A ziggurat of brick and concrete : Tate Modern and the museum in the 21st century

In the 13th issue of the American Architecture journal Any of 1996, devoted to the museum architecture in general and the Tate Modern project in particular, editor Cynthia Davidson asked the provocative question “What kind of ‘new’ museum for the 21st century can be considered serious architecture if it is just and adaption of an old power station, of another former industrial space as a place for the display of art?” Davidson regretted the fact that wishes for urban regeneration were given preference over ambitions for architectural experimentation: “Is architecture willing to become a kind of bandaid that is simply applied, however artfully, to urban sores?” Nearly two decades later Davidson’s shrewd question demands for critical reconsideration, if not in the least since the facts seem to have proven her wrong. In the past 15 years of its existence Tate Modern has internationally established itself as the most popular museum of modern and contemporary art, attracting the largest crowds ever seen worldwide. Despite the many skeptical, if not outright negative, reception by professionals of the new building and the inaugural collection display respectively, visitors have flooded Tate Modern’s spaces – amounting to a stellar 5,7 million visitors last year. The reconversion of the Bankside Power Station may not have been the most visionary project in either architectural or institutional terms – it ultimately recuperated the critical occupation of raw spaces devised by artists in the 1960s as a mere cosmetic display strategy of alterity – it did however emerge as one of the most prosperous projects in civic terms – unlike any other the museum has managed to draw in a public of different ages, distinctive cultural upbringing, and diverse ethnic backgrounds. This article makes a sincere attempt to reformulate Davidson’s question in the light of the current Transforming Tate Modern project, the long-awaited extension of the museum by Herzog & de Meuron. Where then should the primary challenges in terms of architecture for the ‘new’ museum for the 21st century be situated? What part of the architectural brief truly summons architecture today? Is it the gallery space, which needs to accommodate and display the arts and artists, or rather the social space, which is expected to welcome and activate the visitors and the public at large? Or could it be a mixture of both? To this end, I will argue, it is mandatory to recalibrate the terms upon which current and future museum buildings projects can be assessed. With the advent of Tate Modern at the start of the 21st century the conditions have radically altered. Or even boldly stated, Tate Modern played a major role in altering those conditions. The traditional museum program of collecting, studying and publicly displaying artifacts has lost pride of place. The scholarly tenet of the museum has become far from obsolete, but it does have to contend with a rapidly expanding social vocation of public education and popular leisure. Ever more museum institutions have to fulfill both duties. Fathomably the museum designs have to follow suit. This essay aims to evaluate the consequences of this seismic shift in in institutional policy and management for architecture. How does it affect the classical adagio that ‘museums should be built for the arts’? What is the position carved out by the Transforming Tate Modern project? How well does the building expedite the institution in confronting the demands of the 21st century?