THE CULTURAL IMPACT OF

CONTEMPORARY MUSEUM
ARCHITECTURE
CASE STUDY – GUGGENHEIM BILBAO MUSEUM

"Every great architect

is –necessarily – a
great poet. He must be
a great original interpreter
of his time, his day, his age.”

Frank Lloyd Wright (2002)

Introduction
The aim of this essay is to study the experience produced by the architectural
settings of art museums that impact how visitors assimilate to works of art and
space. I would like to claim that recently, there has been shifts in museology and
these changes have shaped museum architecture and have transformed the
position of the spectators, from being passive and receiving information to being
active. However, there is still a long way to go for an art museum where,
architects, clients, museum boards and curators can have an influence over the
construction of its space.

This paper won’t deal with examining art spaces from an aesthetic perspective
however it will try to tackle the visitor experience from multiple interrelated
contexts, which are fundamental to museum design. In the studied articles and
research papers two main opponent ideas define the attitude towards museum

 
Figure I
Renzo Piano, Beyeler Museum, Basel, Switzerland, 1997
architecture, generally advocating one of two museum “starchitects,” Renzo Piano
and Frank Gehry. These two architects are equally idolized personalities of the
architecture world, but they each represent entirely different opinions and
manners when it comes to museum design. On one hand, Renzo Piano is
“overwhelmingly nonmonumental”1, his architecture is characterized by simplicity
and tranquil atmosphere in order to enhance the purpose of the building and the
artwork exhibited. On the other hand, Frank Gehry’s design especially in the case
of Guggenheim Bilbao is spectacular, overwhelming and very heavy, a
monumental piece of art on it’s own. In the essay I will focus on the latter since it
brought the museum experience on to a whole new level and emphasized a very
important dialogue on relations between space, art and spectator and how do
they influence one another.

Visitor Experience

Nowadays “architects are proving that art and architecture can not only coexist,
they can engage in a lively creative dialogue, one that ups the cultural ante for
both.” 2 The relationship between architecture and art defines the frame and
creative freedom of museum design. Frame, because architecture is an applied art
form therefore, it has to meet first and foremost the requirements of the
institution and its fiduciaries themselves and what they represent, as Karl Friedrich
Schinkel3 said, civic buildings must “delight and serve.”4

The main function of the museum is displaying art and creating audience. The
aforementioned is a package deal; one without the other has no purpose. “..but there
is one place where multiplicity is collected, united, and this place is not the author, as
we have hitherto said it was, but the reader… we know that to restore to writing its

                                                        
1
Andrew McClellan. ‘Architecture’, in The Art Museum: From Boullée to Bilbao (Berkely: University of
California Press, 2008) pp. 53-106 (p. 94)
2
Nicolai Ouroussoff, “Art for Architecture’s Sake,” Los Angeles Times, March 31, 2002, [accessed March 10,
2014] http://articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/31/entertainment/ca-nicolai31
3 (1781-1841) German architect and painter. Architect of Altes Museum, Berlin
4
A. McClellan. ‘Architecture’, in The Art Museum: From Boullée to Bilbao (Berkely: University of California
Press, 2008) pp. 53-106 (p. 103)
future, we must reverse its myth: the
birth of the reader must be ransomed by
the death of the Author.” - Barthes, The
Death of the Author5

Throughout history the focus of

attention has always been fluctuating
between these two factors. In this
chapter I will concentrate on the tasks
of a museum as an institution and as a
Figure II
building from the spectator’s point of John Leech, Substance and Shadow,
Punch magazine, 1843
view. I am looking for answers to
questions like, why do people go to museums or what will stick with them after a
visit.

It is necessary to point out that there is no such a thing as a typical visitor. Visitors
have different expectations, tastes, knowledge, backgrounds et cetera. Granted
that the museum is an impartial and calm refuge from everyday life, served on a
silver platter by insightful, educated
professionals; the visitor consequently
could be considered as a silent partner
volunteered to be a passive participant in
this cautiously planned ritual.6 In order
to enhance the divine atmosphere of the
Figure III
Thomas Struth, Pergamon Museum 1, museum and the art objects themselves
Berlin, 2001 the designers will create detached public
 
and private spaces that would allow highlighting artworks, events and facilities
within the museum. In theory, the visitors have to accept the order since it is
presented by the expertise and the objects displayed are acknowledged as work of

                                                        
5
Roland Barthes, The Death of the Author, (Source: UbuWeb Papers) accessed March 10, 2014
http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf
6
C. Duncan ‘The Art Museum as Ritual’, in Civilizing Rituals: Inside public art museums (London & New York:
Routledge, 1995), pp. 7-20
art. Accordingly the institution function in this context would be to collect unique
and high value artifacts; to preserve them for generations to come and to study
their importance.

Traditionally the museum should be a place of “templelike tranquility”7 and refuge

where people would go to escape the miseries of everyday life, just like going to
church, going to museum habitually meant to have the notion of going to a sacred

Figure IV
Thomas Struth, San Zaccaria, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
New York, 1995

place requiring silence and respect. Although, one shouldn’t assume that all of the
museum-visitors are already committed believers and connoisseurs of art. “The
expectations and levels of prior knowledge and experience which visitors bring
with them on a museum visit varies more and more in range and depth. There is no
such a thing, as typical visitor the museum has to cater for increasingly
fragmented publics who want to learn and do different things at different
                                                        
7
Andrew McClellan. ‘Architecture’, in The Art Museum: From Boullée to Bilbao (Berkely: University of
California Press, 2008) pp. 53-106 (p. 94)
speeds.”8

Therefore, it is necessary to emphasize that museums have a missionary role to

educate, to form people’s opinions, to widen their knowledge and mind. For this
purpose, institutions create social events and places for instance, discussions,
guided tours, shops and cafes. These are all factors that an architect must take
into account.

“By the later twentieth century, however, a much greater range and diversity of
peoples were traveling everywhere, relatively readily. They had informed and specific
interests or were open to general ideas about art from any time and space. Krens was
clearer than most about what these audiences wanted: ‘a theme park with four
attractions: good architecture, a good permanent collection, prime and secondary
exhibitions, and amenities such as shops and restaurants’.”9

To summarise, in a museum visitor can experience relaxation and simultaneously

the notion of intellectual and emotional enlightenment. It is interesting that the
mentioned experiences could be paradoxical, but thanks to the additional
recreational activities and soothing atmosphere, they can both be experienced at
the same time giving the museum its unique communal charisma.

Social and Urban Functions

Even today when people are used to look at images every second of everyday, even
then our brain is not evolved enough to remember every artwork we see in a
museum. Thus the museum’s purpose is not to educate on spot but rather to
“envelope by a mood, an ambience, a scene” 10 in order to arouse interest in art in
general or in an artist, so that the spectators would further educate themselves
and maybe even inspire them to visit a periodic exhibition more specific to the
                                                        
8
Philip Wright, ’The Quality of Visitors’s Experiences in Art Museums’, in The New Museology ed. Peter Vergo,
(Reaktion Books, London, 1989) pp. 119-149 (p.119)
9
Terry Smith, The architecture of aftermath (Chicago ; London : University of Chicago Press, 2006), p. 21
10
Andrew McClellan. ‘Architecture’, in The Art Museum: From Boullée to Bilbao (Berkely: University of
California Press, 2008) pp. 53-106 (p. 55)
subject that sparked one interest. The aesthetics of the building can play a major
role in attracting audiences and reinforcing the positive experience of a museum
visit.

Nevertheless, the museum architect not only held accountable by the public but
museum experts, museum board members and any entrepreneur who has
investments in the museum project bring different priorities to the subject matter.
Moreover, if it is the case that these
expectations contradict each other then, the
architect can resolve it by dissociating the
interior from the exterior. According to
McClellan, while museums façades has
changed dramatically, the white cube
archetype established by New York’s
Figure V
Museum of Modern Art is considered an MoMA, New York, building interior
adequate architectural solution even today.11
Hence, while inside the walls functionality and curatorial aspects prevails, the
external design is only limited by the fantasy of the architecture and by
circumstances beyond control. So even, the building itself can become a fully
independent entity separated from the interior, thus creating a bridge between the
outside world and the
artistic concept living
inside the galleries walls.

Figure VI
Y. Taniguchi, MoMA New York, Courtyard, 2006
                                                        
11
Andrew McClellan. ‘Architecture’, in The Art Museum: From Boullée to Bilbao (Berkely: University of
California Press, 2008) pp. 71-78. 
Case Study -The Guggenheim Bilbao Museum

“art can be placed within the places without being

dictated by square walls… the building is so
strong that it frees the artwork.”
- Karen Meyerhoff 12

Figure VII
Frank O. Gehry, Guggenheim Bilbao Museum, Bilbao, Spain (1992-1997)

The case study will examine the architectural masterpiece, the Guggenheim Bilbao
Museum on how it affected contemporary museums’ architecture and the
routines or attitudes of museumgoers.
In the early 1990’s, the city of Bilbao, Spain, was challenged by the task of
developing from an industrial city into a modern flourishing industry based
community. Several new urban revitalization projects were already on the way;

                                                        
12
Victoria Newhouse, Towards a New Museum (New York : Monacelli Press, 1998.) p. 254
 
therefore the Basque Administration thought that a new museum would be the
coronation of the city’s revival. Hence, in 1991 the Basque authorities approached
the Salomon R. Guggenheim Foundation with the proposal to build a new addition
to the Guggenheim Museum network. Frank O. Gehry won the competition to
produce the conceptual design for the new building. 13

 
Figure VIII
Aerial view of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, 2012
 
The Guggenheim Bilbao Museum has many admirers and much opposition at the
same time but no one calls into question the significance of it. The uniqueness of
the museum stems from multiple facts. Firstly, it is necessary to point out that the
museum was built in the postindustrial Basque city of Bilbao. When the museum
construction started, the city was still neglected and overflowed by bad
neighborhoods and industrial wastelands like the site, which later would house
one of the greatest buildings of the twentieth century. In addition, providing that
Bilbao is far away from the two most important touristic attractions in Spain,
Barcelona and Madrid, especially for a tourist, the creators had to make the
museum so appealing that in people’s mind Bilbao, the city and the Guggenheim
Bilbao Museum would become one and the same. Despite all the environmental
disadvantages caused by its location, in not less than three years the museum was
able to reimburse its own development costs over and above “by 2000 the city had
generated $500 million in new economic activity and collected nearly $100 million

                                                        
13 th
Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, accessed 18 March, 2014
http://www.guggenheim.org/guggenheim-foundation/architecture/bilbao
in taxes.14 And thus the Bilbao Affect was borned.

Secondly, according to Terry Smith, Gehry’s architectural style’s has one purpose
only and that it would “become a logo.”15 A logo, like Coca-Cola what people
instantly recognize and familiar with. Consequently, Smith says that “Gehry’s
preference for curving or repeat forms, incomplete shapes, off-axis groundplans –
all fast-slow motivators for the eye” emancipating itself from the monotone
everyday. The Guggenheim Museums Inc. “corporation is committed to the value
of artistic originality and to showcasing it in its museums around the world.

 
Figure IX
Frank O. Gehry, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, Spain (1992-1997)
 
Signature architecture becomes brand architecture, available for franchise
wherever the settings seem right.”16 The Guggenheim brand identity is a very
familiar business policy nowadays, just like in the case of McDonald’s or Starbucks
when one sees the name Guggenheim might exactly know what they could expect
in exchange for their admission fee. If one enters a McDonalds in Brazil for the
first time, they knew that the food would be edible or even tasty despite the fact
that the menu is not hundred percent the same in the homeland. This familiarity
makes people very comfortable and it suggests trustworthiness. On the other
hand, these are not qualities that art should represent. The indicated paradox
causes tension and concern not without reason, in the art world. As James Cuno,
                                                        
14
Terry Smith, The architecture of aftermath (Chicago ; London : University of Chicago Press, 2006), p. 26
15
Ibid., p. 32
16
Ibid., p. 25
CEO of the J. Paul Getty Trust and former director of the Harvard Art Museum
states, “when the museum strives to become a logo for the city, it can be at the
expense of the art. A museum’s priority should be building its collections.”17
Although, our opinions concerning the matter do not differ, but a question then
arises: whether one would survive without each other?

Inside the museum Gehry created a collision between three types of gallery
spaces: the traditional White cube for the modern art collection, the huge, open
industrialized areas ideal for sculptors like Richard Serra, Ellsworth Kelly or Donald
Judd and the flexible modifiable spaces attract contemporary installation artists.18
Gehry says: “So the stodgy galleries were for the artists that were dead and
couldn’t defend themselves. The more contentious spaces were for the artists who
are living.” 19 Additionally, the fact that Bilbao displays both modern and
contemporary art also assists to attract the general audience especially because
contemporary art is not canonized, sainted art in the same way as the
masterpieces of modern art, which has already stood the test of time and can stir
up masses.

Contemporary art is much less seductive in the eyes of the general public. Gehry’s
design clearly supports the “living” as he said by creating innovative spaces and
thus intensifying the effect of the artwork. The best example, Richard Serra’s
installation, The Matter of Time (1997) occupies the Fish Gallery in perfect
harmony with Gehry’s external or internal architecture. Serra uses industrialized
materials in order to create physically enormous structures and installs the pieces
to the viewers’ eye level thus emancipating sculpture from its pretentious
position. While the spectator travels through Serra’s maze the building shows the
way of space and time just like a good host does to its guests upon arrival. Gehry’s
architecture serves as a road along the river that departs from an industrialized
city to navigate through a forest of artworks.

                                                        
17 Nicolai Ouroussoff, “Art for Architecture’s Sake,” Los Angeles Times, March 31, 2002, accessed March 10,
2014 http://articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/31/entertainment/ca-nicolai31 
18 Terry Smith, The architecture of aftermath (Chicago ; London : University of Chicago Press, 2006), p. 25
19 Nicolai Ouroussoff, “Art for Architecture’s Sake,” Los Angeles Times, March 31, 2002, accessed March 10,
2014 http://articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/31/entertainment/ca-nicolai31 
Collaborating with one another the artist and the architecture direct the visitor in
harmonious joint, hence the architect becomes an artist himself. Thus, Bilbao
contradicts it’s own attackers that architecture would be higher-ranking than the
art contained; if anything it only democratized the hierarchy.

 
Figure X
Richard Serra, The Matter of Time, 2005

Bearing in mind the previous points, that the Guggenheim Bilbao didn’t cause the
fact that “in many cases the buildings have far outstripped the importance of the
collections”,20 but the Bilbao Effect did cause it. The success of Bilbao blinded
many city administrations thinking since Bilbao was placed on the cultural map
and became a touristic destination. Following the example by building a big-
budget spectacular museum would secure a place on the map for their city as well.
Despite the fact that they probably spent all of the endowment on the
construction; and therefore not leaving budget for evolving a proper collection
probably the logic behind this that collections can be improved, but museum
buildings are meant to be permanent or even eternal… However the one cannot
work without the other… No matter how impressive the building is if the
museum’s content is disappointing then it can ruin the entire museum experience.
                                                        
20 Glenn D. Lowry cited in “Art for Architecture’s Sake,” Los Angeles Times, March 31, 2002, accessed March 10,
2014 http://articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/31/entertainment/ca-nicolai31 
Since, sadly disappointment generally stays much longer with a person then
admiration. To illustrate, it is like opening a gift wrapped in a golden box just to
find out that it only contains a few strings of yarn.

CONCLUSION

In the essay my aim was to find and collide architectural factors that influence the
visitor experience. To summarise, these, the museum has to create a zone where
visitors are able to untie themselves from their everyday lives and thus inciting the
tone for the visual experience. The mentioned can be achieved by the architecture
that reflects on the contained
art, by the environment
surrounding the museum
building, like parks and public
installations. After entering
the museum it has to
maintain the attention of the
spectator. On one hand, by
Figure XI having a collection that makes
R. Piano, R. Rogers and G. Frenchini, the visitor think and
Centre Georges Pompidou, 1970-1977 (Interior)
interested or by displaying it in
a way that does the same. On the other hand, the architect underlies the
importance of the collection and surrenders to functionality, or in case of the
Guggenheim Bilbao to artistic integrity.

Big national art museums, like the Bilbao, the Pompidou Center or the TATE
Modern are the home for huge collections that requires a long time to look
through all the artwork. And, that is tiring; therefore entertainment is almost as
important as interpretation, the display, the quality of the collection and
architecture in the viewers’ experience, maybe even more. The architect’s task is to
establish the facilities for these social encounters. In my opinion this area needs
much more progress in the future. Although, there are many facilities in museums
providing entertainment, those are usually independent facilities and events that
stand apart from the exhibitions. Entertainment in museum should help people
immerse themselves in art without making them realize it.

The final aim is to democratize art and museums, in other words involve and
attract a much wider public not just by making them enter the museum but to
interact with the body of artwork as well. The design should engage the museums’
public by linking together education, architecture and entertainment in one
building and in one display.
 List of figures
Cover photo
Jeff Koons, Puppy, Bilbao 2009
Own work

Figure I
Renzo Piano, Beyeler Museum, Basel, Switzerland, 1997
http://ps2pm.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/ssb-november-11-2010/ [accessed: 23
March 2014]

Figure II
John Leech, Substance and Shadow, Punch magazine, 1843
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SubstanceandShadow.jpg [accessed: 23
March 2014]

Figure III
Thomas Struth, Pergamon Museum 1, Berlin, 2001
http://www.mariangoodman.com/exhibitions/2002-04-30_thomas-struth/
[accessed: 23 March 2014]

Figure IV
Thomas Struth, San Zaccaria, New York, 1995 (Chromogenic print; 181.9 x 230.5
cm) http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1996.297 [accessed: 23
March 2014]

Figure V
Y. Taniguchi, MoMA New York, Courtyard, 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MOMAyard.JPG [accessed: 23 March 2014]

Figure VI
MoMA, New York, (interior) 2009. Photo: John Wronn
https://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2010/03/11/small-steps-lead-to-
bigger-changes-moma-s-shifting-wall-colors [accessed: 23 March 2014]

Figure VII
Frank O. Gehry, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, Spain (1992-1997)
http://www.guggenheim-bilbao.es/en/the-building/ [accessed: 23 March 2014]

Figure XII
 Aerial view of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, 2012 photo: Mario R.D. Ortiz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bilbao_05_2012_Guggenheim_Aerial_Panorama_2
007.jpg [accessed: 23 March 2014]

Figure XIII
Frank O. Gehry, Guggenheim Bilbao Museum, Bilbao, Spain (1992-1997)
http://iker.deviantart.com/art/Guggenheim-Bilbao-Museum-II-687482 [accessed:
23 March 2014]

Figure XIV
Richard Serra, ‘The Matter of Time’ (2005) sculptures, Guggenheim Museum,
Bilbao 2010
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Matter_of_Time,_Bilbao,_July_2010_(
04).JPG [accessed: 23 March 2014]

Figure XV
R. Piano, R. Rogers and G. Frenchini, Centre Georges Pompidou, 1970-1977,
(Interior) http://www.flickr.com/photos/darrellg/5312167218/ [accessed: 23
March 2014]

Bibliography

Barthes, Roland, The Death of the Author, UbuWeb Papers, [accessed March 10, 2014]
http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf

Black, Graham. The engaging museum :developing museums for visitor involvement.
London; New York: Routledge, 2005.

Duncan, Carol ‘The Art Museum as Ritual’, in Civilizing Rituals: Inside public art
museums London & New York: Routledge, 1995, pp. 7-20

Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, [accessed 18th

March, 2014] http://www.guggenheim.org/guggenheim-
foundation/architecture/bilbao

Hudson, Kenneth. A social history of museums: what the visitors thought. London:
Macmillan, 1975.
McClellan,Andrew. ‘Architecture’, in The Art Museum: From Boullée to Bilbao
(Berkely: University of California Press, 2008) pp. 53-106

Newhouse, Victoria, Towards a New Museum. New York : Monacelli Press, 1998.)

Ouroussoff, Nicolai, “Art for Architecture’s Sake,” Los Angeles Times, March 31, 2002,
[accessed March 10, 2014]
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/31/entertainment/ca-nicolai31

Prior, Nick. Museums & Modernity. First ed. Oxford, New York: Berg, 2002.

Puglisi, Luigi Presitnenza. New Direstions in Contemporary Architecture: Evolutions and

Revolutions in Building Design Since 1988. UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2008 pp. 117-124

Serota, Nicholas, Experience or Interpretation. London: Thames & Hudson, 2000

[accessed: 11 March 2014] https://www.learn.ed.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-998098-
dt-content-rid-1511180_1/courses/HIAR110382013-4SV1SEM2/Serota%202000.pdf

Smith, Terry. Contemporary Art: World Currents. First ed. London: Laurence King, 2011.

Smith, Terry, The architecture of aftermath. Chicago ; London : University of Chicago

Press, 2006,

Van Bruggen, Coosje. Frank O. Gehry Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. New York:
Guggenheim Museum Publications, 1998.

Vergo, Peter. New Museology. London: Reaktion Books, 1997.

Wright, Philip, ’The Quality of Visitors’s Experiences in Art Museums’, in The New
Museology ed. Peter Vergo, Reaktion Books, London, 1989 pp. 119-149 (p.119)