As Geoffrey D. Lewis addressed in History of museums, the collection, preservation, and interpretation of material things are the essential components of a museum. Not necessarily a modern construction that hosts objects collected from elsewhere, many buildings of historical significance have been adapted to house museums as well. In this post I will focus on The Palace Museum of Beijing, a historical site located in the center of the forbidden city. I believe that it possesses a combination of elements that is unique in museology: similar to Palace of Fontainebleau, it serves both as a museum, and an architectural masterpiece itself.
Unlike most other museums, the map of The Palace offers a recommended route for visitors to explore certain parts of the museum, meanwhile the tourists are encouraged to walk through the entire palace. Since the museum was used as the royal palace for more than 400 years, the content are organized and allocated around the location, instead of the usual concept of building a museum to display materials.
After entering through the main Gate, visitors will follow the central axis and explore the Halls (in the middle) and Gardens (on both sides). Finally after a detour leading to 2 Areas, the visitors will leave the museum from the exit Gate. Thus, the original architectural plan has a strong impact on the structure of exhibitions, and consequently the viewers’ perception of the museum. In a sense, The Palace first categorizes its collections according to the popular route — the exhibit is divided into either a pure display of architectural masterpieces or ancient buildings that host themed collections. Then, the selected Halls display exhibitions which are categorized by the objects’ form of art. For instance, painting, calligraphy, jewelry, ceramics and jade&precious stone are all showcased in different Halls. The categorization of the collection, despite of being seemingly sophisticated, precisely delivers the mission of The Palace museum to the public: preserve and display the pinnacle of Chinese art and architecture during the Ming/Qing dynasties.
An alternate classification could be achieved by switching the recommended route according to the chronological expansion of the The Palace throughout 3 dynasties, so that the viewers could explore the evolution of architectural styles retrospectively. The collections will be consequently reorganized in a chronological order. In this way, the changes in categorization would also replace the emphasis of the exhibition by dividing the integrated palace into independent collections of artifacts in different historical periods. However, compared with an intact palace, the fragments of Chinese art which are shaped by the alternate classification will lose its attraction to the viewers considerably.
I thought your proposal for an alternative organization of the museum space was a fantastic idea because, in a way, your idea adds another layer of learning to visitors’ experience. By moving through the space according to chronological expansion of the palace, and thus calling attention to changes in architectural style, the visitor learns about the objects contained inside the Palace as well as history of the place in which they are exhibited.
I also agree with your proposed reoganization. At the end of the day museums are supposed to tell stories and it’s difficult for visitors to leave with a story in mind without clear organization. But at the same time, I see the merits of keeping this original organization which preserves the original layout of the palace and allows the visitor to feel more immersed.