During the last five years, our practice has spent many hours between two stops on the Piccadilly line: Holborn – the local stop to our studio, and South Kensington – the land of the museum. On arrival at South Kensington, we have walked north up Exhibition Road. From there we have either turned left to our site in the Wellcome Wing or right to our site at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Both projects are now up and running and thoughts on the underground inevitably lead to comparisons between these two projects.

What do they have in common and where do they differ?

On the face of it they are very different galleries for one museum to do with objects, the other to do with scientific ideas and principles.

But as the dust settles and thinking becomes a bit clearer, what is interesting is how much they have in common. First then a few moments only on the design process of the Wellcome Wing

Each of the galleries were discussing different subjects but were spatially connected. Our response to the briefs for all three floors was obviously affected by the building which basically gave us three bridges of diminishing size which were not only galleries but had to act as primary circulation routes across the building. This meant that it had to be possible for visitors to take a fast track through. The third floor in particular needed to be capable of absorbing waves of up to 400 people exiting from the Imax every hour or so.

What were these affects of affects?

Bridges mean movement, which proved to be tricky for lighting and projectors

The diminishing sizes of the galleries doesn’t affect the floors of course, but does affect the ceilings so one third of each has no ceiling & no lighting.

The blue wall introduced a mood which although not as invasive as we had though it might be, nonetheless prompts each gallery to respond with more force than a black or white wall might have. It was tricky to anticipate the quality of this wall.

The vertical circulation being behind walls put pressure on the view through the doors and glimpses from the other floors having to be irresistible.

The design of all three galleries was developed primarily as an expression of the gallery subject and not of the individual topics discussed within it..

By not being designed around the detail, each of them was able to support the content as it emerged. This is the key to understanding the design of these galleries.

The first and second floors were designed as landscapes within which the content could freely develop: the nature of both galleries meant that content was unsettled until late on. The landscapes were our major move and it was important that it became an extension of the subject matter in itself.

The first floor is arranged in apparent symmetry – like our faces. The elements which build it are all the same except for the last .5%, which is the bit that makes us all different from each other and our monkey relatives.

The route moves from the highly organised to the highly individual. The showcases are a familiar and reassuring passive medium of explanation, whilst the bloids are less familiar, but they are friendly are the active medium of explanation they invite interactivity: their construction are a fusion of the forms of the human body and the technological vocabulary of the typical science museum object.

The second floor arrangements of warps and wefts was a three dimensional expression of how process of digitation works and why it is such a powerful tool.. Even the seats designed as viruses contribute to the form-al message.

Both of these floors have objects, selected to support the messages and many of them not the obvious ones. The brain scanner is a crucial piece of equipment, but the object is not visually engaging or self explanatory. The silicon chip can be admired for its small size, but it says little on its own. It has an aesthetic which we have exploited, but it cannot speak. The task was to find objects which could speak the message of the gallery.

Artists made a major contribution to the problem of how to get ideas across in an abstract but engaging way. They have a licence to be looser with how they say things and this can be very useful.

The third floor is about risk: are we risking our future? This is a simple metaphor which most visitors understand although the museum are keen not to promote the gallery as casino. Taking risks is exciting, can be fun, can be funny. But the implications are serious and that is what the gallery talks of.

We know that it is important that the layout for a gallery should be clearly understood on entry. The size of it should be readable, the construct and organisation of it should be clear. This was a key element in the design of all three galleries and of our other museum work.

Clarity is less tiring than confusion or mystery. I am always wary of projects that depend on the appetite of the visitor for intrigue. Museum visits are tiring enough without been forced to be creative about understanding what it is that is being offered to you.

The word TIRING leads me across the road to the V&A

The full title of our galleries is ‘British Art and Design from 1500 to 1900’, which, as I sure you will know takes us from Henry V111 to end of Queen Victoria.

The period starts at a time when Britain was essentially an importer of culture and design to a time when she was regarded as the workshop of the world; a move from a time when taste was dictated by the Crown to a time when the High St shop became the source of cultural authority. It also marks the moment when England, separated from Rome, chose to spend her money on the home instead of the church.

This is a good story with or without the aesthetics of the thing.

The arrangement of the galleries is essentially chronological and air conditioning allows the display of the full range of art and design to be shown together – textiles, drawings, furniture, painting, glass, ceramics, silver, costume and whole rooms.

This, is an object focussed experience, but where it differs from many art museum presentations is in the attempt that the museum, with our help, has made to make this an active instead of a passive experience. This is an attempt to break down the aura of mystique that can surround a national museum visit.

It is possible to say that the strap line of these galleries is ‘why do objects look the way they do?’ They do not assume previous knowledge either of kings and queens or of the history and language of style, but they are capable of explaining the political history of Britain through the objects she commissioned and used. If we are keen to encourage people to enjoy these objects – in any way they wish – then our job was to help people to find a way into them.

The collection is large – originally 5,000 objects, but reduced to about 3,000. The galleries occupy 3000 sq m which represents about one tenth of the museum.

This is a daunting prospect for the most hardened of visitor, and in order to make a visit digestible, and the objects understandable, the curators have woven four narratives through the displays:

As well as the explanation of Style and the terms used to describe it (many of which visitors do not understand), Who led taste?, Fashionable living. Technological innovation.

Style displays present objects in such a way that the visitor is encouraged to view them for their detail: if it is Rococo – look how similar the kettle is to this candlestick to this textile , to this carving: all can be called ‘Rococo’.

Who lead taste displays have to suggest to the visitor why these objects were a ‘must have’ – the Nike of their day – tribal, political, financial reasons. These become set pieces, with microclimates. They have to be seductive.

Fashionable living is really about the consumer and here the displays are more domestic, more bourgeois, set pieces but quirkier.

Innovation displays explain techniques or object types. The displays are cooler less seductive closer to the eye, investigative.

Three of the 5 period rooms are panelled rooms and the back of the panelling is exposed so that the visitor can understand that they are really 3D wallpaper

The galleries are designed to

show how things are made, with videos, or visual exposure:

help visitors understand the difference between things, by feeling them, and by showing them what to look for.

Ask for opinions and suggest topics which highlight the connections that can be made to our daily lives: the desire to collect, the desire to find value, the force of branding, the snobbery of knowledge.

One of the problems with the decorative arts is that much of the material is widely divorced from contemporary life; an epergne?, a commode?, a salt? a ewer? – in gold?..a state bed? Do these make any sense outside their historical and domestic context? Does a Rococo object designed for a Rococo room makes sense once divorced from that room? Does an Adam ceiling make any sense once it is ripped from the house designed around it?

The museum has a choice: it can present these as works of art – singly, separated, enshrined, or it can return to its mission to educate and to explain and exploit the fact that the context has been lost.

In a museum we cannot fully understand the purpose of an object, but we can begin to understand its language: and, the museum can help us do this because it can offer 3 keys to understanding:

comparison

deconstruction

the closer look

These are things you cannot get from the country house, the book or even the CD Rom. Thus, the concerns we had at the Wellcome Wing – clarity, orientation, engagement, – were the same concerns that we had here too.

The design process

There are 90 subjects: they have titles such as Taking Tea, Eating and Drinking, Entrepreneurs, Collectors. Within any subject there might be a bust, a tapestry, a dress, a print, a teapot, a picture frame. Some subjects – such as ‘Vasemania’ will be a mass display of vases, but most are mixed..

There is an extensive programme of interpretative devices woven through the galleries ranging from computer interactives to objects that can be handled.

The museum catch phrase was ‘bland is not an option’ but they didn’t want to see us either.

The design process was divided into phases:
1 we determined the relationships between subjects and their desirable positions within the galleries.
2 we established their scale and atmosphere and the identification of subjects which had little visual potential which were weeded out. Objects which were too big were weeded out.
3 we then set up the architectural framework within which they would all sit. At this point Casson Mann made various rules for itself: no pastiche, transparency where possible, no secrets and lies. We wanted the gallery shell to be ever present – for orientation and if possible a view through to the end of each room.
4 This involved setting up key vistas, star objects, variety in pace, density, noise, rhythm, identifying subjects. It also involved dedicating the corner rooms to object-free zones. Rest, read, data base and now Cornelia Parker.
5 we then positioned the AV rooms and the discovery areas.
6 we set up the basic rules of display between the themes.
7 we began the development of the interpretative devices and all that they were to imply. Also the extensive programme of work for the disabled.
8 – 107 we then began: the long and painful task of making nests for 3000 orphans.

Part of our stage C submission was a series of studies which explored the spaces we were creating:
1 blocking out of periods
2 architectural layout/ structure
3 lighting strategy : the lighting is fibre optic – most top lighting off the raft, some from the plinths.
4 star objects
5 the route through
6 the display cases
7 natural light
8 sound
9 spatial perception
10 themes

We also had to face up to the problem of how to communicate with our client – a multitude of drawings, sketches and eight card models.

We also had to learn how to communicate with the other consultants and interested parties:
1 Architect
2 Mechanical & Electrical Engineers
3 Structural engineers
4 Project managers
5 Lighting designers
6 Graphic designers
7 Electronic interactive designers
8 Low tech interactive designers
9 Mlinaric & co
11 Earnscliffe & co
12 Security consultants
13Trustees
14 Heritage lottery fund officials
15 Private funders
16 Conservation
17 Curators of which there were 9
18 B&E

We also had to begin the task of finding display cases which met our dreams of our ‘look no hands’.

In spite of the desire to put most of the objects on open display there was a need for about 180 showcases.

We developed the display cases with Goppion in Italy. There are 7 families of cases which give the curators 100 % access. We have seriously challenged the assumed norm of heavy aluminium frames. They are remarkable.

There was also an extensive period of work with the Graphic designers on signage, labels, panel, interpretative device. The captions are friendly in tone: none say ‘important object’ and none say ‘a commode’ without an immediate qualification. There is no hiding of the caption: they are not offered grudgingly. Of course there is a separate lecture or two to be had about captions.

To return then to my musings on the underground:
What are the things that separate or link these two projects?
First the differences:

The Wellcome Wing is in a new building; the V&A in an old building

The Wellcome Wing fit out budget was £2.5 m; the V&A £15 m

Casson Mann involvement in the Wellcome Wing was 2 years; the V&A 5 years

The Wellcome Wing galleries are essentially open spaces; the V&A galleries essentially closed

The Wellcome Wing subject matter was about new areas of science and technology, some of which are complex and for which objects were to be used as illustrations to support explanations. The V&A is about the presentation of objects – the objects being central with everything else being supportive to them.

The Wellcome Wing project is part of a subject which is inherently hands-on. The culture of the Science Museum is based on interactivity – learning by doing and experiment. The V&A is grounded in a highly valued tradition of learning by gazing. A culture of not touching.

What are the Things in Common?:

Exhibition Road. Not so frivolous a common thread as one might think as the whole South Kensington site was established from profits of the Great Exhibition of 1851 as was to be dedicated to ‘education’, which included universities as well as museums. From the beginning then an interpretation of education as being an active as well as a passive occupation. This meant that both of our projects were to be part of that 19th century vision, constantly reassessed since, but basically part of something much bigger than themselves.

Is that all? Maybe but there are other less visible things which link these projects and probably connect them to contemporary museological thinking.

Centrality of the visitor : this represents a dramatic move for a museum like the V&A.

The dot matrix installation on the blue wall in the Wellcome Wing is not only a beautiful thing, but is a crucial statement about the Wellcome Wing. This is to do with listening to the visitor and going public on how seriously these views are taken. The V&A also is listening. There is a new culture of sharing and of listening. All other things really stem from this: the search for clarity, variety, putting the visitor at ease,

The new British galleries reverse the trend towards no colour, big empty walls, single objects presented as icons. They are full of colour: 15 gallery colours, 70 panel colours, 40 textiles. I hope and think they are without pomposity, friendly to families, full of places to rest, full of places to do things, try things, feel things. That is, the active experience we were searching for.
Dinah Casson lecture
Kingston 2002
Related projects:

British Galleries

Who am I?

Digitopolis

In Future