napisao
written by
Maroje Mrduljaš
x-y-z
¶ Nakon gotovo deset godina trajanja gradnje Muzeja suvre­
mene umjetnosti u Zagrebu radovi još uvijek nisu sasvim go­
tovi, kao što nije poznat ni trenutak kada će zgrada biti ot­
vorena za javnost. No, bez obzira na tu tipičnu hrvatsku si­tu­aciju,
dvojbe o MSU traju desetljećima, od pitanja odabira mjesta do
komentara na projekt Igora Franića koji je pobijedio na javnom
natječaju provedenom 1999. godine. Dugotrajnost izvedbe i
promatranje polaganog nastanka nove zgrade za­sigurno utječe
i na percepciju samog projekta jer se, htjeli mi to ili ne, postupno
privikavamo i na njenu arhitekturu i na mjesto na kojem nastaje.
Svjedočili smo raznim fazama rasta projekta kojeg se kritiziralo
arhitekt
architect
Igor Franić
30 Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb, Hrvatska
fotografije photographs by Domagoj Blažević (db)
Sandro Lendler (sl)
portret portrait Damil Kalogjera
x-y-z
¶ After almost ten years of the ongoing construction of the
Museum of Contemporary Art in Zagreb, the works have not (AK)
yet been completely finished, nor is the moment when the
building will be open to the public known. Nevertheless,
despite this typical Croatian situation, doubts about the Mu­
seum of Contemporary Art have existed for decades, from the
question of the choice of location to the comments about the
project by Igor Franić, who was the winner of the public
compe­tition held in 1999. The long duration of realization and
observation of the slowly emerging new building certainly
affects the perception of the very project as well because,
whether we want it or not, we are gradually getting used to
its architecture and to the place where it is emerging. We have
witnessed various phases of the project’s growth, which was
criticized and is still criticized in the lobbies: from the sur­
prisingly corpulent and robust concrete skeleton which looked
excessively large and sturdy, to the ‘insincere’ procedure of
stretching polycarbonate membrane over walls, to the appe­
arance of ‘cages’ on the roof which hide technical facilities in
rather compact volumes. The very construction of the building
could raise a certain uncertainty and moments of intellectual
doubt among advocates of the project; however, the current
phase in which almost all architectural elements of the buil­
Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb, Croatia (sl) igor franić, Museum of Contemporary Art 31
(db)
tlocrt prizemlja ground floor plan
1. ulazni trijem entrance porch
2. hall hall
3. info pult information desk
4. restoran restaurant
5. muzejski dućan museum shop
6. izložbeni prostor exhibition space
7. polivalentna dvorana multifunctional hall
8. uredi offices
32 oris, broj 57, godina 2009  oris, number 57, year 2009
tlocrt 3. kata 3rd floor plan tlocrt krova roof plan
1. izložbeni prostor exhibition space 1. dio za posjetitelje visitors area
2. uredi offices
ding have been completed shows that this is a unique building
which is authentic in a conceptual sense and which un­dou­
btedly belongs to the Croatian architectural cul­tural circle.
¶ The controversy over what is a contemporary museum of art
could be endless and without a way out, like a Borgesian laby­
rinth. Colin Fournier, the author of the Kunst­haus (with Peter
Cook) in Graz admitted to the author of this text without
restrain that there is an enormous dilemma of whether one
should participate at all in competitions for buil­dings of mu­
seums of visual arts. He considered this as out of date and
unnecessary back at the beginning of the seventies, and there­
fore refused an invitation by Richard Rogers to participate in
the competition for the Pompidou Centre. Never­theless, Graz
is not the same thing as imperial Paris and in Zagreb and Cro­
atia, not one building for exhibiting the visual arts has been
built since the completion of the Meštrović Pavilion, with
exception of Emili’s rather small purple master­piece on Gradec,
which has been partly demolished and left to deteriorate. Use
of Zagreb Fair pavilions for artistic exhi­bitions has already
tlocrt 1. kata 1st floor plan tlocrt 2. kata 2nd floor plan shown that Zagreb is in need of a museum of contemporary
1. izložbeni prostor exhibition space 1. izložbeni prostor exhibition space art, regardless of experiences like, for examp­le, the ‘new artistic
2. uredi offices 2. uredi offices
3. café café 3. apartmani apartments practices’, Podroom, and the fact that many of the most
4. café café
exciting achievements on the Croatian artistic scene have to­
day been occurring outside big insti­tutions and within inde­
pendent curatorial practices. ¶ Is it possible to turn a delay of
Igor franić, Muzej suvremene umjetnosti igor franić, Museum of Contemporary Art 33
 i još se kritizira u kuloarima: od iznenađujuće korpulentnog i
poprečni presjek
robusnog betonskog skeleta koji je djelovao predimenzioni­
cross section rano i robusno, preko ‘neiskrenog’ postupka navlačenja poli­
karbo­natne opne preko punih zidova do pojave kaveza na
krovu koji skrivaju tehničke pogone u ko­liko-toliko kompaktne
volumene. Sama izvedba zgrade mog­la je u određenu dvojbu
i u trenutke intelektualnih dvojbi dovesti i zagovaratelje pro­
jekta, no aktualna faza, u kojoj su uglavnom svi arhi­tek­tonski
elementi zgrade zgotovljeni, po­kazuje da je riječ o jedinstvenoj
zgradi koja je u konceptualnom smislu autentična i nedvos­
misleno pripada hrvatskom arhitektonskom kulturnom krugu.
poprečni presjek ¶ Polemika o tome što je to suvremeni muzej umjetnosti mog­
cross section la bi biti besk­raj­na i bez izlaza, poput borgesovskog labi­rinta.
Colin Four­nier, autor Kunsthausa (sa Peterom Cookom) u Grazu,
bez sus­te­zanja je priznao autoru ovog teksta veliku dilemu o
tome treba li uopće sudjelovati na natječaju za zgra­du institucije
muzeja vizualnih umjetnosti koju je još po­čet­kom 70-ih go­dina
smat­rao zastarjelom i nepotrebnom, pa je tako odbio poziv
Richar­da Rogersa da sudjeluje u natječaju za Centar Pompidou.
No, Graz nije isto što i imperijalni Pariz, a u Zag­rebu i Hrvatskoj
od izvedbe Meštrovićevog paviljona nije izgra­đena ni jedna
uzdužni presjek zgrada za izlaganje vizualnih umjetnosti uz izuzetak Emilijevog
longitudinal section nevelikog ljubičastog remek-djela na Gra­decu, koji je djelomice
već i srušen i prepušten propadanju. Već i korištenje vele­sa­
jams­kih paviljona za umjetničke izložbe pokazuje da je Zagre­
bu potreban Muzej suvremene umjetnosti bez obzira na is­
kustva poput ‘nove umjetničke prakse’, Pod­room, te činjenicu
(sl)
da se mnoga od najuzbudljivijih dostignuća na hrvatskoj um­
jetničkoj sceni danas dešavaju izvan velikih institucija i u sklo­
pu neovisnih kustoskih praksi. ¶ Može li se u koncepciji zgrade
muzeja višedesetljetno zaostajanje pretvo­riti u prednost i is­
uzdužni presjek koristiti iskustva suvremenosti? Kakva ta zgrada treba biti?
Ikonična arhitektura ili neutralni prostor koji se povlači pred
longitudinal section
umjetnošću? Na svoj način, Franićev projekt je jedno i drugo, a
u općoj percepciji se svi argumenti za i protiv mogu svesti i na
pitanje dobrog ukusa o kojem se, na­vod­no, ne može raz­govarati.
No Krleža je ustvrdio da ono što je pametno ne može biti ružno
i taj jednostavni aksiom vrijedi i za arhitekturu. Pri­lično je izvjes­
no da je Kenneth Framp­ton u svojoj tvrdnji da hrvatska arhi­
tektura oscilira iz­među ‘mo­numentalnosti i de­ma­teri­jalizacije’
najviše pažnje posvetio upravo razmišljanju o Franićevom
projektu; zaklju­čuje da bi on po završetku mo­gao biti ‘najbolja
uzdužni presjek suvremena hrvatska zgra­da u Zagrebu’ mis­leći pri tome na
longitudinal section projektantski stav iz kojeg je ta kuća proizašla. Treba reći da,
kolikogod je projekt Franićevo autorsko djelo, toliko je i jasno
utemeljen u (neo)modernim principima u ko­jima se arhi­tek­
tonski koncept raz­rje­šava kroz usklađivanje geo­metrijski pre­
34 oris, broj 57, godina 2009  oris, number 57, year 2009 Igor franić, Muzej suvremene umjetnosti
several decades into an advantage and use the experience of
contemporariness in the concept of museum building? What
should this building look like? Iconic architecture or a neutral
space which retreats from the art? In its own way, Franić’s
project is both, and all the arguments pro and contra can be
reduced in the general perception to a question of good taste
which is allegedly not to be discussed. However, Krleža establi­
shed that what is clever cannot be ugly, and this simple axiom
can be applied to architecture. It is fairly certain that Kenneth
Frampton, in his claim that Croatian architecture oscillates
between ‘monumentality and dema­terialization’, paid most
attention precisely to the contem­plation about Franić’s project.
He concluded that the project could be the ‘best contemporary
Croatian building in Zagreb’ when completed, by this implying
the design approach from which this building resulted. It
should be said that, as much as the project is Franić’s original
work, it is equally clearly based on (neo-) modernist principles
according to which an architectural concept is solved through
coordination of a geo­metrically precise spatial idea and as
rational as possible a technical and structural solution. In such
an approach, form is the conse­quence of spatial ideas, and
invention occurs through inven­tiveness of translating the
programme into spa­tial interrela­tions. Everything that is not
a clear conse­quence of this interrelation of programme and
space is consi­dered redundant. Franić’s building is, in this
sense, up to date, the biggest and most ambitious exhibit of
the polytechnic doc­trine of a group of authors gathered
around the epicentre of ‘the fifth floor’1 at the Faculty of
Architecture in Zagreb and it should be considered a rather
credible realization of the pro­gra­mmatic propositions of the
middle generation of Croatian architects, formed in an autho­
rial sense during the 1980s and 1990s and dedicated to
designing, but little to constructing. ¶ The museum’s location
was chosen on the inter­section of Većeslav Holjevac Avenue
and Dubro­vačka Avenue, in an area where the original town
plan of Novi Zagreb foresaw a cultural centre in the form of a
continuing mega-structure which was an extension of the Fair.
This, previously entirely desolate, inter­section has gradually
been constructed; how­ever, the width of the streets is rather
large, therefore this area will never become a space with a
more clearly defined urban physiognomy, and each of the four
plots located around the inter­section represent isolated boxes
which are not and cannot be connected under any circum­
stances. The space north of the museum was intended for
cultural content in the past, but construction of a hybrid
1 Apart from Igor Frani, this generation of architects and pedagogues should in­
clude Veljko Oluić, Goran Rako and Tonči Žarnić
igor franić, Museum of Contemporary Art 35

(sl)
cizne prostorne za­misli i što racionalnijeg tehničko-struktu­
ralnog rješenja. U takvom pristupu oblik je posljedica pros­tornih
zamisli, a in­vencija se događa kroz in­ven­tivnost pre­vo­đenja
programa u prostorne međuodnose. Sve što nije jas­na posljedica
tog me­đu­odnosa programa i pros­tora smatra se suviškom. Fra­
nićeva zgrada je u tom smislu do sada najveći i naj­ambi­ciozniji
eks­ponent politehničke doktrine grupe auto­ra okupljenih oko
epicentra ‘petog kata’1 na Arhi­tektonskom fa­kultetu u Zagrebu
i treba ga smatrati razmjerno vjerodostojnom realizacijom
programatskih postavki srednje generacije hrvatskih arhi­te­
kata, koja se autorski formirala tijekom 80-ih i 90-ih godina
20. stoljeća posvećeno crtajući, ali malo gradeći. ¶ Mjesto za
Muzej odabrano je na križanju Avenije Većeslava Holjevca i
Du­bro­vačke avenije, na području na kojem je izvorni urba­
nistički plan Novog Zagreba i predviđao kulturni centar u vidu
kontinuirane mega-strukture koja se nastavljala na Velesajam.
To nekada sasvim pusto križanje se postupno izgrađuje, no
širina prometnica je tolika da taj punkt nikada neće postati
prostor s jasnije definiranom urbanom fizionomijom, a svaka
od četiri parcele smještene oko križanja predstavlja izolirane
kasete koje međusobno nemaju i ne mogu imati nikakve veze.
Prostor sjeverno od muzeja nekada je bio namijenjen kultur­
nim sadržajima, no započeta je izgradnja hibridnog poslovno-
trgovačko-stambenog kompleksa koji je izvan logike postave
javnih sadržaja uzduž sjeverno-južne osi. U gradnji su i, urba­
1 Uz Igora Franića toj generaciji arhitekata i pedagoga treba pribrojiti Veljka Oluića,
Gorana Raku i Tončija Žarnića.
36 oris, broj 57, godina 2009  oris, number 57, year 2009
business-commercial-residential complex started, which was
outside the logic of installing public contents along the north-
south axis. Also, there is an ongoing construction of entirely
pointless, in terms of town planning, and architecturally incre­
dibly banal residential blocks north-east of the museum,
which provides a tasteless image. The decision of the choice
of ‘urban’ place for the museum is therefore less and less
logical, and probably a happier solution would have been to
move the museum further to the north, nearer the Sava, where
the important cultural programme could be articulated as part
of the river zone, perceived as a park with public content. In
such an envi­ronment which, at the time of the competition,
did not have any urban features except for its belonging to the
Novi Zagreb matrix, Franić generates his own urbanism within
the boundaries of the plot and forms a spatial square which
rises slightly towards the huge ‘hovering’ volume of the
museum thus spreading over the public space. The relation
between the huge, practically neo-classicistic porch and
access cascades evokes Schinkel’s Altes Museum in Berlin and
is scenery of metropolitan scale and public space with which
no other Zag­reb urban situation can be compared in terms of
im­pressi­veness. Namely, this is scenery in which the relation
between architectural and urbanistic articulation and the
symbolic meaning of a public cultural institution is clear. The
monu­mental dimensions of the colonnade are in harmonious
pro­portion with the scale of the building, but with the wider
context as well, while the building’s volume which protrudes
nistički potpuno besmisleni i arhitektonski nevjerojatno ba­
nalni, stambeni blokovi sjeveroistočno od Muzeja koji pružaju
otužnu sliku. Odluka o odabiru ‘urbanog’ mjesta za muzej
tako se čini sve manje logičnom i vjerojatno bi sretnije rješenje
bilo povlačenje muzeja sjevernije, bliže Savi, gdje bi se važan
kulturni program mogao artikulirati kao dio riječnog areala
shvaćenog kao park s javnim sadržajima. U takvom okolišu,
koji u vrijeme natječaja nije imao nikakva urbana svojstva osim
pripadnosti matrici Novog Zagreba, Franić generira svoj vlas­
titi urbanizam unutar granica parcele i formira prostrani trg
koji se lagano uspinje prema velikom ‘lebdećem’ volumenu
Muzeja koji natkriljuje javni prostor. Odnos golemog, praktički
neoklasicističkog trijema i pristupnih kaskada evocira Schin­
ke­lov Altes Museum u Berlinu; riječ je o prizoru metro­poli­
tanskog mjerila i javnom prostoru s kojim se po impre­sivnosti
ne može usporediti ni jedna druga zagrebačka urbana situacija.
Naime, to je prizor u kojem je jasan odnos između arhi­tek­
tonsko-urbanističke artikulacije i simboličkog značenja javne
kul­turne institucije. Monumentalna dimenzija kolonade stu­
pova u skladnoj je proporciji s mjerilom zgrade, ali i sa širom
kontekstom, dok volumen zgrade koji je prepušten preko trije­
ma pridonosi dramatičnom dojmu. Čitavo prizemlje je rahlo i
osmišljeno kao produžetak trga na kojem se nalazi glavni ulaz,
restoran i knjižara. Staklena opna prizemlja nije unificirana
nego razvedena i govori o prisutnosti različitih sadržaja. Ulaz­
ni prostor s velikim info-pultom i prostorom za manje izložbe
je skromno dimenzioniran, antimonumentalan i bez posebnih
prostornih atrakcija. Dana je tek naznaka dvije rute kretanja
prema stalnom, odnosno privremenom postavu koji su u pros­
toru označeni krakovima stubišta ne odviše raskošnih di­men­
zija. To je nedvosmisleno tek priprema i dio scenarija suspensa
kretanja i doživljaja prostora prije ulaska u same izložbene
dvorane. Uostalom, još uvijek smo ispod muzeja. ¶ Franić
tijelo zgrade oblikuje kao geometrijski vrlo jednostavan solid
približno kvadratnog tlocrta s presjekom izlomljenim u vidu
meandra. Sekvence izložbenog prostora neposredno proizlaze
iz ‘izlomljenog’ presjeka, pa se muzej razvija kroz linearne
poteze koji su okomiti na bočni, meandrirani profil zgrade.
Dakle, osnovno usmjerenje prostora je definirano slijedom
paralelnih x-osi u odnosu na ulazni trijem, pri čemu se njihov
format mijenja kroz progresiju, odnosno translatacije poda i
stropa unutar y-koordinata. Ti potezi su različitih visina i u
različitim međuodnosima, a između njih teku terase ili prostor
ispod tijela zgrade, pa se po y-osi izmjenjuju eksterijerski i
interijerski prostorni isječci. Tijelo zgrade je perforirano kroz
3 vertikalna prodora, od kojih su dva ‘lebdeći atriji’ vidljivi i u
podgledu ispod zgrade, dok se jedan svjetlik spušta po čitavoj
Igor franić, Muzej suvremene umjetnosti
over the porch contributes to the dramatic impression. The
entire ground floor is loose and worked out as an extension
of the square on which the main entrance, restaurant and
bookshop are situated. The glass membrane of the ground
floor is not unified, but indented and indicates the presence
of different contents. The entrance area with huge info stand
and space for smaller exhibitions is of modest dimensions,
anti-monumental and without particular spatial attractions.
There is merely an indication of two routes of movement
towards the permanent and temporary displays which are
marked in space with flights of stairs, not too luxuriously
dimensioned. This is undoubtedly only preparation and part
of a scenario of suspense of movement and of spatial expe­
rience before entering the exhibition halls. After all, we are
still under the museum. ¶ Franić forms the body of the building
as a geometrically very simple solid of approximately square
layout with a cross section in the form of a meander. Sequences
of exhibition space result directly from the ‘broken’ cross
section, therefore the museum develops through linear stret­
ches perpendicular to the lateral, meandering profile of the
building. Consequently, the basic direction of the space is
defined through a sequence of parallel x-axes in relation to
the entrance porch, during which process their format changes
through progression, in other words translation of the floor
and ceiling within y-coordinates. These stretches are of diffe­
rent heights and in different interrelations, and terraces or
space under the building body flow between them, so the
exte­rior and interior spatial segments alternate along the
y-axis. The building body is perforated by three vertical pene­
trations, of which two are ‘hovering atriums’, with their soffits
also visible from under the building, while one light well des­
cends along the entire height of the building all the way to the
basement floor. This spatial articulation is simple in its basic
geometrical scheme, always of the same length along the
x-axis and fixed through the matrix of the entirely con­sistent
structural system within a square grid. Despite the clear
Euclidean geometry, manipulation of x-y-z axes is not based
in its essence on a logical or immediately readable spa­tial
system, but is rather a sequencing of specific situations and
varying of the relations inside-outside, up-down, wall-trans­
parency-translucence. In this progression, the first ex­perience
and attempt to understand the building’s spatial concepts
leave a somewhat arbitrary impression, as if it is a series of
separately created sequences which obviously re­sulted from
a series of interrelated geometrical operations and the same
module, but the notion of an idea of the whole is absent. This
impression will change to a certain degree when the museum
igor franić, Museum of Contemporary Art 37
 visini zgrade do podrumske etaže. Ta prostorna artikulacija
je u osnovnoj geometrijskoj shemi jednostavna, uvijek je
iste dužine po x-osi i fiksirana je kroz maticu potpuno kon­
zek­ventnog konstruktivnog sistema unutar kvadrat­nog
rastera,. Usprkos čistoj euklidskoj geometriji manipulacija
x-y-z osima u osnovi se ne temelji na nekom logičnom ili
odmah čitljivom prostornom sustavu, nego je prije riječ o
nizanju specifičnih situacija i variranju odnosa unutra-van,
gore-dolje, zid-trans­parentnost-translucentnost. U toj pro­
gresiji prvi doživljaj i pokušaj razumijevanja prostorne kon­
cepcije zgrade ostavlja ponešto arbitrarni dojam, kao da je
riječ o nizu partikularno osmišljenih sekvenci koje su očito
proizašle iz niza uzajamno povezanih geometrijskih ope­
racija i istog modula, ali izostaje predodžba o ideji cje­line.
Taj dojam će se u određenoj mjeri promijeniti u onom
trenutku kada Muzej primi izloške, no činjenica je da on
nema prostorni fokus, nego je mišljen kao prostorna jed­
nadžba koja je nehijerarhijska, kao što nema ni fiksiranu ili
sasvim čitljivu putanju. Naime, kretanje kroz Mu­zej se može
odvijati različitim trasama, pa su dva glavna masiv­na be­
tonska stubišta – jedno koje opslužuje stalni, drugo
privremeni postav – nadopunjena ‘pomoćnim’ čeličnim
stubiš­tima i eskalatorom u prostoru za privremene izložbe.
Pret­postavka je da će takva organizacija potaknuti posje­
titelja na samostalnije i aktivnije istraživanje izložbi i otkri­
vanje svog vlastitog puta kroz različite periode i medije.
¶ Neo­čeki­vano, svjetlo u interijer nije pripušteno sa bočnih
strana meandra, nego upravo kroz horizontalne poteze koji
se protežu uz tijelo zgrade po y-osi i vertikalne prodore u
z-osi. Iako prirodno svjetlo nije zenitalno, ono uvijek u
interijer dopire posredno, kroz međuprostore, atrije ili
visoko postav­ljene proreze, pa je izložbeni prostor intro­
vertan i usmjeren prema izlošcima iako vanjski prostor nije
sasvim isključen iz ukupnog doživljaja, primjerice na mjestu
spojnog ‘mosta’ koji spaja srednji i sje­verni pregib meandra.
I krovne su terase dostupne preko dva eksterijerska stubišta
grandioznih dimen­zija koja mogu funk­cionirati i kao otvoreni
auditoriji. ¶ Izložbeni prostori nisu artikulirani ni kao klasični
niz ‘bijelih soba’ (često kritizirani konvencionalni white
cube), ni kao potpuno otvoreni, tekući prostor, nego prije
kao niz dvorana različitih konfiguracija razmjerno velikih
dimenzija koji će tražiti dodatnu podjelu na potprostore
prilikom izvedbe stalnog postava. ¶ Bočne strane meandra
nisu namijenjene izložbama, pa je tako u zapadnom dijelu
uz veliku staklenu stijenu predviđen neformalni ‘prostor za
odmor’, paravanom odijeljen od nutrine zgrade u kojem se
posjetitelji mogu ‘odmaknuti’ od umjetnosti uz pogled
38 oris, broj 57, godina 2009  oris, number 57, year 2009
receives its exhibits; however, the fact is that the museum
does not have a spatial focus, but is meant as a spatial equation
which is non-hierarchical, as much as it has no fixed or entirely
readable course. Namely, movement through the museum can
be achieved via different routes, therefore the two main
massive concrete staircases – one which leads to the per­
manent, and the other to the temporary display – are supple­
mented with an ‘auxiliary’ steel staircase and escalator in the
temporary exhibitions area. There is an assumption that such
an organization will motivate visitors to explore exhibitions
more independently and actively, and to find their own routes
through different periods and media. ¶ Unexpectedly, light is
not let into the interior from the lateral sides of the meander,
but through horizontal openings which run along the building
body on the y-axis and vertical slits on the z-axis. Although
the natural light is not zenithal, it always gets into the interior
indirectly through interspaces, atria or highly placed slits and
therefore the exhibition space is intro­vert and directed
towards the exhibits. Nevertheless, the ex­terior space is not
totally excluded from the complete experience, like for
example, at the point of the connecting ‘bridge’, which joins
the central and northern meander bends. Also, the roof
terraces are accessible through two exterior staircases of
(sl)
grandiose dimensions which can also function as open
auditoria. ¶ The exhibition spaces are not articulated as a
classical sequence of ‘white rooms’ (the frequently criti­cised
conventional white cube) or as entirely open fluid space, but
rather as a series of halls of different configurations and of
rather large dimensions, which will require additional division
into subspaces during display of the permanent exhi­bition.
¶ The lateral sides of the meander are not intended for exhi­
bitions, and so an informal ‘space for rest’ is anticipated in the
western part, right next to a big glass wall, and is sepa­rated
from the interior of the building by a partition. Here, visitors
can ‘detach themselves’ from the art with a view of Većeslav
Holjevac Avenue. The eastern part is, on the other hand,
occupied with offices and other auxiliary facilities. Through
the building’s core, however, two vertical blocks with
autonomous regime of usage, not dependent on the functi­
oning of the museum itself, rise like programmatic mini-
towers: the block with restaurant that stretches from the
ground floor through the first floor all the way up to the roof
terrace, and the block with the library. The idea is that these
contents could also be used outside the museum’s opening
hours, which contributes to its porosity content-wise. These
functional vertical ‘full’ blocks, together with the verticals of
the lifts, are counterpoints to the vertical ‘empty’ penetrations
Igor franić, Muzej suvremene umjetnosti igor franić, Museum of Contemporary Art 39
40 oris, number 57, year 2009 igor franić, Museum of Contemporary Art 41
(sl)
prema Aveniji Većeslava Holjevca. Istočni potez pak zau­
zimaju uredi i druge pomoćne prostorije. Kroz jezgru kuće se
pak poput programskih mini-tornjeva uspinju dva vertikalna
bloka s autonomnim re­ž imom korištenja neovisnim o
funkcioniranju samog Muzeja: blok sa restoranom koji se
od prizemlja, preko prvog kata proteže do krovne terase te
blok sa bibliotekom. Ideja je da se ti sadržaji koriste i izvan
radnog vremena Muzeja, što pridonosi njegovoj sadržajnoj
poroznosti. Ti funkcionalni vertikalni ‘puni’ blokovi, zajedno
sa vertikalama liftova, su kontkra­punkti vertikalnim ‘praznim’
prodorima svjetlika-atri­ja. Raznolikosti programskih sadr­
žaja pridružuje se i prostrana dvorana za predavanja, pro­
jekcije i izvedbe koja ima i neovisni vanjski ulaz. ¶ Muzej
odlikuju projek­tantske finese u mikro­mjerilu. Glavna stubišta
su dvokraka na mjestu postupnog i namjerno usporenog
prijelaza iz prizemlja na kat, da bi se nas­tavila u jednokrake
poteze u smjeru glavnih x-vektora izlož­benih prostora. Pog­
led prema ulaznom trije­mu i trgu se iz izlož­benog prostora
otvara samo na stra­teškom mjestu spoja s pristupnim
stubištem. Na čvrsto definiranom tijelu zgrade su u eks­
terijeru ostavljeni pojedini ‘tragovi’ unu­trašnjih doga­đanja
poput podgleda eksalatora ili sekun­darnog stubišta is­pod
sjevernog pregiba meandra. ¶ Odnos obli­kovanja interi­jera
i eksterijera pokazuje svoje­vrsnu inverziju kon­vencije kroz
oporost unutrašnjosti i efektnost vanjštine. Estetika
interijera je neutralna i do neke mjere namjerno brutalna.
Bijeli zidovi, podovi od zaglađenog cementa, nežbukani
42 oris, broj 57, godina 2009  oris, number 57, year 2009
of the light-well atria. The diversity of programmatic contents
is added to by a spacious hall for lectures, presentations and
performances which also has an independent exterior entrance.
¶ The museum is characterized by design finesse on a micro-
scale. The main staircases are double-flighted at the point of
the gradual and intentionally slowed transition from the
ground floor to the first floor, and then they continue into
single-flight stairs in the direction of the main x-vectors of
the exhibition spaces. The view of the entrance porch and
square opens from the exhibition space only at the strategic
place of the connection with access staircase. There are indi­
vidual ‘traces’ of internal occurrences left on the exterior of
the strictly defined body of the building, like soffits of the
escalator or auxiliary staircase below the northern bend of the
meander. ¶ The relationship of the interior and exterior design
shows a certain inversion of convention through the harshness
of the interior and effectiveness of the exterior. The aesthetics
of the interior is neutral and to a certain degree intentionally
brutal. White walls, floors made of polished cement, and the
unplastered concrete of the load-bearing structure all suggest
that the museum building is primarily spatial infrastructure.
On the other hand, all the meander’s body surfaces on all its
sides are covered in polycarbonate sheets so the sub-
construction is visible underneath. Polycarbonate conse­
quently covers the ceiling of the ground floor interior unifying
the hovering volume into an integral whole. White and green
Lexan is combined, and surfaces behind the Lexan on the
beton nosive konst­rukcije sugeriraju da je zgrada Muzeja u
prvom redu prostorna infrastruktura. S druge strane, sve
pune plohe tijela meandra u pogledu i podgledu su obložene
polikarbonatnim pločama iza kojih se vidi podkonstrukcija.
Polikarbonat je konzekventno postav­ljen i na stropu inte­
rijera prizemlja, čime je lebdeći volumen objedinjen u
jedinstvenu cjelinu. Kombi­niran je bijeli i zeleni leksan, s
time da su na zapadnom pročelju pune plohe iza leksana
bojane u plavo, dok su na istočnoj strani bojane u crno. Plavi
i crni ton prelaze i na rubove južnog pročelja označujući
segmente presjeka zgrade koji ko­res­pon­diraju s prostorom
za odmor, odnosno administrativnim blo­kom. Zapadno
pročelje doslovno odgovara presjeku i zatvore­no je u staklo,
iza kojega će u budućnosti biti postavljen gi­gantski video
display. Duž istočnog pročelja s uredima pro­težu se hori­
zontalni betonski potezi brise-soleila. Pitanje je da li je,
usprkos razlike u funkciji, bilo potrebno istočno i za­padno
pročelje oblikovati različito i nije li se i na istoku moglo
pronaći rješenje koje bi bilo više u skladu s formom meandra,
a da se pri tome ipak ostvari i zaštita od sunca i zadrži
postojeći vanjs­ki prostor ureda i drugih pomoćnih i sekun­
darnih pros­torija. Oblaganje punih ploha trans­lu­centnim
leksanom efek­tan je postupak jer se na njegovoj površini
stvaraju zanimljivi tonski prijelazi i refleksije ovisno o svjet­
losnim mijenama koje bitno pridonose vizualnoj kvaliteti
zgrade. Uslijed konfigura­cije zgrade pojedini dijelovi pročelja
su izloženi direktnom suncu, a pojedini su stalno zasjenjeni,
Igor franić, Muzej suvremene umjetnosti
western façade are coloured blue, while they are coloured (sl)
black on the eastern façade. Blue and black tones also spill
over the southern façade edges, marking segments of the
building’s cross section which correspond to the space for rest,
or to the administrative block. The western façade literally
corresponds to the cross section and is enclosed in glass
behind which a gigantic video-display will be installed in the
future. Along the eastern façade with the offices, there are
horizontal concrete brises soleil. The question is whether it
was necessary, in spite of the difference in function, to design
the eastern and western façades in different manners and was
it possible to find a solution in the east which would be more
in accordance with the form of the meander, and yet to realize
here both protection from the sun and preservation of the
existing exterior space of offices and other auxiliary and
secon­dary facilities. Covering the built surfaces with trans­
lucent Lexan is an effective procedure because interesting
tonal shades and reflections are created, depending on chan­
ges of light which significantly contribute to the visual quality
of the building. As a result of the configuration of the building,
some parts of the façade are exposed to direct sunlight, and
some are always in the shade, but Lexan reduces these
differences and makes the volume both more compact and
visually lighter, while the application of colours on the Lexan
or on its back­ground contributes the explicit, but expressive
multi-layered feature of the wall. Also, Lexan very nicely takes
on, absorbs and reflects both the artificial light from the
igor franić, Museum of Contemporary Art 43
 no leksan umanjuje te razlike i čini volumen i kompaktnijim surroun­dings, but also that which is integrated in the very
i vizualno lakšim, a apli­kacija boje na sam leksan ili na building envelope. ¶ Nevertheless, on a detailed level, the
njegovu pozadinu pridonosi eksplicitnoj ali i ekspresivnoj building shows flaws: the membranes of light wells, atria and
slojevitosti zida. Također, leksan vrlo lijepo na sebe prihvaća, lateral surfaces along the x-axis are designed almost without
upija i reflektira i umjetno svjetlo iz okoliša, ali i ono koje any interest and they are not ‘industrial’, nor finely formed,
je integrirano u samu opnu zgrade. ¶ No, na razini detalja but rather belong to a register of anonymous, generic
kuća pokazuje nedostatke: opne svjet­lika, atrija i bočnih solutions. The secondary staircases which are made of white-
ploha duž x-osi su projektirane gotovo bez interesa i nisu coloured steel are laconi­cally and roughly designed and,
ni ‘industrijske’, ni fino oblikovane, nego prije pripadaju although the intention to stay with the ‘zero of expression’ is
registru anonimnih, generičkih rješenja. Se­kun­darna stu­ clear, still more attention could have been paid to their purely
bišta izvedena su u bijelo bojanom čeliku i lakonski su i technical articulation. At this moment, when the furniture has
grubo riješena; iako je jasna intencija da se zadrži na ‘nuli not yet been installed and without some finishing layers, the
izra­za’, ipak se moglo pokazati više pažnje prema njihovoj space, in its bareness, leaves an impression almost of a re­
tehnič­koj artikulaciji. U ovom trenutku, dok još nije pos­ designed industrial building. ¶ The almost ten years from the
tavljen mo­biljar i bez pojedinih završnih obloga, prostor u initial design of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Zagreb
svojoj ogo­­lje­losti djeluje gotovo poput pre­namijenjenog have not damaged the project. Evolution and new tendencies
industrijs­kog objekta. ¶ Praktički deset godina od idejnog in international architecture which have come into being in
rješenja MSU-a u Zagrebu nije naškodilo projektu. Evolucija the meantime have not diminished the integrity of the project
i nove tendencije u međunarodnoj arhitekturi koje su se u which, after all, also represents the settling of numerous ‘old
među­vremenu pojavile nisu umanjile integritet projekta koji, debts’: from enriching Novi Zagreb with cultural content and
uosta­lom, predstavlja i odrađivanje brojnih ‘starih dugova’: urban situations to the necessity of checking the principles of
od obo­gaćivanja Novog Zagreba kulturnim sadržajima i ‘the fifth floor’ of the Faculty of Architecture in Zagreb and
urbanim situ­acijama do nužnosti da se principi ‘petog kata’ realizing them in a construction of metropolitan scale and
Arhi­tek­tonskog fakulteta u Zagrebu provjere i ostvare u significance. Continuity in the de­velopment of architecture is
građevini metropolitanskog mjerila i značaja. Kontinuitet u important, and ‘skipping steps’ and not elaborating phases
razvoju arhi­tekture je bitan, a ‘preskakanje stepenica’ i usually does not bring good results. Franić’s revision and
neprorađi­vanje faza obično ne donosi dobre rezultate. Fra­ reinterpretation of neo-mo­dernism is a logical step in the
nićeva revizija i reinterpretacija neomodernizma logičan je evolution of Croatian architecture and it has been continuation
korak u evoluciji hr­vatske arhitekture i nastavlja se na Šeg­ of Šegvić’s definition of the ‘a-style’ tradition of Croatian
vićevu definiciju astils­ke tradicije hrvatskog graditeljstva. building. The concept of Franić’s project concludes the tra­
Kon­cepcija Frani­ćevog projekta zaključuje tradiciju moder­ dition of modernist purism in Croatian architecture and at the
nističkog purizma u hrvatskoj arhitekturi i pri tome otvara same time opens indications of possible multilayered concepts (sl)
naznake mogućih vi­šeslojnijih koncepcija i tektonički radi­ and tectonically more radical solutions. In the context of ur­ bicije iskoraka prema višem stupnju prog­ramsko-pros­torne step toward a higher level of programmatic and spatial com­
kalnijih rješenja. U kon­tekstu urbanog doprinosa nova zgra­ ban contribution, the new building of the Museum of Con­ komp­leksnosti, zgrada MSU-a u arhi­tek­tonskom smislu plexity, the building of the Museum of Contempo­rary Art
da MSU-a u urba­nis­tič­kom i u kompozicijskom smislu ima temporary Art has sufficient authority in urbanistic and com­ zadovoljava svoju ulogu reprezentativnog epicentra vizualnih satisfies its role of a re­pre­sen­tative epicentre of visual arts in
dovoljno autoriteta da u Novom Zagrebu formira ‘prostor po­sitional terms to be able to form ‘a space of public umjetnosti koji od nje oficijelna kulturna politika očekuje. an architectural sense, which is what official cultural policy
javnog događanja’ (space of public appearance) s jasnim appearance’ in Novi Zagreb with a clear identity and cultural expects from it.
identitetom i kul­turnom ulo­gom na sličan način na koji to role in a similar way as the Church of St. John the Evangelist
čini i crkva sv. Ivana Evanđelista And­reja Uchytila i Renate by Andrej Uchytil and Renata Waldgoni, situated several
Waldgoni koja se nalazi nekoliko ur­banističkih ‘kaseta’ istoč­ urbanistic ‘boxes’ further to the east, does the same. The
Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, križanje Av. V. Holjevca i Dubrovačke avenije, Zagreb, Hrvatska
nije. Za njenu budućnost od po­sebne važnosti će biti spo­ ability to accept multiple and unexpected scenarios of usage
Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb, Junction of Av. V. Holjevac and Dubrovnik Av., Zagreb, Croatia
sobnost prihvaćanja višestrukih i neo­če­kivanih scenarija in both exterior and interior will be of special importance for
autor author Igor Franić
korištenja, i u eksterijeru i u interijeru, čemu bi sigurno the future of the building, and this could certainly be helped arhitektonski ured architectural office Studio za arhitekturu
pomogla još veća poroznost zgrade i što intenzivnija integ­ by even bigger porosity and as intense as possible integration investitor client Grad Zagreb, Ministarstvo kulture RH /
racija trga, javnih sadržaja i površina koje nemaju eg­zak­tnu of the square, public contents and surfaces without explicit Zagreb Municipal Authority, Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia
neto površina net area 15000 m²
namjenu. Dakle, iako je osmišljena u svo­jevrs­nom in­te­lek­ purpose. Thus, although it was conceived in a kind of intellect­ projekt project 1999
tualnom procijepu između modernističkih para­digmi i am­ ual gap between modernist paradigms and the ambi­tion to realizacija completed 2009

44 oris, broj 57, godina 2009  oris, number 57, year 2009 Igor franić, Muzej suvremene umjetnosti igor franić, Museum of Contemporary Art 45