2-B Maro Adami Text

Maro Kardamitsi-Adami Director of the Neohellenic Architecture Archives, Benaki Museum, Athens ICAM 15, Paris, session 2 • 1st of June 2010 THE NEW ACROPOLIS MUSEUM The “New Museum”, why “New”? I would like to begin by making a brief reference to the history of the Museum of the Acropolis to allow those who are not familiar with it to have a more complete picture of the issue. The issue of protecting the antiquities is raised some time in 1834, when Athens was declared capital of the Greek State, following its liberation from the Turkish occupation. The first official proposal came in 1844 when K. Pittakis, the first Greek archeologist, requests permission for the erection of a museum on the eastern side of the Acropolis rock. Given this opportunity, Th. Hansen engages in the designs of a large building to be used as a museum in the Acropolis grounds, above the Odeon of Herodus Atticus which, unfortunately, was never implemented. Eventually, the Museum was built in the time span 1865-1874 based on designs by the Athenian architect Panagis Vrettos-Kalkos who had also participated in Friedrich Thiersch’s excavations on the Acropolis with his crew. The Museum was a 20x40 plain stone building designed to be in complete harmony with the ancient monuments that surrounded it. Soon enough, the space which is destined to host the rich findings that come to light on a daily basis will prove small and therefore, next to the first museum another smaller one is built, afterwards called the “Small Museum”. Then, in 1953, the “Small Museum” is demolished and the first museum is expanded based on the plans of the architect Professor Patroklos Karantinos. New rooms were then built while the old ones were modified, which meant that the original plan of the museum had completely changed. Nowadays, there are serious reasons that make the creation of a new museum absolutely necessary. Air pollution, indeed a plague of the 21st century, is the main reason why we should definitely transfer the Acropolis sculptures (the Parthenon frieze and pediments, the Karyatids from Erechtheion temple etc) to an indoor space, a sort of “protective bubble” in order to preserve them. Therefore, the inevitable need to remove the historical symbols which have been standing on the Acropolis for thousands of years has led to the creation of a New Museum which would not only roof all the exhibits and hidden treasures of the old museum, but also the masterpieces of sculpture which decorated the architecture of one of the most significant and valuable monuments of human kind, of the Parthenon. The importance of an International Architectural Competition lies in a number of factors among which perhaps the most significant one is the aim of the competition itself, in other words the building. Without intending to round the financial profit involved, which undoubtedly constitutes a most attractive lure, I do believe that the most significant incentive for participants is the Maro Kardamitsi-Adami • ICAM 15, 2010 • 2 honour awaiting the winner of the competition. As the ancient saying goes “many have hated money, no one has scorned glory”, and naturally, the honour of connecting one's name with the New Museum of the Acropolis is a great and invaluable privilege. The Acropolis of Athens is undoubtedly a unique monument for human kind, charged with cultural values and symbolisms that go beyond not just the Greek and European borders, but the western civilisation itself generating duties and expectations for all Greek people. It was mainly these expectations that led to the creation of the New Acropolis Museum. The press kept headlining the event incessantly, making reference to the great impression it would make to foreigners who would visit Athens in order to see the museum (I wonder why someone would visit a museum, to see the building or its exhibits), how beneficial it would be for the country itself etc. The hope for the return of the Elgin marbles is about to replace for the Greeks the “great idea” of the 19th century that expressed the goal of establishing a Greek state that would reach as far as Constantinople (Istanbul). We seem to forget that the reference point is the Sacred Rock itself, then follows the city- the “asty”, as it's called in ancient Greek- and last of all the museum. Maybe this is the mistake we make and the starting point for all the mishaps of the museum some decades ago. It seems to escape us that, museum buildings, however important, are not an end in themselves, but rather the shell of cultural goods. The need, therefore, to create a shell destined to protect the antiquities of Acropolis, has led to the declaration of four architectural competitions held in the period between 1977 until 2000, two national (in 1977 and in 1979) and two international ones (in 1989 and in 2000). Hundreds of architectural firms participated in the competitions and huge amounts were spent. The average participation cost for every architectural firm was estimated at around 20.000 €. Some particularly interesting ideas came up in the three fruitless open competitions. Perhaps it would be a good idea to organise an exhibition someday in order to present, if not all solutions, at least the best among them. Particularly during the third competition held in 1989, the first of the two international ones, 438 studies were submitted. This competition presents a rare particularity. Instead of one specific site for the construction of the Museum the organiser provided three and the participants could choose one of them or more. At the same time, participants were allowed to modify the development schedule, the distribution of functions as well as provide an alternative philosophy for the museum. The multiple variables were the main drawback of this competition and it was particularly difficult for the Jury to reach a decision. “The belief that the best study would automatically point to the best position (or that the best position would provide the best study) seems to be a modern way of fortune-telling” was the wise comment of Hans Hollein. One of the three sites proposed for the construction of the Museum was the “Makriyianni site”, where the Museum was eventually built, of a total area of 24,150 square meters, which was considered as already archaeologically examined and therefore clear for construction. The second site was a small hill almost opposite the Odeon of Herodes Atticus, of a total area of 25,895 square meters, which until today hasn't been archaeologically examined and therefore presented many constraints. The third site was the area of Koile on the west side of Filopappos Hill which also includes a semi-finished theatre, of a total area of 25,434 square meters. The designer would Maro Kardamitsi-Adami • ICAM 15, 2010 • 3 have to incorporate in his designs the remaining traces of carvings on the rock, as well as remains of street houses and other buildings. Despite the difficulties of this last case, I think that it offered one of the most interesting and sensible solutions in the sense that the building designed was integrated into the environment bringing out the surrounding area, while the low height (ground floor and first floor) compared to the level of the peripheral road, based on the specifications of the organiser, did not disturb at all the area. The president of the jury, the ever memorable Georgios Kandylis had already pointed out that “the selection of the Makriyianni site, among the most difficult and critical sites in Athens from an urban planning point of view would cause transport, technological, economic and mostly environmental problems. The large volume required by the New Museum is very hard to conciliate directly with the residential surroundings of uncertain quality and indirectly with Acropolis itself.” He added that, in the 30s, the same site was then proposed for the erection of the Courthouse, but the erection was cancelled as a result of a global reaction, due to the proposed large volume (in any way smaller than the New Museum). The same opinion was also shared by another member of the jury, Juri Platanov, whereas many of the participants, among them Abraham, expressed, in the reasoning for their solution, their concern on the Makriyianni site. Unfortunately, G. Kandylis was absent at the final assessment because of an accident (leg fracture) and finally the jury decided that Makriyianni site was the most appropriate for the construction of the New Museum. Naturally, this decision should have been taken before the competition and not after the submission of the studies. Based on this decision, the solutions that opted for other sites were rejected, even though they had received awards and the solution proposed by Manfredi Nicoletti and Lucio Pessarelli was eventually chosen. The museum was being built as a large inclined surface which, according to the architects, was conceived as an artificial geology where a well-cut plate opened an “eye” to Acropolis. This “eye” became known as the “Cyclop’s eye”. As expected, many objections were raised against the Jury by the contestants and finally the competition was cancelled by the Council of State which detected obvious irregularities. Anyway, the target of having the museum ready for the 1996 Olympic Games had by then been dropped, since Greece would not host the games. However, the 2004 Olympic Games were waiting round the corner. In the summer of 2000, a fourth competition – the second international one – was launched, this time with a pre-selection of designers. Twelve firms submitted

Load more