ADDITION TO THE

JEWISH MUSEUM BERLIN

JEWISH HISTORY

THROUGH METAPHOR

ARCHITECTURAL THEORIES + CONCEPTSJOSH MOLLMAN AUTUMN 2014

DANIEL LIBESKIND

1

INTRODUCTIONTHESIS

BACKGROUND

In his addition to the Jewish Museum Berlin, completed in 1999, Daniel Libeskind communicates the displacement and disassociation of the Jewish people in Germa-ny through his use of metaphor, fragmentation, void, and disorientation.

Daniel Libeskind is a Polish-American architect who has been practicing since com-pleting his education in the 1970s. His works are most concentrated in Europe and more recently the United States, and many are related to Jewish culture and history (“Daniel Libeskind” 2014).

1

2

INTRODUCTIONPHILOSOPHY

Libeskind believes in architecture as a form of communication:

“Architectural space, as I see it, has to be part of the story it’s trying to com-municate. It’s not just a container to be filled; it’s part of the symbolism of the building. And the symbol transports you beyond the material reality and, in ar-chitecture, toward that which language itself cannot fully articulate” (Quoted in Libeskind & Goldberger, 2008).

As a deconstructivist, Libeskind often uses explicit metaphors of fragmentation in his works, especially in regards to historical events like wars and the Holocaust.

“For me, a building is a medium to tell a story. It’s not only about itself” (Quoted in Libeskind & Goldberger, 2008).

2

3

CASE STUDYOVERVIEW

The addition to the Jewish Museum Berlin, completed in 1999, “exhibits the social, political and cultural history of the Jews in Germany from the 4th century to the pres-ent” (“The Libeskind Building”). Libeskind himself states the three main idea which formed the foundation of the museum:

“First, the impossibility of understanding the history of Berlin without un-derstanding the enormous intellectual, economic, and cultural contribution made by its Jewish citizens; second the necessity to integrate the meaning of the Holocaust, both physically and spiritually, into the consciousness and memory of the city of Berlin; third, that only though acknowledging and incorporating this erasure and void of Berlin’s Jewish life can the his-tory of Berlin and Europe have a human future”

(Quoted in Libeskind & Goldberger, 2008).

“During the design process, the architect Daniel Libeskind plot-ted the addresses of prominent Jewish and German citizens on a map of pre-war Berlin and joined the points to form an “irrational and invisible matrix” on which he based the language of form, the geometry and shape of the building” (The Libeskind Building).

3

4

CASE STUDYCONCEPT

The building’s overall composition is that of a distorted Star of David, with a straight “void” running through the length of the building. Heavy with symbolism and meta-phor, the building uses fragmentation, void, and disorientation to reflect the three aforementioned aspects of Jewish history.

4

5 6

“Void”

CASE STUDYEXTERIOR

The most obvious element of the building’s exterior is the fragmented Star of David from which the plan is derived. This is combined with the contrast of the straight line of the void, which can be seen from above in the form of roof elements. Libeskind states, “One is a straight line, but broken into many fragments, the other is a tortu-ous line, but continuing indefinitely” (Quoted in “The Libeskind Building”).

The theme of fragmentation can be seen in the overall “tortuous” lines of the plan, but also in the window placement. Libes-kind plotted the addresses of Jewish citi-zens on a pre-war map of Berlin and used the matrices to determine the form of the windows—a less obvious but no less pow-erful metaphor. The theme can also be seen in the lack of right angles or symme-try in almost any part of the building.

7

8

5

6

CASE STUDYEXTERIOR (CONT.)

While the voids of the interior cannot be seen as clearly from the exterior, the frag-mented form still creates voids within its own form. Additionally, there is an extra void building which serves as a Holocaust memorial and stands completely empty, which Libeskind describes as a “voided void” (Quoted in Libeskind & Goldberger, 2008).

The theme of disorientation is also less clear at the exterior level, but the general lack of hierarchical structures or a clear path to or from the addition adds to the theme. The contrast between the old baroque structure and the newer addition may also leave visitors confused.

9 10

7

CASE STUDYINTERIOR 1/2

The main metaphor of the interior of the museum is the void metaphor. Libeskind states that the straight line void cutting through the museum “is the space of Berlin, because it refers to that which can never be exhibited when it comes to Jewish Ber-lin history. Humanity reduced to ashes” (Quoted in Libeskind 1999). The space is organized in such an unavoidable way that “visitors must cross one of the 60 bridg-es that open onto this void” (“The Libeskind Building”).

In addition to the void, the fragmentation of the building is clear in the jagged win-dows and beams crisscrossing above the display spaces.

11 12 13

14

8

CASE STUDYINTERIOR 2/2

The other main metaphor of the building’s interior is the split entry route, where visitors are faced with choices mirroring the choices of Jews during the Holocaust:

“The descent leads to three underground axial routes, each of which tells a different story. The first, and longest, traces a path leading to the Stair of Continuity, then up to and through the exhibition spaces of the museum, emphasizing the continuum of history. The second leads out of the building and into the Garden of Exile and Emigration, remembering those who were forced to leave Berlin. The third leads to a dead end — the Holocaust Void.” (“The Libeskind Building”)

15

16

9

CASE STUDYGARDEN OF EXILE

First and foremost, the garden, which visitors move through as they exit the muse-um, “represents an attempt to completely disorient the visitor. It represents a ship-wreck of history” (Libeskind 1999). Libeskind achieves this disorientation by tilting the floor. This is especially effective considering the garden appears to be the only structure in the museum to be composed on a grid system of right angles.

Additionally, the vegetation is placed on top of the structural elements, leaving the earth “remote inside concrete columns, roots above, hard ground below, and vegetation inter-twined above – out of reach” (Libes-kind 1999). This will also serve to disorient a visitor, whose usual con-ception of a garden features plants rooted in the ground.

17 18

19

10

CASE STUDYSUMMARY

Daniel Libeskind uses metaphor, fragmentation, void, and disorientation in ways described in the table below to communicate the suffering of the Jewish people in and out of Berlin.

•Star of David•Idea of void•Window forms from

map lines

•3 paths of Jews•Dead ends•Unavoidability of void

•“Shipwreck of his-tory”

•Earth “out of reach”

DIS

ORIE

NTA

TION

EXTERIOR

•Star of David, distort-ed

•Irregular window forms

•Lack of right angles

•Lack of fragmenta-tion (only orthogo-nal grid in building)

•Garden pushed to top of columns

•Holocaust Tower, “voided void”

•Empty space be-tween columns

•“Tombstones” are anonymous

•Irregular form•Lack of hierarchy•Contrast between old

museum and addi-tion

•Illusion of regulari-ty, structure

•Tilted floor and sculptural forms

•Plants out of reach, sight

VOID

FRAG

MEN

TATI

ONM

ETAP

HOR

INTERIOR GARDEN

•No straight paths•Chaotic beam place-

ment•Void literally cuts

through interior

•Not heated or air-conditioned

•Lack of displays•Span all floors

•3 paths at museum entrance cause con-fusion

•Dead ends

11

CONCLUSIONDaniel Libeskind’s addition to the Jewish Museum Berlin utilizes symbolism and metaphor, including fragmentation, void, and disorientation, in order to create a more substantial museum experience for the visitor. Rather than presenting infor-mation as museums often do, Libeskind’s Jewish Museum Berlin uses these effects to communicate the aspects of Jewish history, especially the Holocaust, which can-not be expressed in only words.

20

12

TEXT REFERENCESCurtis, W. (1996). Modern Architecture Since 1900 (3rd ed.). London: Phaidon.Daniel Libeskind. (2014). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved fromhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/ topic/914364/Daniel-LibeskindDaniel Libeskind: Welcome to the 21st century [Video file]. (1999). In Films On Demand. Retrieved November 9, 2014, from http://digital.films.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=17906&xtid=10500Libeskind, D. (1999). Jewish Museum, Berlin: Architect, Daniel Libeskind. Amsterdam: G & B Arts Internation- al.Libeskind, D., & Goldberger, P. (2008). Counterpoint: Daniel Libeskind in conversation with Paul Goldberger. New York: Monacelli Press.The Libeskind Building. (n.d.). Retrieved November 9, 2014, from http://www.jmberlin.de/main/ EN/04-About-The-Museum/01-Architecture/01-libeskind-Building.php

“Architecture is not a limited field, even though many practice it as such. It affects everyone; it is centrally positioned, so consequently it is part of film, language, the visual and not visu-al world. The visible art of architecture makes

us aware of that which is not visible.”

Daniel Libeskind (Quoted in Libeskind 1999).

13

IMAGE REFERENCESCover: Bitter Bredt. Facade, Window Detail [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://daniel-libes-

kind.com/projects1. Guenter Schneider. Aerial View 2 [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://daniel-libeskind.com/

projects2. Michele Nastesi. Skyline View [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://daniel-libeskind.com/

projects3. Studio Daniel Libeskind. Star Plan [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://daniel-libeskind.

com/projects4. Building Butler. Model [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://www.buildingbutler.com/bd/

Daniel-Libeskind/Berlin/Jewish-Museum/37525. Studio Daniel Libeskind. Early Sketch [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://www.inexhibit.

com/case-studies/daniel-libeskind-jewish-museum-berlin/6. Studio Daniel Libeskind. Untitled [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://www.e-architect.

co.uk/berlin/jewish-museum-berlin-academy7. Studio Daniel Libeskind. From Counterpoint: Daniel Libeskind in conversation with Paul Goldberger (p. 25) by D.

Libeskind and P. Goldberger, 2008, New York, Monacelli Press.8. Bitter Bredt. Paul Celan Courtyard [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://daniel-libeskind.

com/projects9. Bitter Bredt. Holocaust Tower (left) and Garden of Exile (c) [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from:

http://daniel-libeskind.com/projects10. Bitter Bredt. Holocaust Tower [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://daniel-libeskind.com/

projects11. Torsten Seidel. JMB Void [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://daniel-libeskind.com/proj-

ects12. Bitter Bredt. The Void [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://daniel-libeskind.com/projects13. Bitter Bredt. Main Staircase with Structural Beams [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://

daniel-libeskind.com/projects14. Michele Nastesi. Windows as part of Star of David Matrix [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from:

http://daniel-libeskind.com/projects15. Three Axes [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://aformulatedphrase.com/category/muse-

ums/16. Michele Nastesi. Stair [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://daniel-libeskind.com/projects17. Studio Daniel Libeskind. From Counterpoint: Daniel Libeskind in conversation with Paul Goldberger (p. 37) by

D. Libeskind and P. Goldberger, 2008, New York, Monacelli Press.18. Jens Ziehe. Garden of Exile, Jewish Museum Berlin [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://

www.jmberlin.de/main/EN/04-About-The-Museum/01-Architecture/01-libeskind-Building.php19. Michele Nastesi. Exterior View, Garden of Exile [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://dan-

iel-libeskind.com/projects20. Bitter Bredt. Void [Photograph], Retrieved November 9, 2014 from: http://daniel-libeskind.com/projects