, in order to explain that everything which history has changed is

1

irreversible and as such has become part of a building or artifact.”iii Essentially, the original form is less important than seeing the passage of time on the object.

Riegl’s framework is rooted in a systematic value-based preservation. This method provided the underpinnings of both the Athens (1931) and Venice (1964) Charters, putting preservation on a global platform. His work would continue to be impactful when UNESCO held the World Heritage Convention in 1972. This attributed certain sites around the world to having a “universal” value, proving the need for preservation and protection. Up to this point, “The Modern Cult of Monuments” had only been published in German. By 1982, nearly eighty years after its first publication by the Central Commission of Austria, his work was translated into English. This is directly correlated with the Post-Modern era of architecture, as critics used Riegl’s text to argue against the appropriation of symbols and forms.iv Since this translation, there has also been discussion on what the true definition of a monument is, which Riegl defines by specifying three different types of monuments.

Quoted from the very first line of his text, “a monument in it is oldest and most original sense is a human creation, erected for the specific purpose of keeping single human deeds or events alive in the minds of future generations”.v Going further, he describes monuments as an artifact, which retains an element of the past. Anything from history could be a monument in Riegl’s definition. Fortunately, he addresses this point through the three types of monuments, each being self-contained within the previous (Figure 1).

2

1 | Each monument type can be contained within each other.

Age-Value monuments are the first and largest category. These new commemorative monuments are described as rejecting forms of conservation, embracing the passage of time, and disregarding their original purpose. It takes zero historic or scholarly knowledge to recognize these fragments of time. An example would be an abandoned factory. Next is the unintentional monuments. These monuments contain a historic value, but their original purpose was not to commemorate an event or person. For example, a Queen Anne home would be an unintentional monument in today’s standards. This monument speaks to a “whole”, complete image of time, regarding conservation as essential to being culturally meaningful. The last type of monument is the smallest in quantity, but most wellknown. Intentional monuments are objects that hold a commemorative value, as their main purpose is to memorialize a moment in time, such as the Washington Monument. At the center of these three distinct types, the memory value reminds readers of Riegl’s definition of a monument, and how though there are different types, correlations can be drawn between them on multiple levels (Figure 2).

3

2 | Values and characteristics can be shared across the types of monuments.

Riegl examines these monuments through the lens of values. Within the “Modern Cult” new values arose overtime beyond historic, commemorative and age.

Use-value describes monuments that haven’t been left abandoned.vi This functionality is the opposite of age-value which we already determined as the

4

rejection of all forms of preservation. Art-value is independent from history and the historic period it occupies. Its main driver is the creative and artistic qualities it holds.

A Queen Anne house for instance, would have a high art-value. There are two secondary art qualities. The Newness-value speaks to the idea that as humans, we find new and whole things beautiful, which on some levels is why people like Violletle-Duc conserved history to its original condition. The last value Riegl describes is relative art-value, which examines art from different generations (Figure 3). This contributed to the theory of “Kunstwollen” developed by Alois Riegl. Roughly translated, Kunstwollen means “will to art”.vii This idea considers a person’s perception of work as it relates to time. Meaning, what people admire today as artistic and beautiful, will be different from what people in a decade hold in high regard. Overall, Riegl believes we observe monuments through a Kunstwollen lens.

3 | Values can be shared, and their relationship with each other can be complex and contradictory in nature.

5

Royal Ontario Museum: Opened in 1914, the Royal Ontario Museum was a “joint venture between University of Toronto and the Province of Ontario.”viii With the entrance of Bloor Street, the museum was placed on the north part of campus. Darling and Pearson, a local architecture firm, was charged with creating a masterplan that would inform additions to come. At the core of this masterplan was the idea of upholding the four purposes of the museum: “scholarship, collection, conservation and education”.ix Central to the design was having the museum be archetypal in form and organization. Darling and Pearson drew heavily on the early versions of museums in palaces, including Louis XVI’s galleries in the Louvre. Long corridors are punctuated by natural light from large industrial windows and skylights. Rows of rooms are set on both sides to curate permanent collections along a promenade. The interior spaces speak to a simpler, unadorned appearance compared to the exterior facades.

Analyzing the exterior, Denise Scott Brown and Robert Venturi would call it a decorated shed rather than the duck itself, with an “agglomeration of historic components that mirrored the idea of the museum as gathering disparate pieces of history together.”x With two years of construction, the ROM’s 1914 wing was designed to be more than a Beaux Arts container of artifacts (Figure 4). Central to their mission, the museum had to be an artifact itself if it was to house a universal collection in Canada’s largest city. “The investment in a masterplan and the ambitious first wings of the ROM in 1914 and 1933 spoke forcefully to the importance of architecture in meeting the Museum’s goals, both practical and symbolic.” The interior collection

6

mirrored the exterior. Their functional needs were met, while their form harmonized with other museums of that time.

4 | Designed by Darling and Pearson, the single wing of the Royal Ontario Museum opened to Bloor Street on the University of Toronto’s campus.

Aligning with Riegl’s definition of a monument, this building is an artifact, retaining elements of the past. How would Riegl classify the 1914 ROM? What values would be attributed to it? For starters, all monuments, according to Riegl, are agevalue monuments as long as they are historic and show the passage of time.

However, this classification doesn’t solely do the ROM justice. It cannot entirely be an age-value monument as it has been conserved and has retained its original purpose.

Though the time is evident in style and form, Riegl emphasizes the passage of time being a mechanical or chemical weathering, one that is not restored but left to fragment a building overtime. Moving to the next monument type, its historic value would satisfy the unintentional monument category. It checks all the requirements set forth by Riegl in that it is a representative of the Beaux Arts period as well as the

7

museum typology of that time, the value is evident in the craftsmanship and adornment of the building façade, it stands to represent the urban fabric of Toronto and how it has developed, and it has been restored to its complete embodied design. Advancing one step further, the 1914 ROM does not comply with the smallest category, the intentional monument. A case could be made that a museum, including the ROM, is used to commemorate items from a certain time period.

However, the building itself was never meant to memorialize these items, rather to curate and preserve them for the advancement of scholarship. Thus, the 1914 ROM is most satisfied by the classification as an unintentional monument.

The three types of monuments all bring values that are affected by the Kunstwollen theory, the lens in which we value our monuments through.

Unintentional monuments by nature retain a historic quality, and as previously mentioned the ROM certainly acts as a prime example of beaux arts architecture.

This portion of the ROM also has use value, as it is still functioning as a museum, currently housing portions of the Asian, Greek, and Egyptian exhibits. In terms of artvalue, this wing of the museum has newness-value in that is preserved throughout the decades to look like the original. It has positive relative art-value in that it has been appreciated and not demolished despite its many additions and renovations.

Ultimately, Riegl’s “Modern Cult of Monuments” framework allows for the analysis, under the lens of kunstwollen, to perceive this past building, not objectively, but as a refraction of memory emphasized by values.

With new ROM leadership in 1933, a tradition was started to mold the architecture of the museum with each generation. Similar to the 1914 wing, construction lasted two years on the Chapman and Oxley designed “t-shaped”

8

addition.xi From the exterior, a neo-byzantine façade reflected the expanding exotic collection from within. The form created an overall h-shape to the museum that aligned with the original master plan set forth by Darling and Pearson (Figure 5).

Setting itself apart, the interior organization did not contain perimeter promenades around a gallery, unlike its predecessor. Instead, the addition was composed of open galleries with work areas lining the boundaries of the space. This was due to a shift in the curating profession. Once a curator acted as a collector, but now this occupation was evolving to a more scholarly approach. The profession itself was advancing not only on the collegiate level with degree programs, but also with apprenticeships honing the discipline. Ultimately, the development of the curator position created higher standards and goals for the Royal Ontario Museum. This meant the need for more space, along with it came prep, work, administrative and educational areas.

The museum had grown into four distinct factions: “Paleontology, Mineralogy, Zoology, and Geology.”xii Architecturally, individual spaces for each field needed to be crafted, with entrances off the main rotunda. In plan, offices, libraries, and display areas were duplicated in order to accommodate the growing disciplines.

Additionally, the start of a budding hospitality sector within museum typologies was occurring. A members’ lounge and tearoom were added to accommodate patrons and visitors.

9

5 | This 1933 Chapman and Oxley addition took a new stance on interior layout of museum design, while upholding the original master plan completed in 1914.

The addition to the 1933 ROM qualifies as a monument under Riegl’s definition. It is already known that age-value would apply, simply due to the fact that anyone without scholarly or historic knowledge could recognize this is a building from the past. Being entirely conserved however, puts Chapman and Oxley’s designs either in the unintentional or intentional monument type. Similar to the last addition, an unintentional monument embracing its historic value resonates with this addition due to perfect restoration of the building. The patrons of the museum recognize that this history, architecturally significant or not, is irreplaceable. With that being said, use-value is still suitable as it is operating as a museum, housing the Canadian Gallery as well as being the backdrop to the 2007 atrium space. Creating, as Libeskind described, “the new, the old and the in between, balancing points between past and present”, which wouldn’t be possible without the 1933 addition.

10

Due to the aesthetics of the architecture during that time period, the exotic or “intellectual” display of neo-byzantine facades provides art-value. Newness-value is also applicable since it was restored to its original form. There is a positive relative art-value today, merely due to the fact that it hasn’t been demolished. However, architecture critics look at both the 1914 and 1933 ROM as nothing extraordinary, which is mainly a critique of architectural practices of the time utilizing symbols and forms as a way to imbue their designs with meaning. Its value lies not in its architecture necessarily, but in that fact that the sum of its parts is far more meaningful together, being a visual history of the ROM’s development.

The 1984 addition, designed by Moffat, Moffat and Kinoshita, took a drastically different approach than the previous addition or original building. The masterplan, set forth by Darling and Pearson, was completely abandoned in favor of infilling the two courtyards that the h-shaped museum formed. On one side, an administrative and curatorial building was added, while on the other side, a terraced gallery meets Bloor Street (Figure 6). This gallery in turn created an atrium space occupied by escalators to traverse the new gallery platforms. Through this addition, circulation between the old and new galleries became disheveled. Views from the original building were blocked by new gallery installations and mechanical rooms. Proving, the original master plan was no longer important compared to the new curatorial exhibits. The focus now relied on the idea of education, which translated to windows being covered up, galleries being sub-divided, and connections being severed to the original architecture. For once, equal attention was paid to back of house facilities compared to visitor spaces. The initial design placed large planters with cascading foliage connecting all levels of the atrium together. However, this design decision

11

had to be vetoed due to the risk of bugs being harbored in the planters, with the potential to destroy the artifacts in the collections.

6 | This 1984 addition contained two parts, one as a curatorial building, the other as a stacking gallery space.

Moffat Moffat and Kinoshita designed a divergent monument compared to its predecessors. Riegl would even question if this qualifies as a monument today.

Libeskind, in his 2007 addition, completely excavated the Bloor Street infill, demolishing fifty percent of the existing 1984 addition. Riegl warned that a negative relative art-value of a structure would in turn lead to its demise. This is not surprising as many critics are quick to dismiss 1980s architecture for its brutalist contrast to past and present design. In this case however, the problem with this addition correlated directly with the fact that it disjointed circulation and it turned its back on

12

what the ROM valued, its heritage structures. It is fortunate that some of this unintentional monument lives on to add historic and use value, telling a story through the facades of the museum, one addition after the next. Riegl would argue that the remaining 1984 curatorial component does not have a newness value, as preservationist today are still grappling with not only how to conserve architecture from that era, but also whether they find value in preserving that architecture in general. The Kunstwollen theory describes this perfectly by demonstrating how different generations have different values. What had high art-value then, may have a negative relative art-value today.

Daniel Libeskind’s 2007 addition, named the Michael Lee Chin Crystal, was a “distinguishing act of originality”. Originally inspired by the crystals in their Earth’s Treasures exhibit, Libeskind wanted to express the duality of nature and art into his addition. This duality has always been at the forefront for the ROM, but when Libeskind visited the museum while attending a family wedding, he knew the crystals were the perfect form to express this duality.xiii He was simply awed by the perfect, “intricate geometry that offered a glimpse of the mathematical forces of the world”.xiv After living in the city for several years, he was already familiar with the disjointed spatial flow between the galleries. He sought to fix this by moving the main entrance to Bloor Street, restoring the comprised heritage buildings from previous renovations, and returning the beaux arts axial language from the 1914 plan.

The organizational language from the 1980s was removed, bringing back the promenade circulation. Symmetry and balance were concentrated on the main routes with a series of compression and release actions segmenting the volumes.

13

Circulation was also improved by using apertures and exterior landmarks as navigational guides throughout the museum.

Libeskind understood that his design would make both the museum and the city a destination. He knew that “a more accessible, dramatic, transparent and modern complex” needed to take place.xv The exterior of the building created a timeline of the architectural additions over the years, including his own. The symbolic form is reminiscent of the 1914 ROM, but in this case is more duck than decorated shed. Regardless of his visions of crystals as the architectural driver, plural impressions are made by the form of his addition (Figure 7). Some say it is reminiscent of the Canadian landscape painted by Lawren Harris, while others believe he is taking from other commissions he has designed. Regardless, his vision created from a “moment of passion” were realized, forming a temple for artifacts.

7 | Daniel Libeskind’s 2007 addition adds a steel crystalline structure to the ROM.

14

The final addition of the ROM lends itself to being the most controversial, both in design and classification as a monument. This is a unique case where the addition could fall under all three categories that Riegl outlines in “Modern Cult of Monuments”. Ascribed on one of the cornerstones of the original 1914 building was the phrase: “The Record of Nature through Countless Ages, The Arts of Man Through All the Years”. This ultimately puts into perspective the duality of their purpose, having an objective that supports both nature and art together. Libeskind paid tribute to the crystal exhibit by designing an artistic display of a natural phenomenon. In that way, this monument is intentional, designed to have commemorative value. Being so futuristic, it is difficult to classify this monument as an unintentional or age-value monument since there is no historic quality. If anything, its value lies in highlighting the historic additions that came before it, letting both the past and the present architecture demonstrate the passage of time, not through weathering, but through preservation and growth.

The analysis of the Royal Ontario Museum, through the lens of Alois Riegl’s “Modern Cult of Monuments” revealed that with every phase of development, the monument’s virtues changed. The values that were attributed to one addition evolved to the next, growing in complexity as history unfolded. The ROM exemplifies how pluralistic monuments that hold multiple meanings through their values should be celebrated. This collision between history and future, despite controversy, created architectural synergy that unveils a rich history through every façade and gallery. With each generation, the monument became more ambiguous. At one point or another, every value could be applied. While some critics find this inconclusive meaning jarring, the Royal Ontario Museum celebrates this uncertainty

15

as a strength. Public debate, shared cultural narrative and open-ended discourse are side effects from their mission being carried through their architecture. Buildings such as Hadid’s Port Authority (Belgium), Herzog and de Meuron’s Elbphilharmonie (Germany), WOHA’s Space Asia Hub (Singapore) or the De Matos Ryan’s York Theatre Royal (England) all have learned how powerful this pluralistic approach can be to architecture and preservation.xvi The alternatives, of sensitive rehabilitation or leveling the site and starting new, do not even compare to the impact that memory has on a place in cases where projects celebrate the tension between archived history and advancing futures. The Royal Ontario Museum is an outstanding example of how complexity over time bring a more meaningful monument.

i

Nick Mafi, “14 Beautiful Examples of When Historic and Modern Architecture Come Together,” Architectural Digest, June 10, 2020. ii Carolyn Ahmer, “Riegl’s ‘Modern Cult of Monuments’ as a Theory Underpinning Practical Conservation and Restoration Work,” Journal of Architectural Conservation 26, no. 2 (May 3, 2020): 150–65, https://doi.org/10.1080/13556207.2020.1738727. iii Ahmer. iv Michael McClelland, “Alois Riegl and the Modern Cult of the Monument,” ERA Architects (blog), January 9, 2011, https://www.eraarch.ca/2011/alois-riegl-and-the-modern-cult-of-the-monument/. v Alois Riegl, “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin,” Oppositions 25, no. 25 (1903): 20–51. vi Riegl. vii McClelland, “Alois Riegl and the Modern Cult of the Monument.” viii Kelvin Browne, Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum (Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 2008). ix Browne. x Browne. xi Browne. xii Browne. xiii Daniel Libeskind and Tim McKeough, Edge of Order, First edition (New York: Clarkson Potter/Publishers, 2018). xiv Libeskind and McKeough. xv Browne, Bold Visions. xvi Mafi, “14 Beautiful Examples of When Historic and Modern Architecture Come Together.”

16

Bibliography Ahmer, Carolyn. “Riegl’s ‘Modern Cult of Monuments’ as a Theory Underpinning Practical Conservation and Restoration Work.” Journal of Architectural Conservation 26, no. 2 (May 3, 2020): 150–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556207.2020.1738727.

Browne, Kelvin. Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 2008.

Libeskind, Daniel, and Tim McKeough. Edge of Order. First edition. New York: Clarkson Potter/Publishers, 2018.

Mafi, Nick. “14 Beautiful Examples of When Historic and Modern Architecture Come Together.” Architectural Digest, June 10, 2020.

McClelland, Michael. “Alois Riegl and the Modern Cult of the Monument.” ERA Architects (blog), January 9, 2011. https://www.eraarch.ca/2011/alois-riegl-andthe-modern-cult-of-the-monument/.

Riegl, Alois. “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin.”

Oppositions 25, no. 25 (1903): 20–51.

Image 1 | Royal Ontario Museum. Perspective off of Bloor Street. 1914. Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 2 | Dual Mandate carved in cornerstone on 1933 addition. Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 3 | Dual Mandate carved in cornerstone on 1933 addition. Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 4 | Diagrams comparing Durand and Darling and Pearson’s museum plans.

Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 5 | Perspective of the Museum. Southwest. 1914. Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 6 | Diagram of administrative tower added in 1937 to original 1914 museum.

Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 7 | 1933 completion of administration tour. Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 8 | North elevation of 1914 ROM. Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 9 | Cornice detail of 1914 ROM. Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 10 | 1914 Geology workroom in the basement. Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 11 | Concept perspective of the entrance to the 1933 ROM addition. Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 12 | First floor plan of the 1933 ROM addition. Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 13 | Photograph of exterior elevation. Queen’s Park. 1933 ROM addition.

Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 14 | Ming tomb placed in the Garden Court 1933. Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 15 | Gold Mosaic rotunda ceiling completed in 1933. Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 16 | Presentation drawings of the 1984 addition atrium. Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 17 | Terrace Galleries 1984. Courtesy of Bold Visions: The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 18 | Construction of 1914 ROM. 1911 Photograph. The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 19 | Construction of 1984 ROM. 1981 Photograph. The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 20 | 1933 addition forming the H-shape museum. The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 21 | 1984 Terrace Galleries. The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 22 | 2007 Daniel Libeskind Addition. The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 23 | Daniel Libeskind concept sketches. The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 24 | Folded concept model of 2007 addition. The Architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Image 25 | 2007 Addition by Daniel Libeskind. Exterior Photograph of Crystal.

Courtesy of Studio Libeskind.

Image 26 | 2007 Addition by Daniel Libeskind. Interior Photograph of Crystal.

Courtesy of Studio Libeskind.

Image 27 | 2007 and 1914 additions. Courtesy of Studio Libeskind.

Image 28 | 2007 and 1933 Additions. Exterior Photograph of Crystal. Courtesy of Studio Libeskind.

Image 29 | 1933 and 2007 Addition. Interior Photograph of Crystal. Courtesy of Studio Libeskind.

Image 30 | 2007 Addition by Daniel Libeskind. Interior Photograph of Crystal.

Courtesy of Studio Libeskind.