We live in a world populated by struc-tures - a complex mixture of geological,

biological, social and linguistic construc-tions that are nothing but accumulations ofmaterials shaped and hardened by history.Immersed as we are in this mixture, wecannot help but interact in a variety of wayswith the other historical constructions thatsurround us, and in these interactions wegenerate novel combinations, some ofwhich posses emergent properties. In turn,these synergistic combinations, whether ofhuman origin or not, become the raw mate-rial for further mixtures. This is how thepopulation of structures inhabiting ourplanet has acquired its rich variety, as theentry of novel materials into the mix triggerswild proliferations of new forms.1

The art museum, such as we know ittoday and as it largely prevails in our re-gion, is a creation originating from the peri-od of the Enlightenment and based on theidea of collecting originals. Along these li-nes of thought, we do not see Mona Lisa asan example of female portraiture, but as aunique (original) wok of art 2 preserved atthe museum. The process of dissipation ofthis idea, linked with inadequate exclusive-ness with respect to archivization and exhi-bition, began with the vanguards of theearly 20th century. The idea of collectingunique items was ”challenged” by artisticpractices such as Duchamp’s Fountain, inwhich an object of mass production - a uri-nal - became a unique artefact by the veryfact of its being exhibited in a museum.Contemporary art gradually distanced itselffrom the idea of uniqueness, especiallythrough the work of artists such as Beuys,characterized by the idea of the multipleand its environments, or Yves Klein, whopresented an ”empty” gallery in 1959. Theartistic interest shifted from the painting tothe canvas itself, like with Malevich. If weaccept that change in artistic practice initself, then we must also acknowledge theappearance of an entirely new system of”symbols” within the museum. Dislocationof interest and its shift from the product tothe process, in which the canvas is nolonger an object of interest for the artists,since they are turning towards its reverse(or the very space of the museum, likeKlein), indicates the need to reorganise thesystem of ”symbols” in which, to useMcLuhan’s terminology, the medium be-comes the message. Contemporary art dis-

Æivimo u svijetu napuËenom struktura-ma - u sloæenoj mjeπavini geoloπkih,

bioloπkih, druπtvenih i jeziËnih zdanja, kojanisu niπta drugo do nakupine grae koju jeoblikovala i otvrdnula povijest. BuduÊi dasmo uronjeni u tu mjeπavinu, prisiljeni smokomunicirati na razne naËine s drugim povi-jesnim zdanjima koja nas okruæuju, stvara-juÊi tijekom te komunikacije nove kombina-cije, od kojih neke razvijaju vlastita svojstva.Te sinergistiËke kombinacije, bez obzira nato jesu li ljudskog podrijetla ili nisu, postajupak sirovinom za druge mjeπavine. Na tajnaËin populacija struktura koja nastanjujenaπ planet stjeËe svoju veliku raznolikost,naime tako πto unos nove grae u mjeπavinupotiËe æivu proliferaciju novih oblika.1

Muzej umjetnosti, onakav kakvog gadanas znamo i kakav u veÊini sluËajeva pre-vladava u naπoj sredini, tvorevina je kojapotjeËe iz razdoblja prosvjetiteljstva, teme-ljena na ideji sakupljanja originala. Slije-dom takvog razmiπljanja Mona Lisu ne pro-matramo kao primjer æenskog portreta, veÊkao jedinstveno (originalno) umjetniËkodjelo2 pohranjeno u muzeju. Proces uruπa-vanja takve ideje, odnosno neadekvatnaiskljuËivost pristupa arhiviranja i izlaganja,zapoËinje s avangardama poËetkom 20.stoljeÊa. Ideja zbirke jedinstvenih (unikat-nih) objekata biva ”provocirana” umjetniË-kim praksama, poput Duchampove Fon-tane, u kojima objekt masovne produkcije -pisoar, samom Ëinjenicom da je izloæen umuzeju, postaje jedinstven umjetniËki arte-fakt. Suvremena umjetnost postupno se sveviπe udaljava od ideje unikatnosti, naroËitokroz praksu umjetnika poput Beuysa, obi-ljeæenu idejom multipla ili njegovih environ-menta, ili pak Yvesa Kleina koji 1959.izlaæe ”praznu” galeriju. Interes se seli saslike ka platnu, na platno samo, kao kodMaljeviËa. Ako prihvatimo tu promjenu kojase odvija u samoj umjetniËkoj praksi, tadaje nuæno shvatiti pojavu jednog potpuno no-vog sustava ”znakova” unutar muzeja. Iz-mjeπtanje interesa s produkta na proces ukojem platno nije viπe predmet umjetnikovainteresa, i to zato πto se umjetnici okreÊunjegovoj poleini (ali i prostoru samog mu-zeja, poput Kleina), ukazuje na potrebureorganizacije sistema ”znakovlja” u kojem,govoreÊi McLuhanovom terminologijom,medij postaje poruka. Suvremena umjet-nost daleko viπe tematizira kontekst negolisam umjetniËki artefakt. Samim timeznaËenje i uloga muzeja danas gotovo da su

alan kostrenËiÊ

integriranje umjetnosti u æivot: msu zagreb i mmsu rijekaintegrating art intolife: msu zagreband mmsu rijeka

28

t l

t

1 MANUEL DE LANDA, A Thousand Years of Non-Linear History, Zone Books, 2003, 25, 26.

2 BORIS GROYS, On the logic of collecting, razgovor sa Svenom Spiekerom, objavljen na www.artmargins.com, 08. 10. 1998.

l

1 MANUEL DE LANDA, A Thousand Years of Non-Linear History, Zone Books, 2003, 25, 26.

2 BORIS GROYS, On the logic of collecting, interview with Sven Spieker, published at www.artmargins.com, 8 October, 1998.

1-2. Igor FraniÊ: Muzej suvremene umjetnosti,Zagreb / Museum of contemporary art, Zagreb,1999.-

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 28

29

1

2

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 29

cusses the context far more than the arte-fact itself. By this very fact, the meaningand the role of the museum are today prac-tically on the verge of a quantum leap.Contemplation of art as the museum’s pri-mary function has been significantly exten-ded. Its educational role has gained in im-portance, and so has its attitude towardsthe new media, from the video to researchprojects, since exhibiting art no longer nec-essarily implies a direct encounter with theartefact.

The very term Museum of Contempo-rary Art contains a contradiction, which isexpressed through the paradox of mergingthe notions of museum and the contempo-rary. The vitriolic attitude of recent artisticpractices towards ”preservation”, whichcan be most succinctly condensed in theactionist act of binding a book in sandpa-per,3 reveals open animosity towards ana-esthetising and pinning down an artefactlike a dead butterfly, in a collection of simi-lar dead objects -and that is what the mu-seum typically does. The opposition betwe-en the anachronistic idea of the museum asa storehouse of historical memory and thedefiance of contemporary art towards depo-siting artefacts is something that all sig-nificant museums of the 20th century havetried to solve by employing various forms ofsubversion to the traditional approaches to

na rubu kvantnog skoka. Kontemplacijaumjetnosti kao primarna funkcija muzejabitno je proπirena. Obrazovna uloga muzejapostaje sve vaænija, jednako kao i odnosprema novim medijima, od video radova doresearch projekata, zato πto izlagati umjet-nost danas ne znaËi nuæno i izravno suËelja-vanje s umjetniËkim predmetom.

Sam naziv Muzej suvremene umjet-nosti sadræi kontradikciju iskazanu para-doksom spajanja pojmova muzej i suvreme-no. Abrazivnost novijih umjetniËkih praksiprema ”pohranjivanju”, koju najdoslovnijemoæemo saæeti u akcionistiËki Ëin ukoriËa-vanja knjige u brusni papir,3 pokazuje jasnuantipatiju prema muzejskom anesteziranju ipribadanju djela, poput mrtvog leptira, uzbirku razvrstanih drugih mrtvih predmeta.Anakrona ideja muzeja kao skladiπta povi-jesne memorije i otpor koji suvremena um-jetnost pokazuje prema tom Ëinu skladiπ-tenja nastojali su razrijeπiti svi znaËajnijiumjetniËki muzeji 20. stoljeÊa pomoÊu raz-nih oblika subverzije tradicionalnih pristupainstituciji. Kroz svoju ambiciju da se pribliæiili Ëak da postane stvarni æivot, suvremenaumjetnost gotovo da teæi dekonstruiranjutradicionalnog muzeja.

Na koji naËin arhitektura kao disciplinakoja, Heideggerovim rijeËima, sklanja4 (sa-kuplja i Ëuva) bit, u ovom sluËaju - umjet-nost, moæe ili mora reagirati na spomenutu

30

3-4. Igor FraniÊ: Muzej suvremene umjetnosti,Zagreb / Museum of contemporary art, Zagreb,1999.-

3

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 30

problematiku? Nadalje, koji je odnos arhi-tekture kao nosioca sadræaja i sadræaja sa-mog, mora li muzej suvremene umjetnosti isam biti suvremena umjetnost? Ovdje na ne-ki naËin govorimo o dvije komponente arhi-tekture koje se meusobno proæimaju u sva-koj dobroj arhitekturi - o utilitarnoj kompo-nenti (funkcionalnost u svoj svojoj komplek-snosti) i komponenti ”znakovitosti” ili ”re-prezentativnosti” (oblikovno-formalna kom-ponenta, pojavnost arhitekture u svoj svojojkompleksnosti). Znakovitost arhitekture uuskoj je vezi s njenom svrhovitoπÊu; Ëak πtoviπe, znakovitost arhitekture leæi u reprezen-tiranju njezina koriπtenja kao konaËnice nje-zine svrhe. Gotovo da bi bilo moguÊe meta-foriËki poistovjetiti muzej umjetnosti s okvi-rom slike. Zgrada je svojevrstan passepar-tout onoga πto je izloæeno u njemu. O tomekoliko je ”okvir” 5 vaæan te na koji naËin ongovori o sadræaju ili ga Ëak odreuje, razma-tralo se popriliËno u post-strukturalistiËkomdiskursu. Meutim, ovdje je ta tema od sa-svim konkretnog i praktiËnog znaËenja.

Svrhovitost muzeja leæi u njegovoj or-ganizaciji - u organizaciji ”rute” kojom ga sedoæivljava (odnosno kreÊe kroz njega), a uzto i organizaciji naËina prezentiranja zbirke.Znakovitost muzeja pak leæi u njegovoj po-javnosti - u obliku. DræeÊi se logike ”okvi-ra”, savrπen umjetniËki muzej bio bi ”neu-tralan kontejner”6 - bijela (ili crna, u sva-

the institution. It is almost as if contempo-rary art wanted to deconstruct the traditio-nal museum through its ambition to get clo-ser to real life or even identify itself with it.

In what way can (or must) Architecture,as a discipline that, in Heidegger’s words,safeguards4 (spares and preserves) theBeing, in this case - art, react to theseissues? Moreover, what is the relationshipbetween architecture as the carrier of mea-ning and the content as such, and must themuseum of contemporary art be contempo-rary art itself? In a way, we are referring hereto the two components that are intertwinedin all good architecture -the utilitarian com-ponent (functionality in all its complexity)and the component of ”symbolism” or ”rep-resentativity” (the structural/formal compo-nent, the appearance of architecture in all itscomplexity). The symbolism of architectureis closely related to its functionality, what ismore, the symbolism of architecture residesin the representation of its use as the final-ization of its purpose. One could almostidentify art museum metaphorically with theframe of a painting. The building is a sort ofpassepartout around the exhibited objects.The importance of the ”frame”5 and the wayit expresses or even determines the content,was a rather focal topic of the poststructu-ralist discourse, but here it has a very con-crete and practical significance.

31

t

3 Dosjetka situacionista Guya Deborda o ukoriËavanjuknjige poezije u brusni papir kako bi naglasio nemoguÊnost njezina stavljanja uz druge knjige.

4 MARTIN HEIDEGGER, Graenje, stanovanje, miπljenje, u: Miπljenje i pevanje, Beograd, 1982., 89.-91.

5 Tezu o okviru kao postavljanju ili utvrivanju granica - vidi: JACQUES DERRIDA, Istina u slikarstvu, Sarajevo, 1988., 62.-76.

6 RijeË je o William Rubinovoj tezi o ”bijeloj kocki” kao idealnom, neutralnom ”nosaËu” izloæaka.

l

3 I am referring here to the idea of situationist Guy Debord to bind a book in sandpaper in order to show the impossibility of its placement next to other books.

4 MARTIN HEIDEGGER, Bauen, Wohnen, Denken, trans. by Albert Hofstadter as Building, Dwelling, Thinking, Harper Colophon Books, New York, 1971.

5 On the hypothesis of the frame as something that establishes or confirms the borders, see: JACQUES DERRIDA, The Truth In Painting, trans. by Geoff Bennington and Ian McLeod, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1987.

4

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 31

The purposefulness of the museum isin its organisation -the organisation of the”route” by which it is experienced (that is,along which the visitors are moving throughthe museum), as well as the way of pre-senting the collection. On the other hand,the symbolism of the museum resides in itsappearance - in its form. If we stick to theimage of the ”frame”, then the perfect artmuseum would be a ”neutral container”6 -a white (or black, in any case achromatic ormonochromatic) box with ideal dispersedand lateral illumination. Let us only recallthe museum of Peter Zumthor.7 However,the way in which the ”route” begins to gen-erate the form, or the architect’s expres-sion, which begins to work through thatform on the organisation of the museum -that is, the route - will gradually deform anddepart from the ideal, ”neutral” container.

Sejima’s The 21st Century Museum ofContemporary Art at Kanazawa,8 with itsextreme abstraction and purity of spatialorganisation, is almost the ideal archetypeof a contemporary art museum. The build-ing is defined through an abstract circleframed in glass, iconographically pure, witha series of white ”cubes” containing indivi-dual galleries. The space between the al-most randomly positioned cubes of variousdimensions, inscribed in a circular groundplan, acquires the quality of a micro-cityand leaves the route entirely open for ”won-dering around” or, as the situationists liketo say it - dérive, whereby the classical cor-ridors of communication are eliminated.That space, so to say lost between art ”con-tainers”, generates an entirely new quality,which consist precisely in its attractive”vagueness” of space. That ”lost”9 space isliterally a magnet for unexpected ”events”,which is just perfect for accommodatingcontemporary artistic practices.

I will mention two recent Croatian pro-jects for museums of contemporary art - the

kom sluËaju akromatska, monokromatska)kutija s idealnim disperznim lateralnim os-vjetljenjem. Sjetimo se samo muzeja PeteraZumthora.7 Meutim, naËin na koji ”ruta”poËinje generirati oblik ili pak ekspresijaarhitekta koja se kroz oblik poËinje odraæa-vati na organizaciju muzeja, dakle rutu -sve viπe deformira ili poËinje odstupati odidealnog ”neutralnog” kontejnera.

Sejimin Muzej suvremene umjetnosti21. stoljeÊa u Kanazawi8 svojom ekstrem-nom apstrakcijom i ËistoÊom prostorne or-ganizacije gotovo predstavlja idealan proto-tip suvremenog umjetniËkog muzeja. Zgra-du definira apstraktan krug staklenog obo-da, ikonografske jasnoÊe, koji sadræi nizbijelih ”kocaka” unutar kojih su smjeπtenepojedine galerije. Prostor izmeu gotovo na-sumiËno postavljenih kocaka razliËitih di-menzija upisanih u kruæni tlocrt poprima

32

5

6

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 32

kvalitetu mikro-grada i ostavlja rutu pot-puno otvorenom za ”lutanja”, kao πto bisituacionisti rado rekli - dérive, tako da suklasiËni komunikacijski koridori eliminirani.Taj, uvjetno reËeno izgubljen prostor, izme-u ”kontejnera” umjetnosti generira jednusasvim novu kvalitetu koja se sastoji upra-vo u privlaËnoj ”neodreenosti” prostora.Taj ”izgubljeni”9 prostor doslovce navlaËi nasebe cijeli niz neoËekivanih ”dogaanja” ko-ja su upravo idealna u prilagodbi suvreme-nih umjetniËkih praksi.

Dva recentna projekta muzeja suvre-mene umjetnosti u Hrvatskoj - MSU uZagrebu i MMSU u Rijeci - jasno pokazujukako se kod njih radi o bavljenju upravo timdvjema komponentama koje generirajupojavnost muzeja - bavljenju ”rutom”, od-nosno kretanjem kao dinamiËkom kompo-nentom predstavljanja zbirke i bavljenju”znakovitoπÊu” kao formalno-reprezenta-tivnom komponentom predstavljanja zbirke.

ZagrebaËki Muzej suvremene umjet-nosti arhitekta Igora FraniÊa, Ëije je rjeπenjeizabrano na osnovi urbanistiËko-arhitekton-skog natjeËaja iz sad veÊ daleke 1999.godine, novi je samostojeÊi objekt kojioperira u podruËju ”znakovitosti”. Formalnaasocijacija zgrade muzeja na Kniferov mea-ndar10 samo je orue u cilju generiranjadrugaËijeg urbanistiËkog doæivljavanja cije-log prostora pomoÊu operiranja ”znakovi-toπÊu”. Taj je postupak vrlo blizak pristupu

MSU in Zagreb and the MMSU in Rijeka -which clearly show the architects’ preoccu-pation with the two components that gen-erate the appearance of the museum - thatwith the ”route”, i.e. movement as thedynamic component of presenting the col-lection, and that with ”symbolism” as theformal/representative component of presen-ting the collection.

The Zagreb Museum of ContemporaryArt by architect Igor FraniÊ, whose solutionwas selected on the basis of an urban-ism/architecture contest from the long-goneyear of 1999, is a new, self-standing build-ing that operates in the field of ”symbol-ism”. The fact that its form reminds ofKnifer’s meander10 is just an instrument inthe service of generating a different urbanexperience of the whole space by operatingwith ”symbolism”. The procedure is verysimilar to that of architect Gehry in concei-ving the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao.Not because these two projects would for-mally have anything in common, but be-cause they seek to solve very similar prob-lems - activating the place through the”symbolism” of the building. To start with,the urban context of the industrial zone ofBilbao, just like the urban vagueness of thatparticular part of New Zagreb,11 cries forsome sort of ”attractor” from which onecould begin to generate a new, perhapshealthier identity. Moreover, such an attrac-

33

t

7 Kunsthaus Bregenz, Austrija, 1990.-1997.8 Kazuyo Sejima, The 21st Century Museum of

Contemporary Art, Kanazawa.9 Philip Johnson je svojedobno duhovito definirao

arhitekturu kao ”the art of how to waste space”. 10 U tekstu o Muzeju suvremene umjetnosti u Zagrebu,

autor projekta Igor FraniÊ duhovito primjeÊuje da je usporediti zgradu muzeja s Kniferovim meandrom jednako banalno kao i usporedba Miesova stupa s MaljeviËevim kriæem. Oris, VI-26, 2004., 68.

l

6 I am referring here to the hypothesis of William Rubin about the ”white cube” as an ideal, neutral ”carrier” for the exhibits.

7 Kunsthaus Bregenz, Austria, 1990-97.8 Kazuyo Sejima, The 21st Century Museum of

Contemporary Art, Kanazawa.9 Philip Johnson once wittily defined architecture as

”the art of how to waste space.”10 In a text on the Museum of Contemporary Art in

Zagreb, Igor FraniÊ, the author of the project, has wittily remarked that to compare the museum building with Knifer’s meander is as banal as com-paring Mies’s pillar with Malevich’s cross. Oris, VI-26, 2004, p. 68.

11 We can also speak of a difference to the likewise ”formal” Kunsthaus project in Graz, work of archi-tects Cook and Fournier, which is situated in an urbanistically defined setting and was built as a ”reaction” to the context - in this case, the histori-cist Central European part of town.

5-7. Saπa RandiÊ i Idis Turato: Muzej moderne isuvremene umjetnosti, Rijeka / Museum of modernand contemporary art, Rijeka, 2002.-

7

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 33

tor should, beside its social component,also have a symbolic component: it shouldbecome a spectacle in all its aspects -event-related and formal ones alike. Theidentity of the locality in New Zagreb isschizophrenically divided between highurbanity (aspiring to become a new citycentre) and an almost rural green zone ofLake Bundek (gradually losing its identity).Thus, it seems that this part of Zagreb can(and must) find its inspiration, as well as away of generating urbanity, in itself, i.e. inthe Museum building, in which respect itsposition is similar to that of Bilbao. Themuseum building is not trying to create a”place” with the help of traditional urban-ism or urban space according to ”humanmeasure”by filling in a void in the urbanplan, but seeks to levitate (for the buildingis striving upwards) above the terrain sur-face. We may say that the building muse-um, by means of its ”symbolism”, estab-lishes an entirely new urban relationship,defined by its ”scattered” monoliths. Thus,it is evident that the primary meaning of theZagreb Museum of Contemporary Art is inits appearance and its urban impact, whileits internal organisation is a result of mutu-al correspondence between form and con-tent rather than its principal generative ele-ment.

arhitekta Gheryja prilikom koncipiranjaMuzeja Guggenheim u Bilbaou. Ne zato πtobi formalno ta dva projekta imala iËeg za-jedniËkog, veÊ zbog toga πto operiraju vrlosliËnom problematikom - aktiviranjemmjesta kroz ”znakovitost” objekta. Za po-Ëetak, urbani kontekst industrijskog dijelaBilbaoa, baπ kao i urbana neodreenostovog dijela Novog Zagreba,11 vapi za nekomvrstom ”atraktora” iz kojeg bi se mogao po-Ëeti generirati neki novi, moæda zdravijiidentitet. Nadalje, takav bi atraktor osimsvoje socijalno-druπtvene komponente mo-rao imati i svoju simboliËnu komponentu,morao bi postati spektaklom u svim svojimvidovima - dogaajnim, kao i pojavnim (for-malnim). Identitet novozagrebaËke lokacijeπizofreno je podvojen izmeu visoke urba-nosti (pretendira biti novim centrom grada)i gotovo ruralne zelene zone (koja postupnogubi identitet) Bundeka. Stoga se Ëini da tajdio Zagreba inspiraciju, kao i naËin generi-ranja urbanosti, moæe (i mora) pronaÊi samu sebi odnosno kroz zgradu Muzeja, priËemu mu je pozicija nalik onoj u Bilbaou.Zgrada muzeja ne pokuπava unutar tradi-cionalnoga urbanizma stvoriti ”mjesto” ge-nerirajuÊi urbani prostor u ”mjerilu Ëovje-ka”, πto Êe reÊi popunjavanjem praznineurbanog plana, veÊ svojom distanciranoπÊu(zgrada se, naime, uzdiæe) pokuπava leviti-

34

8-9. Saπa RandiÊ i Idis Turato: Muzej moderne isuvremene umjetnosti, Rijeka / Museum of modernand contemporary art, Rijeka, 2002.-

8

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 34

rati nad plohom terena. Moæemo reÊi dazgrada muzeja svojom ”znakovitoπÊu”uspostavlja jedan posve nov odnos unutarurbanizma koji odreuju ”razbacani” mono-liti. Stoga je jasno da je primarno znaËenjezagrebaËkog Muzeja suvremene umjetnostiu njegovoj pojavnosti, kao i u njegovomurbanistiËkom djelovanju na zateËeni kon-tekst, a njegova unutarnja organizacija prijeje posljedica uzajamnog usklaivanja oblikai sadræaja negoli njegov glavni generativnielement.

Za razliku od zagrebaËkog, rijeËki Mu-zej moderne i suvremene umjetnosti operirau sasvim drugaËijoj kategoriji, a njegov pro-blematski pandan moæemo traæiti u proπi-renju Tate Modern Gallery u Londonu. Rje-πenju RandiÊa i Turata naroËito je koncep-tualno blisko natjeËajno rjeπenje RemaKoolhaasa za Tate Gallery.12 Taj projekt te-melji se na taktici sliËnoj Cedric Priceovomprojektu Thinkbelt u kojem on reanimira na-puπtenu infrastrukturu engleskog postindus-trijskog pejsaæa novim programom - univer-zitetom. Konceptualno polaziπte projektasastoji se od pojaËavanja postojeÊe struktu-re nizom infrastrukturnih povezivanja. Ko-munikacijski elementi - stepeniπta, pomiË-ne stepenice, dizala i rampe zguπnjavajuprostor vezama, stvarajuÊi onaj prijeko po-treban kritiËni naboj za promjenu u sadræaj-nom sklopu kroz otvorenost Ëitanja muzejakroz promjenljivost / viπeznaËnost rute. NasliËan naËin arhitekti RandiÊ i Turato pris-tupaju problemu rijeËkog muzeja. ”Ruta”,odnosno kretanje kroz muzej ovdje je pri-marni operativni model. Ulazni hol provu-Ëen je kao javni pasaæ od prizemlja zgradedo krova, gdje su smjeπteni biblioteka imuzejski kafiÊ. Time muzej od jedne zapra-vo popriliËno ekskluzivistiËko-elitistiËke,

Unlike the Zagreb museum, theMuseum of Modern and Contemporary artin Rijeka operates in an entirely differentcategory, while its counterpart in terms ofproblems should be sought in the TateModern Gallery in London. The contest so-lution of Rem Koolhaas for Tate Gallery wasconceptually especially close to that ofRandiÊ and Turato.12 The project is basedon the strategy similar to that of CedricPrice’s project Thinkbelt, in which he rean-imated an abandoned infrastructure in thepost-industrial English landscape with anew programme - a university. The concep-tual starting point of the project consisted ofenhancing the existing structure through aseries of infra-structural links. Elements ofcommunication -staircases, escalators, ele-vators, loading platforms -condense thespace through those links, creating thatindispensable critical tension for the changein the set of content through the opennessof reading the museum in terms of change-ability/ambiguity of the route. ArchitectsRandiÊ and Turato approached the issue ofthe Rijeka museum in a similar way. The”route”, that is, the way of moving aroundthe museum, has been the primary modelof operation. The entry hall is drawn like apublic passageway from the ground level ofthe building to the roof, where the libraryand the cafeteria are situated. In this way,the museum could be transformed from arather exclusivistic/elitistic, introvertedinstitution into the possible generator ofpublic events. The attempt at balancingbetween the ”mass-cultural” and the ”cul-tural/cult” in this project originates in a sortof ideological, or better operational platformof architects RandiÊ and Turato, whosegeneration was formed by the same spleen

35

t

11 Moæemo govoriti i o razlici u odnosu na takoer ”formalni” projekt Kunsthausa u Grazu arhitekata Cooka i Fourniera, koji je smjeπten u urbano defini-ranu sredinu, a pojavio se kao ”reakcija” na kon-tekst - u ovom sluËaju srednjoeuropski historicistiËki gradski dio.

12 Pobjedu na natjeËaju izvojevali su πvicarski arhitek-ti Herzog & De Meuron.

l

12 The contest was won by Swiss architects Herzog & De Meuron.

9

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 35

as the psycho-art-rock group Let 3 fromRijeka.13 The idea of democratising art,even though utopian, is very importanthere, since it coincides with the veryapproach of contemporary artists to artisticpractice and the position of art nowadays,especially in its attitude towards the ”mar-ket situation.”14 The art of today, especiallyif one views it in the context of internetcommunication, should be universally avai-lable. It is necessary that the museumshould cease to be an aseptic, self-suffi-cient box for exhibiting fossilized artefacts:it should become the place of encounterand exchange of information, impressions,and opinions, space that in some way pro-vokes or inspires artists to be active in it -in other words, it should primarily becomea living organism. It is far more important to”take art into the streets”than to conserveit. The traditional museum has the educa-tional and the normative function - that ofclassification and that of analysis; however,its role is now becoming more complexbecause of the process of transformation ofart itself. The museum should be a space ofrepresentation and study, but also of(re)contextualization and provocation. It isprecisely in this way that RandiÊ andTurato see their project for the MMSURijeka.

To use the words of Manuel De Landafrom the beginning of this text, the accu-mulation of historical material and its inter-action generates new combinations. Everyinvention uses an existing substance. Takenthat into account, the idea of the museumas a storehouse for historical memory, nomatter how anachronistic, epitomizes anexceptionally important materia prima15 -be it in its acceptance, denial, or criticism.Museums are places in which we actuallyquestion our own cultural and social values,at the same time generating culture andidentity for the future through the process ofmemory sedimentation. The way in whichthat memory is presented or, what is moreimportant, available, will directly determinethe intensity of its impact upon the future.It is precisely that component of presenta-tion from which we may and must expectmodernity and innovation, and the samegoes for the curator as the author of the col-lection and the architect as the author ofthe container receiving that collection. Themuseum’s architecture, realized through itsspatial organisation - understood as a formof availability and interpretation of the col-

introventirane institucije, postaje moguÊigenerator javnih dogaanja. Pokuπaj balan-siranja izmeu ”masovnog” i ”kulturnog/kultnog” u ovom projektu vuËe svoje korije-ne iz svojevrsne ideoloπke ili bolje reËeno izoperativne platforme arhitekata RandiÊa iTurata, generacijski formiranih istim spleen-om kao i rijeËka psycho-art-rock grupa Let3.13 Ideja demokratizacije umjetnosti, iakoutopistiËka, vrlo je vaæna zato πto koincidirasa samim pristupom suvremenih umjetnikau odnosu na danaπnju umjetniËku praksu,ali i s pozicijom umjetnosti danas, naroËitou njenom odnosu prema ”træiπnoj situaci-ji”.14 Umjetnost danas, osobito ako ju do-æivljavamo u kontekstu komunikacije inter-netom, treba biti opÊedostupna. Nuæno jeda muzej prestane biti aseptiËnom sebidovoljnom kutijom za izlaganje fosiliziranihumjetniËkih predmeta. On mora biti mjes-tom susreta, razmjene informacija, utisakai miπljenja, mora postati prostorom koji naneki naËin provocira ili inspirira umjetnikena djelovanje u njemu - dakle, prije svegamora biti jedan æivi organizam. Daleko jevaænije umjetnost ”izvesti na ulicu”, nego jukonzervirati. Tradicionalni muzej ima obra-zovnu i normativnu funkciju - klasifikacijskui analitiËku. Meutim, njegova uloga danaspostaje sve sloæenija uslijed procesa mijen-janja umjetnosti same. Muzej bi morao bitiprostor prezentiranja, studiranja, ali i(re)kontekstualiziranja i provokacije. Upravona takav naËin pokuπavaju reagirati RandiÊi Turato svojim projektom za MMSU Rijeka.

RijeËima Manuela De Landea s poËet-ka teksta, akumulacijom povijesnih materi-jala i njihovom interakcijom generiraju senove kombinacije. Svaka je invencija sas-tavljena od supstance postojeÊeg. Samimtim ideja muzeja kao skladiπta povijesnememorije, ma koliko anakrona ona bila,predstavlja neobiËno vaænu prima materi-ju15 - bilo kroz njeno prihvaÊanje, odbaciva-nje ili kritiku. Muzeji su mjesta na kojima, ubiti, istraæujemo naπe kulturne, kao i druπt-vene vrijednosti, ali isto tako generiramokulturu i identitet za buduÊnost kroz talo-æenje memorije. NaËin na koji je ta memo-rija prezentirana i joπ vaænije, u kolikoj jemjeri dostupna, izravno Êe odrediti i intenzi-tet njezinog utjecaja na buduÊnost. Upravokroz tu komponentu prezentacije moæemo imoramo oËekivati suvremenost i inovacijureagiranja i kustosa kao kreatora postave iarhitekta kao kreatora kontejnera koji tupostavu prihvaÊa. Arhitektura muzeja krozprostornu organizaciju muzeja - shvaÊenu

36

t

13 Suradnja izmeu RandiÊ&Turata i Let 3 pokazala sevrlo uspjeπnom od Babe do projekta Tvornice buke.

14 Ta je tema iscrpno problematizirana u izvrsnom tekstu BORISA GROYSA, Muzej u doba masovnih medija, u: »ovjek i prostor, 05-06, 2004., 47.-53.

15 AlkemiËarsku prvobitnu tvar.

l

13 The cooperation between RandiÊ&Turato and Let 3 proved very fruitful, from ”Baba”to the ”Factory of noise” project.

14 That topic was discussed in detail in an excellent text by BORIS GROYSA entitled ”Museum in the Ageof Mass Media,” trans. by Matthew Partridge, art, museum, media, Wednesday, May 05, 2004.

15 The alchemists’ primal substance.

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 36

kao oblik pristupaËnosti i tumaËenja zbirkete kroz njenu formalnu pojavnost kojudoæivljavamo kao oblik komunikacije -odaπiljanja poruke vaænosti muzeja kroznjenu znakovitost, odredit Êe sudbinu sameinstitucije muzeja. Konkretno, svojevrsnaekstrovertiranost arhitekture moæe uvelikepospjeπiti javnu percepciju institucije kojaboravi u njoj, uz sve pozitivne i negativnekonotacije koje nosi. Iz takve strategije nas-taje kurentni trend amblematskih zgradamuzeja poput one u Bilbaou ili Aliena uGrazu. Arhitektura suvremenog muzejauopÊe, pa tako i muzeja suvremene umjet-nosti, mora biti aktivan sudionik u æivotumuzeja, a ne samo njezina pasivna ljuska.»ak πtoviπe, ona mora preuzeti ulogu katal-izatora u procesu sudjelovanja umjetnosti uurbanom, javnom æivotu. Drugim rijeËima,ona mora integrirati umjetnost u æivot. Umaloj zemlji skromnog proraËuna za kultu-ru, poput Hrvatske, izgradnja dvaju muzejasuvremene umjetnosti prilika su, ali iogromna odgovornost, koje proizlaze izmijenjanja statusa i percepcije suvremeneumjetnosti, a time i kulture. t

lection, as well as in its formal appearance,which we experience as a form of commu-nication - and the emission of a messageabout the importance of the museum in itssignificance will determine the fate of thevery institution. Specifically, a sort of extro-verted architecture can largely enhance thepublic perception of an institution housed init, with all its positive and negative conno-tations. Such strategy generates the currenttrend of emblematic museum buildings likethose of Bilbao or Alien in Graz. The muse-um architecture of today, which includesthe architecture of museums of contempo-rary art, must be an active participant in itslife and not only its passive shell; moreover,it must take over the role of the catalyst inthe process of participation of art in urban,public life. In other words, it must integrateart into life. In a small country with a mod-est budget for culture, such as Croatia,building two museums of contemporary artsignifies an opportunity, but also a hugeresponsibility, resulting from a change inthe status and perception of contemporaryart, as well as culture in general. l

prijevod / translation: Marina Miladinov

37

≥ Alan KostrenËiÊ (Zagreb, 1968).Redoviti suradnik umjetniËkih Ëasopisa, au-tor nekoliko kratkih pripovijetki u Quorumui sinopsisa za kratki film “Flood”. Godine1977. osnovao biro “KostrenËiÊ & Krebel -Arhitekti”. »lan uredniπtva Ëasopisa »ovjeki prostor (2000-2002, 2006), glavni ured-nik Ëasopisa Arhitektura - Europan (2005.)

Alan KostrenËiÊ (Zagreb, 1968), writing re-gularly for several art magazines. Author ofthe short stories in Quorum magazine, andsynopsis for short movie “Flood”. In 1997founded “KostrenËiÊ & Krebel - Arhitekti”office. Member of the »ovjek i prostor edito-rial board (2000-2002, 2006), editor-in-chief of the Arhitektura -Europan (2005).

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 37