Maro Kardamitsi-Adami Director of the Neohellenic Architecture Archives, Benaki Museum,

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 (). 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 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 plans and models. The project requirements concerning the building were the following: «a) a pioneer proposal to introduce the local excavations into the museum, so that the architectural findings become part of the exhibition, b) use of natural light and creation of an open-air sensation, since the majority of the exhibits were placed in open air during antiquity , c) a balanced relation between the Museum’s architecture and the ancient monuments of the Acropolis Rock, d) satisfactory introduction of the New Museum into its direct and larger urban environment, e) possibility given to the visitor to observe at the same time the sculptures of Parthenon inside the New Museum and the Parthenon itself on the Acropolis. The program aimed at the display of the metopes, the frieze and the gables of Parthenon in their entirety, with the “marbles” of Acropolis together with those that are today displayed at the British Museum. Maro Kardamitsi-Adami • ICAM 15, 2010 • 4

However, as aforementioned, already since the third competition, a large number of architects and city planners had expressed doubts and objections as to the suitability of the specific site. They argued that the Makriyianni site was totally inappropriate for the new building. It is obvious, even to the most good-faith observer, that at least a more-than-double the space was needed to respond to the size and demands of the New Museum. However, the jury insisted on building in this site and undoubtedly bears a huge responsibility. I would say that the site was hastily selected, if not circumstantially, and in any case not as a result of serious and responsible thinking. During the excavations that were then carried out, “a unique for Athens large ancient site, with densely preserved antiquities at adequate height”, as well as the remains of a Byzantine settlement were discovered, which proved the expansion of the city also towards the Acropolis. “If the site was owned by a private individual”, said archaeologist V. Petrakos,… “it would be expropriated in order to save the antiquities”. The people in charge that weighed up the data disregarded this option. However, some Greek architectural firms, while they had been selected to participate to the last restricted competition, have, to their credit, recalled their participation, after having studied the proposed development schedule, because they thought it was impossible to “fit” it into the specific site, without having a direct impact on the excavations and the building’s size and therefore without impairing the general image of the urban fabric. I think that they were proven right. The competition moved on. The proposals of the competing parties were examined in September 2001 by the evaluation committee. Following an analytical study and long discussions, the committee reached a unanimous decision on the first, the second and the third prize; it has also proposed the award of two more special distinctions, after having recognised their originality. The first prize was awarded to the Swiss Bernard Tschumi in collaboration with the Greek Michalis Photiadis, the second to Daniel Libeskind and Dim. and L. Potiropoulos and the third to the architectural firm of Α. Tobazi, G. Theodosiou and Ch. Telioni; the special distinctions were awarded to Ahrends Burton and Koralek and Arata Isozaki and associates, on the one hand, and Mete sysm SA Technical Application Design S.A. on the other. This time the aim was to have the building ready for the 2004 Olympic Games. Since the beginning, the New Museum was confronted with reactions and doubts that grew over time. The first reactions came from some groups of archaeologists following the important discoveries during the excavations that preceded the foundation works. Then, the implementation of the project continued. As expected, the project had not been completed in 2004. In the turmoil of the Olympic Games works, the New Museum was temporarily put aside for a while. In the meantime, the building of Tschumi–Photiadis was being erected triggering various comments. Long discussions were given a boost in June 2007 by the news that a residential building on Dionysiou Areopagitou Street, situated in front of the New Museum in the larger street block, was going to be demolished, as it blocked the view of the Sacred Rock from the coffee shop of the New Acropolis Museum. It is one of the most beautiful residential buildings in Athens and a prime example of art-deco architecture of the city, the work of the architect Vassilis Kouremenos, graduate of École des Beaux-Arts and academician. It should be noted that this residential building had been listed by the Ministry of Culture and its preservation was a prerequisite of the architectural competitions. Eventually, by decision of the Council of State in Maro Kardamitsi-Adami • ICAM 15, 2010 • 5

2009, the residential building was demolished. However, in the meantime, many demonstrations took place in and outside the country and revealed another, much more serious problem. From the Greek side, academicians, professors in higher education, the Union of Architects (SADAS), the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE), the Greek department of ICOMOS, the country's Schools of Architecture, a large number of architects, archaeologists, people from different sectors, as well as many simple citizens have contributed to the effort for the preservation of the residential building. It was an event without precedent in this country. Through this effort to preserve the residential building of V. Kouremenos, many architects had the chance to publicly express their opinion on the museum and its architecture. There are, of course, defenders of the opposite point of view, but they are not that many. The residential building of V. Kouremenos opened Pandora’s box and now the issue was the quality of the museum itself and its star-architect. It is worth noting that the Press, as well as Mr. Tschumi himself, have barely or not at all mentioned his collaborator M. Photiadis, which apparently may have suited himself as well. The latter has started communicating through the Press after the inauguration of the New Museum. During an open discussion on the issue of “public building in the metropolitan urban site” in the Ministry of Culture in 2007 , the Swiss star-architect, having expressed his position on the dialogue between museum-city by reference to the museums of Abu Dhabi, Bilbao, Louvre and the Metropolitan Museum of New York, he underlined the difference between museums that start out as collections of works and museums that start out without having the specific collection that would justify their existence. After providing an analysis of the rationale of the study, undoubtedly a respectable study whether one supports it or not (it is generally easier to agree with the theoretical analysis, rather than with its practical application), he pointed out that the New Acropolis Museum is not comparable nor similar to any other museum in the world whose aim is to exhibit either its contents or itself; he added that it is the only one that involves interaction, that offers a view to what it contains (the visitor can see Acropolis from the museum) and that it is the first museum to assume this particular role. He ended up saying with a certain modesty that, in the Middle Ages, cathedrals were usually constructed in the centre of urban areas, but then a piazza, an open area was constructed around them, so that everyone could observe the church. This last remark eventually received the answer-question that we would have to wait and see if the New Museum would be a cathedral or not. Moreover, what was mainly commented upon is the “conversation” between the New Museum and Acropolis itself. The logic of the synthetic study of Tschumi–Photiadis is that the Acropolis provides the Museum with visitors and that the Museum justifies its existence through the viewing contact with Parthenon. This direct relation is the advantage of the New Museum. It was said that the dialogue of the New Museum with the Sacred Rock is nothing but a comparison of volumes. A bombastic, imprudent, disrespectful “cry” of the new building, which invites the viewer, who is not a fixed point of the complete system but a mobile centre of gravity, to choose... Maro Kardamitsi-Adami • ICAM 15, 2010 • 6

It was said that the New Museum, with its huge volume (a result of both the overblown development scheme and the chosen solution) does not seem to fit into the available space and that at the same time it seems as if the surrounding neighbourhood is being crushed under its weight. “Because the scale in architecture is a very relative concept. It is not in any way an absolute size. The building is every time related to the environment into which it is situated, as well as to what it is going to receive and host. It is obvious that the synthetic opinion of the building's architects does not take into account the scale of the city and of the neighbouring monuments, the climatic conditions, the character of the area. […] The New Museum provocatively ignores everything that exists around it, practically does not take into account the environment into which it is built, it disdains the city itself, does not need any landscape, contents itself in the self-reference and the alibi offered by the important exhibits that it hosts. But there is an important lesson to be drawn from our saying ‘all in good measure’” (T. Papaioannou, NTUA professor). “The boasting architecture of the New Acropolis Museum occupies the space and the history, full in volume but ignorant of the essence of the past which it will profanely host” (Eleni Protaliou, NTUA professor). The expressions “cultivate refinement” and “cultivate knowledge”, contained in the phrase “we cultivate refinement without extravagance and knowledge without softness, wealth we employ more for use rather than for show”, used by Pericles in 431 B.C. in his Funeral Oration, the speech-symbol of the Athenian democracy that gave birth to the Parthenon, as recorded by Thucydides, do not seem to have made an impact to the creators of the New Museum. “The contemporary ‘Lower Parthenon’ is a severe crime – and I easily and consciously call it so – since it metaphorically and literally imitates, with its glass cage, the dimensions, the orientation etc. of the upper Parthenon”, says UTA professor, Antonis Antoniadis, when he describes the New Museum as an “example of immorality, destruction and arrogance”. The ultimate negative criticism came from the article “The New Acropolis Museum: banal, sloppy, badly detailed sophistry”, by Alexandra Stara, in June 2009 last issue of Architectural Review, whereas the issue 6-2007 includes the project in the Architectural Technology section and not the Design Section. Finally, I think that the most vivid criticism was made by a blogger known as “pitsirikos” who wrote this: “How nice that the New Museum is so ugly, otherwise it would hinder the beauty of the Acropolis”. In contrast with the negative opinions, some of which I mentioned before, the defenders of this solution refer to the ruptures required by the “haute architecture”. “The New Acropolis Museum, despite the criticism, emerges dynamically from the misery of the post-war modern city with clarity, simplicity of form and internal intensity based on movement… Athens desperately needs something like that” (G. Aisopos, assistant professor at the University of Patras, collaborator of the architectural firm of Tschumi). “We can think of the New Museum as a sort of intermediation between the ancient monument and the disregarded side of the modern city. If anyone takes an ‘aerial look’ at the new building, he would identify its organization at three levels, each of which has its own symbolic geometric layout and construction and brings out the rest of the museum’s characteristics: precision of construction, horizontal highlighting of the frame, priority of movement and of the surrounding environment” (G. Tzirtzilakis, assistant professor at the Architectural Department of the University of Thessaly). Maro Kardamitsi-Adami • ICAM 15, 2010 • 7

From an architectural point of view the completion of the Museum reveals an “intelligent shell which has taken into consideration the conditions of the contest against the monuments of the Sacred Rock, as well as the idiomatic characteristics of the noisy and anonymous building mass of the Greek capital” (A. Giakoumakatos, deputy professor at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki). Among many articles that were published before the inauguration of the New Museum and which I have collected driven by my obsession with architecture and archiving (some might have of course slipped my attention), I have chosen to present only those written by architects. It is not my intention to my personal view on this question, but however hard I try, I cannot be totally impartial; the three positive comments that I have included are the only positive ones I found, whereas I had to choose among the negative comments. It is obvious that the latter start with the ideological background of the New Museum as well as of the Sacred Rock and proceed to the criticism of the building. On the contrary, its defenders ignore or give lesser importance to it. It is an interesting fact, that most of the archaeologists’ articles defending the New Museum focused at its contents and not the “shell”. Almost the same happened before and just after its inauguration, in June 2009. The following are some newspapers titles: “The vision, the history, the people, the achievement: a big Museum which was created to present at the highest specifications the masterpieces of the Golden Age of Pericles to the whole humanity”, “Live your myth”, “Ready after 34 years”, “Our museum: impressive views of the new jewel of Athens”, “Acropolis Museum. The kind of optimism Greeks need in bad times”, “The jewel of Athens opens tonight its gates”, “Works of ancient and contemporary pride”, “A national bet has been won”, “A welcome to the New Acropolis Museum”, etc. At the same time, the issue of the return of the Parthenon marbles to Greece is back on the international map. Thanks to articles on the return of the sculptures in US newspapers “Philadelphia Inquirer”, “Los Angeles Times” and “New York Times”, in the European newspapers “London Daily News”, “Spiegel”, “Le Figaro” as well as the Chinese news agency “Xinhua”, the issue was put back on the agenda. But for how long? Louvre, Munich, Vienna, Copenhagen, Würzburg and the Vatican have fragments of the Parthenon’s metopes and frieze; the British Museum has 56 of the 97 stones of the frieze, 15 of the 64 metopes, 19 of the 28 figures in the gables and one of the 6 caryatides, as well as architectural parts of the temple of Athena Nike and Erechthion. However, on the occasion of the inauguration of the New Museum, fragments have been returned either under the form of a long-term loan or as a donation from Heidelberg, Palermo, Sweden and Rome. But this hasn't stopped the veteran English journalist of the “Guardian”, Simon Jenkins, who supported and still indirectly supports the return of the Elgin marbles, from writing, after his visit to the New Acropolis Museum in October 2009, that “the absence of the London panels is undeniably painful” but that the new building is “is big and brutal, like something flown in overnight from Chicago”, “like the police headquarters of a banana republic”. It “screams the supremacy of Big Modernism”, “it is the worst case of architectural egotism, of I can do anything bigger than you”. He added that “they put their cause in the hands of archaeologists and architects – stripping it of all passion” and this weakens the request for the return the Parthenon sculptures. Yan Lepkowski wrote that after the impatience that he felt when he first saw the Maro Kardamitsi-Adami • ICAM 15, 2010 • 8

museum; his excitement vanished when he walked through the entrance. The reason was that he discovered a “building that shows the least respect to the surrounding area, the only area preserved in Athens, dating from the 10th century.” Anyway, “a museum stuck between buildings on an ancient patchwork is better than a museum built in the middle of nowhere”. • a museum full of “plaster replicas” that scratch old wounds is the ultimate reminder that some people owe you, whereas you do not owe anyone • a museum-ark should be worshipped independently for its contents and not for its perishable shell, regardless of the gold and ivory spent for its erection (Dim. Philippidis, NTUA assistant professor). Whether we like it or not, the New Acropolis Museum is based on one single ideology. The most important part of the new museum is its exhibits. The museum is great because its contents are great and unique. That is something which might not have been perfectly clear to its creators, who seem to have been dazzled by the gold-dust of the Acropolis star and believed that the Museum is not just a mirror reflecting its light, but that the museum itself or even the architects themselves are stars. In the end, it seems normal; this has also been the case for so many who haven’t had to compete with such an awe-inspiring situation. So, let’s not be very strict, the star system is the emblem of our times. Why not in architecture as well? It’s just that the contemporary stars are based on modern technology and when the switch is turned off or the plug is pulled out, the lights go off. If the star is not self-luminous, it loses its brightness.