Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Chipperfield has taken a brave step with his plans for the Haus der Kunst

Christine Murray

Removing the trees that hide Munich’s historic art gallery will force visitors to confront everything the building represents, including its guilty past, says Christine Murray

Can architecture be divorced from politics? And, if not, is there a period after which a building is exonerated?

In the UK, so many buildings – most of historic Liverpool, the British Museum and the fortune that built the Tate galleries – sprang from the wealth of the slave trade and colonialism, legitimising and dignifying past wrongs. One could argue that this is not sufficiently made clear in our contemporary institutions, which should be educating the public about their history through daily talks or exhibitions. But at the very least, the buildings themselves stand in testament as proof that these events happened, because they haven’t been demolished and erased.

The buildings themselves stand in testament as proof that these events happened

Much of the same argument exists for the preservation of the architecture of genocide, from Auschwitz to Cambodia’s Killing Fields Museum, so that we can’t deny or forget what happened there. And memorials – such as London’s holocaust memorial, for which shortlisted designs will be revealed this week – are also there to insist we remember.

In the case of Munich’s Haus der Kunst – an art gallery built by the Nazis to promote ‘authentic German art’ and now set to be refurbished by David Chipperfield, the building was not destroyed for being a symbol of the Third Reich, but hidden instead behind a row of trees, its grand entrance shifted around the corner in an attempt to soften its authority.

Surely this arboreal ‘fig leaf’, as Chipperfield describes it, is more shameful than his proposed landscaping strategy, which, by cutting down the trees, forces the city to confront its past. This has proved challenging to some, as they see it crediting an architecture associated with the horrific acts of the holocaust. But now that the building has existed for more than 30 years as a centre for contemporary art, this forward-looking approach does not glorify the past, nor attempt to hide it, but grants authority to a better future.

The moral maze of what to do with Nazi architecture is a debate that has raged since the Second World War. In 1946 The Architectural Review published ‘The Architecture of Authority’ on Nazi building, stating ‘this chapter of architectural history exists, and must be reckoned with’. But you can’t reckon with a building that you can’t see. By suggesting the architecture be put back on show, Chipperfield has taken a brave leap in reclaiming this building for the city. This will force visitors to confront everything the building represents, including its guilty associations, as part of its story. This is an opportunity to educate. Its history should be spelled out in the museum literature, however, because without that narrative, the Haus der Kunst is just a building.


Readers' comments (4)

  • Isn't there the very real fear that 'removing the veil' from such a powerful image from an authoritarian nightmare will risk adding fuel to the revival of the very sentiments that spawned the Third Reich - sentiments that clearly aren't dead, inside or outside Germany.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Surely Chipperfield should set out to somehow subvert the original building and its cultural context. Is he really doing this?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Chipperfield has, of course, produced masterpieces such as the BBC building in Scotland, one of my favourite examples of the spill-out space.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Amen for Chpperfield

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.