CHAPTER 5 ART AND PLACE
5.3 ART, PLACE AND MAN
5.3.2 Hedmark Museum, Hamar, Norway – Sverre Fehn
Constructed in 1973 and sited over traces of a medieval fortress and the remains of a U- shaped 19th century farm building, the Hedmark Museum re-occupies a site rich with archaeological remains. Further significance of the site lies in its placing on the Kaupang trail established by the Bishop of Hamar in his pilgrimage to Rome in 1302.
Figure 5 .16: The Hedmark Museum in Hamar, Norway, by S verre Fehn set amongst ruins and using the experiential as a bridge to memory. (source: Rebs, M. at http://rebs.smugmug.com/Architecture/2010-OSLO-
IMAGES/12077953_7z4Lm/1/858020229_6eznp#!i=857982322&k=nyQUT, accessed: 11-05-2012)
90 The brief for the project was to design a museum in which the excavation of the historical sites could continue as a living exhibit and as a response Fehn ensured that the existing ground was interfered with as little as possible.
Figure 5 .17: Ground Floor P lan of the museum atop the ancient ruins, opening the building program to improved accessibility of the archaeological sites. (source: Weston, R. in Plans, sections and elevations: Key building s of the
Twen tieth Centu ry. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd.)
Figure 5.18 : Upper Floor P lan of the Museum, indicating the building’s massing in relation to the site. (source: Weston, R.
in Plans, sections and e leva tions: Key bu ild ings of the Twentieth Century. London: Laurence King P ublishing Ltd.)
91 A long and narrow L-shaped ramp leads the visitor above ground, sailing across the site, touching the earth lightly and linking the exterior to the interior by way of a foyer.
Figure 5.19 : The sinuous ramp, carefully negotiating the memories of the place so as not to disturb the archaeological sites and simultaneously providing a visitor with a global understanding of the archaeological find. (source: Rebs, M.. at
http://rebs.smugmug.com/Architecture/2010-OSLO-
IMAGES/12077953_7z4Lm/1/858020229_6eznp#!i=857982322&k=nyQUT, accessed: 11-05-2012)
This serves to orientate the visitor in relation to the archaeological site and draws him/her into the interior reconstituted with vertical concrete supports and a roof supported by laminated timber beams, reminiscent of Norway’s ship-building history.
Fig ure 5.20 : The interior of the museum using warm materials, standing as a metaphor for Norway’s ship-building heritage, filtering the local light to generate a transcendental atmosphere that echoes the transcendent act of viewing the relics of ages
past. (source: Rebs, M.. at http://rebs.smugmug.com/Architecture/2010-OSLO-
IMAGES/12077953_7z4Lm/1/858020229_6eznp#!i=857982322&k=nyQUT, accessed: 11-05-2012)
The structural rhythm is varied but clearly evident with numerous details, striking in their simplicity, being used to unite the scheme.
92 Internally, where excavations continue, elevated concrete walkways dissect the space interrupted by square concrete ‘treasuries’ on singular circular columns for special exhibits.
In this way, significant artefacts are appreciated within the context that birthed them and in the mind of the viewer, a cognitive connection is made.
Fig ure 5.21 : Connecting the building program to the actual process of unearthing the archaeological finds and marking this path with opportunities for action and attention. (source: Rebs, M.. at http://rebs.smugmug.com/Architecture/2010-OSLO-
IMAGES/12077953_7z4Lm/1/858020229_6eznp#!i=857982322&k=nyQUT, accessed: 11 -05-2012)
In the side wings of the museum more solid elements are introduced, in the one a concrete staircase forms a raked auditorium and in the other a partial concrete floor from where the excavations can be observed.
Unification of the old stone walls and the roof overhead is achieved through red-stained timber boarding and light is permitted entry through glass tiles or sheets which interrupt this envelope crafting a mysterious air akin to the feeling experienced by archaeologists at a new excavation site.
93
Fig ure 5.22: The meeting of the old stone walls and the new roof materials celebrated materially in a way which clearly defines both elements and generates a new rhythm, like the ticking of a watch. (source: Rebs, M.. at
http://rebs.smugmug.com/Architecture/2010-OSLO-
IMAGES/12077953_7z4Lm/1/858020229_6eznp#!i=857982322&k=nyQUT, accessed: 11-05-2012)
The use of rudimentary steel supports for the displays adds drama and presence to the historical exhibits but moreover, integrates them into the broader narrative woven by the paths through the museum. This dialogue between the archaic artefact and the new built-form informs every aspect of Fehn’s design.
Fig ure 5.23 : Displays are clearly at odds with the ancient context but in this establish the tone for the museum, the blending of old and new, generating hybrid memories through which a visitor can glimpse the past. (source: Rebs, M.. at
http://rebs.smugmug.com/Architecture/2010-OSLO-
IMAGES/12077953_7z4Lm/1/858020229_6eznp#!i=857982322&k=nyQUT, accessed: 11-05-2012)
94 In 2005, Fehn was invited to complete two additional wings to the existing museum in order to make new archaeological finds accessible to the public. The two new additions are primarily composed of timber and glass and serve to protect the more recently unearthed, adjacent 12th century ruins. The first rests upon a rectangular stone foundation at one end of the site whilst the other is a deep, semi-cylindrical volume, clad in copper and timber.
Fig ure 5.24 : P lan of the two new wings to the museum indicating the notional dialogue between the new built elements and the older. (source: Studio In Norwegian archaeological horizons. Domus, (no. 865): p. 104-9, September 2006.)
Figure 5 .25: Elevational-Section of the extensions to the museum alluding to the ages of the new archaeological finds and the forms that may have existed on the site before. (source: Studio In Norwegian archaeological horizons. Domu s, (no. 865):
p. 104-9, September 2006.)
95
Figure 5 .26: Part of the new extension, completed in different materials to distinguish this new find and formalise its memory in relation to the historic context. (source: Studio In Norwegian archaeological horizons. Domu s, (no. 865): p.
104-9, September 2006.)
Figure 5.27: The courtyard-side extension to the museum, formally echoing the original structure and encouraging an element of palimpsest in which the current built-forms recreate a dialogue of the ancient built-forms, compressing time. (source: Studio In Norwegian archaeological horizons.
Do mus, (no. 865): p. 104-9, September 2006.)
In both instances, the new structures provide a subtle allusion to what the original structures may have looked like.
Fig ure 5.28: A formal and notional mimicry of the ancient...
(source: Studio In Norwegian archaeological horizons.
Do mus, (no. 865): p. 104-9, September 2006.)
Fig ure 5.29: … stimulating the feelings of man through considering mortality and exhibiting the tactile. (source:
Studio In Norwegian archaeological horizons. Do mus, (no.
865): p. 104-9, September 2006.)
These structures in conjunction with the existing museum suggest strata of horizons in time and implicate a dialogue between different cultural artefacts as built-form across different eras. The order given permits visitors to perceive clearly what has been found, what has been excavated, what has been reconstituted and what has survived wars, nature and time.
Fig ure 5.30: The joining of the new, the old and the ancient, illustrating strata’s of memory in which man’s interpretation of the here-and-now is starkly contrasted with the horizon of time represented through built elements. (source: Studio In
Norwegian archaeological horizons. Domu s, (no. 865): p. 104-9, September 2006.)
96