Experience between

the lines
A study on the visitors’ experience in the Jewish Museum Berlin by Daniel Libeskind

AR2A011 Architectural history thesis

TU Delft

Joost van Driesum

4699939

Tutor: Sabina Tanović

April 30, 2021

Experience between
the lines
A study on the visitors’ experience in the Jewish Museum Berlin by Daniel Libeskind

AR2A011 Architectural history thesis

TU Delft

Joost van Driesum

4699939

Tutor: Sabina Tanović

April 30, 2021

Title page image: Figure 1: Tower of Holocaust (Ziehe, n.d.)

2
Abstract

The Holocaust is one of the most horrendous events

in history, therefore people should be educated
on the topic to create remembrance. Museums
are the designated places for this; however, tra-
ditional museums are not most suited. According
to neurophysiology, re-imagining and emotional
connection are most important to make people
remember. New memorial museums or counter-
monuments provide in this new type of museum,
with the Jewish Museum Berlin by Daniel Libeskind
being one of the first and with that experimental
examples. Daniel Libeskind supported his design
with a paper called ‘Between the Lines’ where he
explains the concept of the design writing he tried
to create a building of contemplation and memory.
His design is focused on creating a haptic experi-
ence, especially at the underground level with sev-
eral highly experiential spaces. According to most
experts, architects and ‘normal’, he succeeded in
this task and created a museum that speaks to the
emotions, especially in those spaces that make the
visitors think and create a lasting memory. Hereby
he provided a museum that makes people never
forget the horrors of the Holocaust.

Figure 2: Memory void (Memory Void, n.d.)

3
Table of Contents

Introduction_________________________________________________ 5
The museum’s history_______________________________________ 6
Designing a memorial museum_____________________________ 9
Between the Lines_________________________________________ 11
The star of David_____________________________________ 11
Opera of Aaron and Moses__________________________ 12
Names of killed and deported Jews_________________ 12
‘One Way Street’ by Walter Benjamin_______________ 13
Experiencing the Museum_________________________________ 14
Entrance______________________________________________ 16
Voids__________________________________________________ 17
Three axes____________________________________________ 17
Garden of Exile_______________________________________ 18
Tower of Holocaust__________________________________ 18
Memory Void_________________________________________ 19
Upper floors__________________________________________ 19
Conclusion_________________________________________________ 20
Bibliography_______________________________________________ 22
Image bibliography________________________________________ 23

Figure 3: Areal view (Bredt, n.d.)

4
Introduction

The Holocaust is one of the most horrendous events design concept and ideas and how his design is per-
in history and arguably the most famous and most ceived and appreciated by both experts and archi-
discussed in Europe. It is impossible to completely tects as well as normal visitors. This thesis tries
understand the horrors the Jews have gone through to fill in that gap and give an understandable and
in that time. However, it is important to not forget comprehensive overview.
and to make people understand a glimpse of what
happened in order to create understanding, both This thesis will be looking at the design of the Jewish
to never forget and to prevent anything like it from Museum Berlin by Daniel Libeskind, with the main
happening in the future. focus on the perception, experience and emotional
Thereby the question rises how to achieve connection with the museum. The goal is to find out
this. How to educate people on this topic, not just how Libeskind tried to design the building in a way
in terms of sharing facts, but also in terms of emo- that the visitors feel emotionally connected and
tional connection. Many monuments and museums consequently get a much more memorable experi-
are built for this purpose. According to many critics, ence of the visit. Besides, this research tries to con-
architects, scientists and ordinary people the Jew- clude whether Libeskind succeeded in this task. To
ish Museum Berlin, designed by Daniel Libeskind, is find this out the research will be focussed on three
the most successful in terms of its design. With over main topics, Libeskind’s concept for the design, crit-
700.000 visitors each year it is one of the most vis- ics’ opinions, and the opinions of visitors.
ited museums in Berlin (Jüdisches Museum Berlin,
z.d.). The first chapter “The museum’s history”, gives an
In neurophysiology, it is said that a person’s overview of the history of the museum from its ori-
memory is not based on received information but gin until now to put the Libeskind design into the
rather on re-imagining (Silke Arnold-de Simine1, historical perspective of the museum. The second
2012). She writes that memorials and memory chapter “Designing a memorial museum”, provides
museums often use this re-imaging to get the visi- a theoretical framework of the function and proper-
tors attention since it is seen as more engaging and ties a memorial museum should have according to
besides, it is a democratic and ethical way of trans- literature and thereafter places Libeskind’s design
lating the past. The Jewish Museum Berlin uses the in this framework. The third chapter “Between the
same manner to display the past and it is much Lines”, summarizes and analyses the writings that
strengthened by the experiential design of Daniel Libeskind wrote throughout the design process to
Libeskind. support the design to ultimately uncover his ideas
for this design. The fourth chapter “Experiencing
This thesis will therefore research how Libeskind’s the museum”, analyses writings on the design from
design tries to make its visitors re-imagine the past different critics and analyses research on visitors’
and emotionally connect with the history of Jews in appreciation of the design. These findings will
Germany. Then it will be researched how experts then be compared to Libeskind’s ideas to conclude
and ‘normal’ visitors perceive Libeskind’s design to whether Libeskind’s design is understood the way
conclude whether Libeskind succeeded in the task he meant and whether the museum’s design fits
of designing the Jewish Museum Berlin. into the theoretical framework made in the second
chapter. Finishing with a summary and concluding
A lot of studies on the Jewish Museum Berlin have whether Daniel Libeskind’s design for the Jewish
been conducted already, however, none of them Museum Berlin is successful or not.
gives a comprehensive comparison of Libeskind’s

1
“Silke Arnold-de Simine is a lecturer in German Studies in the Department of European Cultures and Languages, Birkbeck
(University of London). Her research interests lie in 19th- and 20th-century German literature and early film, gender studies,
cultural memory and museum studies.” (Arnold-de Simine, z.d.)
5
The museum’s history

This chapter heavily relies on the book Jewish

Museum, Libeskind, D., & Binet, H. (1999), the 1875
source will therefore not be repeated throughout 1878: First exhibition of Jewish art at the
the chapter. World Expo in Paris

The origin of the Jewish Museum lays among a few

Big exhibition of Jewish art in London
private collectors of Jewish ceremonial objects as
art objects, banker Alexander David (1687-1765)
was one of the most important. After his death, his Several organizations and museums were
collection was given to the Jewish community in founded to collect and protect Jewish
Braunschweig. 1900 objects
The first collection of Jewish art that was
exhibited to the public however was more than one
hundred years later in 1878, at the world expo in
Paris and belonged to Isaac Strauss (1806-1888).
This exposition was exceptional at the time because 1917: First exhibition of Jewish art from
it showed objects for their aesthetic quality over Alber wolf which was the foundation for
the Jewish Museum Berlin
their ritual function. In 1889 the Musée the Clungy
Culmination of Jewish museum due to
was able to acquire Strauss’s collection. Less than 1925 interest of Jews in their own history
ten years after the exhibition on the world expo,
January 24, 1933: Official inauguration of
a similar exhibition was presented in London with
the Jewish Museum Berlin
close to 3000 objects spread over four locations.
January 30, 1933: Nazis seize power
This large number of objects opened the possibility
November 10, 1938: Forced close and loot
to classify and analyse the objects for the first time.
of the museum
All Jewish museums in the German-speak-
ing part of Europe originated from private collec- May 23, 1945: Final dissolution of the Nazis
tors. Just before 1900 ethnological organizations
and small museums were founded to collect and 1950
protect Jewish objects to keep evidence of Jewish
culture and to show it to the public. The founding
of the “Society for the Collection and Conservation August 13, 1961: Build of the Berlin Wall
of the Art and Historical Monuments of the Jews”
in Vienna (1894), the “Society for the Study of Jew- 1969: Accommodation of the Berlin Muse-
ish Art” in Düsseldorf (1897) and the “Society for um in the reconstructed baroque building
Jewish Ethnography” in Hamburg (1898) formed in which it still is accommodated
the first institutional basis for Jewish museums 1975: Foundation of the “Society for a Jew-
1975
in the German-speaking part of Europe. They col- ish Museum in Berlin”
lected, researched and exhibited all kinds of Jew-
ish art and objects, with every organization having 1984: Jewish division of the Berlin Museum
another focus. They succeeded to a certain extent gets a permanent space in the building
and were able to produce exhibition spaces, mean- 1988: Contest for a design for the Jewish
while inspiring smaller communities to open their division of the Museum is written out and
exhibitions. Shortly after, collections were shown won by Daniel Libeskind
in Danzig (1903), Prague (1906), Warsaw (1910) November 9, 1989: Fall of the Berlin Wall
November 9, 1992: Laying of the corner-
and Berlin (1917) and at the same time, new com- 2000 stone of the museum
munities and exhibitions started in among others 1999: Completion of the museum
Jerusalem and St. Petersburg. From the start of the September 9, 2001: Inauguration of the
century until around 1920, the history of Jewish new building, the ‘Jewish Museum Berlin’
museums reached a culmination, mostly due to the Now the museum has won several archi-
strong interest of the Jews in their history. Muse- tecture awards and is one of the most
ums exhibited art but also presented the efforts important Jewish museums around the
of Jews to take place in German society. At the end 2020 world receiving around 700.000 visitors
every year
6
of this period, the problem of the German-Jew- Edwin Redslob in 1962. The museum was accom-
ish identity had become an important part of the modated in a reconstructed Baroque Kollegien-
museum work, with exhibitions mainly directed haus on Lindenstrasse in 1969, which provided a
towards non-Jewish visitors. place to relive Berlin’s history. Jewish pieces were
In this history, the role of Berlin had been less among collected items since the start, because this
prominent. Jeweller Alber Wolf (1841-1907) started museum was a place for all Berlin citizens. Primar-
gathering a private collection that was bequeathed ily, exhibitions were focused on religious aspects,
to the Jewish congregation in Berlin, this was the but later, starting in the seventies, cultural life
foundation for the Jewish Museum. The collection before and after the war became a focal point in
was open to the public in 1917 for the first time. the exhibitions. The experience of exclusion of Jews
Till 1930 when Karl Schwarz became director of the during the war became more important over time,
museum, Moritz Stern was the supervisor. Before, resulting in the idea of building an extension build-
Karl Schwarz had founded a “Jewish Museum Soci- ing to house this aspect of history. In November
ety” which wanted to raise interest in Jewish art and 1975, the “Society for a Jewish Museum in Berlin”
culture and to expand the collection to later form was founded. They wanted to rebuild the Ephraim
a Jewish Museum. By not only collecting old but Palace on a plot adjacent to the Berlin Museum. In
also contemporary works by Jewish artists, it stood 1979 Dr Vera Bendt was the new curator of the Jew-
out amongst other museums. On January 24, 1933, ish part of the Berlin Museum. The reconstruction
just a few days before the Nazis seized power, the of the Ephraim palace was harder than expected
museum was inaugurated next to the synagogue and finally in 1981, the municipality decided to
on Oranienburger Strasse 31. reconstruct the palace closer to its original site and
In the summer of 1933, Karl Schwartz left the plans for the building to be part of the Berlin
Berlin and went to Palestine, followed by his pre- Museum were laid to rest again.
decessor Erna Stein-Blumenthal in May 1935. Dr In the meantime, the museum’s Jewish col-
Franz Landsberger became director after Erna lection continued to grow, and with that the need
Stein-Blumenthal left and he was able to organise for an extension building. Then a bill passed which
a few significant exhibitions before forced close on stated that because the former Jewish museum
November 10, 1938. The last exhibition was about was taken by the Nazis, a new museum was con-
the restrictions and oppression that kept Jews from sidered restitution. Gifts of documents allowed
properly practice their faith. After the pogrom on the society to spread information and with that to
Kristallnacht the Nazis confiscated the properties mobilize its members to defend themselves against
of the museum and the director Franz Landsberger anti-Semitism. The Jewish division of the museum
was arrested and sent to Sachsenhausen. When got a permanent space in the Berlin museum in
he was released, he fled to England and later emi- 1984 since the alternative of a new building could
grated to the United States. not be found. In 1986 the number of spaces for the
The destruction and spread of the great pop- Jewish division extended to four already. In the fol-
ulations of central and eastern European Jews and lowing years the idea of an extension kept being
their museums and private collections left a cultural mentioned, and a plan was made for an “integrative
vacuum. Big parts of their rich history had disap- model”. The model emphasized the role of Jews as
peared. This void was partly filled by new museums an integral part of the city’s history, besides a rep-
in the United States and Israel. After the war Jewish resentation of the “distinct history of the Jews”. In
survivors focussed on reconstructing their com- March 1988, at the Aspen Institute, it was decided
munity and claiming restitution and reparations by that a Jewish museum must be created as part of
the Federal Republic of Germany. There was at first the Berlin Museum, but it had to be architecturally
no attention on reopening museums and besides, recognized as an independent and individual build-
there were no exhibition pieces left for those were ing and museum. Besides, it was agreed that its
all destroyed by the Nazis. Few works were found name would be “Berlin Museum – Jewish Museum”.
back later, and are still exhibited in several muse- The plot to the south of the current building was
ums among which the Jewish Museum in Berlin. chosen and a program and budget were made
The Berlin wall made the Märkisches and approved. The contest for the design got 165
Museum inaccessible for citizens of West Berlin and entries, and Daniel Libeskind’s design was chosen.
instigated the founding of the Berlin Museum by It developed “a spatial and kinetic concept of inter-
7
penetration, refraction, superimposition and tem- Jewish Museum finally became an independent
porary division” (Libeskind & Binet, 1999, p. 112). museum. The new building is now housing the ‘Jew-
According to Heinz Galinski, chair of the Jewish Con- ish Museum Berlin’ which was completed in 1999
gregation, the design made it possible “to connect and officially opened on September 9, 2001.
the ‘achievements and fate’ of the Jewish citizens of
this city with the history of Berlin in an inescapa- The Jewish Museum Berlin was never supposed to
ble way. In the future, no one will be able to visit be a holocaust museum, the initial plan was to build
the Jewish Museum without perceiving the history an extension wing to the existing Baroque building
of Berlin, and no one will be able to visit the future where the Jewish part of the German culture could
Berlin Museum without experiencing the history of be exhibited (Libeskind & Binet, 1999). The Jew-
its Jewish citizens in past and present.” (Libeskind & ish part was meant to be autonomous and at the
Binet, 1999, p. 112). same time incorporated with the existing museum
After the Fall of the Berlin Wall, some started to show how German and Jewish culture are inter-
to advocate to stop the building plans and yet again twined (Arnold-de Simine, 2012).
try to use the Ephraim palace. The realization was in Between commissioning in 1999 and the
danger because of financial difficulties partly caused official inauguration in 2001, the building was still
by the attempt to host the Olympics in Berlin. The empty, but open for visitors to experience the archi-
museum, together with Daniel Libeskind started a tecture. It was, and by some still is, argued to leave
campaign for the building that got lots of supports the building empty because an exhibition only blurs
from the international public. This put pressure on the experience of the architecture itself, according
the Jewish community and the municipality which to Arnold-de Simine (2012). She writes that some
resulted in the mayor of Berlin announcing in the even proposed not to build Eisenmann’s ‘Denkmal
fall of 1991 that Daniel Libeskind’s design would be für die ermordeten Juden Europas’ and leave the
built. After more planning and some cost reduction, Libeskind’s building empty to serve as a Holocaust
the cornerstone was laid in a ceremony on Novem- memorial instead. However, this was prevented by
ber 9, 1992. The baroque building was restored at the Jewish community and the Berlin Senate that
the same time. did not want to give up the museal function of the
Under director W. Michael Blumenthal the institute (Arnold-de Simine, 2012).

Figure 4: Front facade (Hufton+Crow, n.d.)

8
Designing a memorial museum

Arnold-de Simine (2012) writes that in neuro- These museums distinguish from traditional his-
physiology it is said that personal memory is not tory museums by not just exhibiting academic and
based on received information, but on re-imagin- institutional history, but more as places of memory,
ing, it is elusive, selective and therefore it cannot bringing a wider range of stories about the past
be trusted. However, to represent difficult pasts, to the public (Arnold-de Simine, 2012). However,
personal memories are widely used. These per- James E. Young (2000) writes that giving an archi-
sonal memories are not only conceived to be more tect the task to design for such a memory as the
engaging but they are also seen as providing a Holocaust is arguably impossible. He argues that
democratic and ethical way of approaching the such a memory might not be housable at all.
past according to Arnold-de Simine. The same arti- On the contrary of a museum just exhibiting
cle says that more objectified exhibitions that are a collection, memory museums take initiative in sin-
mostly very detached and distinct from the present gling out past events to be able to appeal to contro-
are no longer fit for the growing remembrance cul- versies of the present (Akcan, 2010). The exhibition
ture which is nowadays more focussed on the emo- becomes representative of the story, rather than
tional connection rather than historical facts. She the objects themselves (Arnold-de Simine, 2012).
writes that this stirring up of empathy is believed She writes that exhibited objects are no longer of
to be much stronger in preventing violent histories institutional value, but are now experiences of ‘wit-
from reoccurrence. A lot of contemporary popular nesses’ of the past that make the visitor re-live their
remembrance culture in western countries is based experience. As individual objects, they are relatively
on this more emotional approach towards history worthless but combined they create an impressive
(Arnold-de Simine, 2012). exhibition that speaks to the emotions of the visi-
During the Cold War, erected memorials for tor. Ana Suoto (2018) complements these findings,
victims of the Second World War were mostly mon- she writes that the objective is to have visitors make
umental classicist buildings that were manipulating a personal connection with the past, and make
collective memory by overemphasizing and stabi- them experience it. She continues that the distance
lizing the dominant voice and thus by taking part in between the present and past should be changed
cultural repression (Esra Akcan2, 2010). Akcan also into an emotional connection between the visitor
writes that the west was looking for new forms of and the eye-witnesses. The objects are then mostly
commemoration, not a memory of the unknown audio-visual which reduces the space between the
soldier that praises the army, but a monument that visitor and the ‘witness’ and these experiences are
provides a place to mourn about lost citizens and often even haptic, which breaks one of the major
loved ones. These monuments are more personal rules in traditional museums (Arnold-de Simine,
and make place for emotions, not like the cere- 2012). The same article says that giving a voice to
monious, classicist monuments. In her article, she dead witnesses transfers visitors into ‘secondary
calls these new type of monuments countermonu- witnesses’ and provides for visitors to identify with
ments. the dead. The aim is to confront and maybe discom-
fort the visitor and pushes them into self-reflection
From the nineties onward, the history museum has and responsibility.
gone through a transformation process in terms Additionally, Suoto (2018) writes that more
of role and function in society (Arnold-de Simine, recent literature is moving away from discussing
2012). She writes that most of the new build muse- the representation of death, and is more shifting
ums about history are no longer the traditional towards the visitors’ responses to these representa-
history museums, they are now more ‘memory tions. She substantiates this conclusion by naming
museums’ following the theory described above. research from Biran, A., Poria, Y. & Oren, G. (2011)

2
“Esra Akcan is the Michael A. McCarthy Professor of Architectural Theory in the Department of Architecture and the Director
of the Insitute for European Studies. Her scholarly work on a geopolitically conscious global history of urbanism and architec-
ture inspires her teaching.” (Center for International Studies, z.d.)
3
James E. Young is a “Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Founding Director of the Institute for Holocaust, Genocide, and
Memory Studies.” (College of Humanities & Fine Arts, Department of English, z.d.)
4
“Dr Ana Souto is a Principal Lecturer in Architecture at the School of Architecture, Design and Built Environment. Ana plays a
key role in the development and leadership of the research modules on undergraduate and postgraduate courses in Archi-
tecture, and is supporting doctoral candidates with her role as Post Graduate Research Tutor at School level.” (Nottingham
Trent University, z.d.)
9
that looks into the reasons people visit Auschwitz. Terry Smith5 (2005) claims that Libeskind’s design is
With this research they found that the main reasons more a philosophical program or an architectural
that are mentioned by visitors are ‘see it to believe manifesto. In addition to the big sense of engage-
it’, more understanding of what happened and sim- ment on the emotional level within the building,
ply the fact that Auschwitz is a ‘famous death tour- the design is assisted by several writings and dis-
ist attraction’. With these findings, they conclude sertations that Libeskind wrote which provides the
that not death nor the dead should be considered, building with multiple layers. He writes that, without
but the visitors’ perception of it, and how they get claiming that the design is completely correspond-
empathy and connections with the past to link to ing with the writings, it is apparent that these writ-
the present. ings are an integral part of the design (Libeskind &
Binet, 1999). When looking into the building from
One of the earlier museums or countermonuments the perspective of the writings, the design can be
is the Jewish Museum Berlin by Daniel Libeskind’s experienced in three levels described by Smith
and is hereby an experimental practice as well. (2005).
Arnold-de Simine describes the design as “not sim- The first is the level of experience, the main
ply an accumulation of several medial practices, goal of the design is to create an experience. Not
but can be described as ‘intermedial’: it attempts to aiming for figurative representation or iconographic
evoke altermedial semiotic frameworks to explore symbolism, but trying to provoke emotional and
the limitations of different representational con- visceral reactions and psychologically disturbing
cepts and strategies.” (2012, p.16) experience of disorientation.
It could be argued that the two almost oppo- The second is the level of metaphor, the
site commemorative functions cannot be joined in metaphor of the void that represents the violently
one building. The general view on monuments is created void of Jewish culture in the history of Ber-
that it is a place for ceremonies and it is creating a lin. Six voids are placed in the building on the inter-
community for mourning (Arnold-de Simine, 2012). sections of the two lines, they can be seen but not
She also writes that memorials are a place for really entered or used. The intersections represent
humble commemoration and passive contempla- the inseparable intersections of Jewish and German
tion, where museums are informative, critical and that created these voids.
explanatory institutions. The need for buildings The third is the level of allegory, the build-
that can provide for both functions was rising, how- ing is described as an ‘emblem’ by Libeskind him-
ever, the question of how to design such a place self with which he means that there is no eminent
is hard to answer as stated by Arnold-de Simine. connection between concept and building. There-
Akcan (2010) however writes that Libeskind suc- fore, the building cannot be completely understood
ceeded in this task, she argues that his design is not without adequate knowledge. The interpretation
only a countermonument in terms of its function of the building by both scholars and regular vis-
but in terms of its architectural shape as well. She itors is very much influenced by the dissertations
writes that the museum is, despite its huge scale, Libeskind wrote alongside the design. He wrote
not anything like the classic monuments from that these dissertations during the design phase, con-
time that have properties like symmetry, hierarchy, tinuously integrating design changes he was forced
clear entrance and clear geometry. It is quite the to make by the Jewish community and municipality
contrary with its never fully appearing façade, hid- of Berlin, and also after completion, he did a few
den entrance and confusing shape. This rekindles writings considering the reactions of the visitors.
the discussion on the function of a memorial once However, he never meant to create a linear nar-
again. The design encourages its visitors to engage rative to describe the building and the design pro-
on an emotional and visceral level, which reaches cess, on the contrary, it seems that he is satisfied
further than the traditional informative function of that the writings are as fragmented as the building
the museum and ceremonial function of memorials itself. (Smith, 2005)
(Akcan, 2010).

5
“TERRY SMITH, FAHA, CIHA, is Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Contemporary Art History and Theory in the Department of
the History of Art and Architecture at the University of Pittsburgh, and Professor in the Division of Philosophy, Art and Critical
Thought at the European Graduate School.” (University of Pittsburgh, z.d.)
10
Between the Lines

Although the official name of the building is ‘Exten- The star of David
sion of the Berlin Museum with the Jewish Museum The first is a hexagon, the star of David, which he
Department’ or ‘Jewish Museum Berlin’, Daniel calls very cliché (Libeskind, 1992). As already stated,
Libeskind named his design ‘Between the Lines’ Berlin is not just a physical place, it is also about the
just as a paper he wrote to explain and support his people and their relationships. He started to plot
design. ‘Between the Lines’ references to two lines addresses of Berliners and Jews that had somehow
of thinking: “One is a straight line, but broken into a relationship, which also showed how Jews and
many fragments; the other is a tortuous line, but Germans are connected in history. The connection
continuing infinitely.” (Libeskind, 1991, p. 86). of these addresses of writers, scientists, compos-
Between the lines is mostly used when ers, artists and poets formed a distorted star of
speaking of a text, where the meaning of the text David. With this he also found his starting point,
cannot be found in the literal meaning of the words he did not want to start from a simple grid, but he
but has to be sought for more deeply: between had to start something out of nothing. That was the
the lines. According to Arnold-de Simine (2012) first dimension of the design: the irrational invisible
‘Between the lines’ evokes a paradigm in space and matrix. (Libeskind, 1992)
time where none of the two is the main and where
they are inextricably linked. The lines have both
a spatial and temporal meaning. History is often
posed on a timeline, which implies that history is
a linear process. Arnold-de Simine writes that a
place between the lines suggests that they might
be asynchronous and that their continuity can be
undermined. She says that spatially, two lines cre-
ate in-between space, they can be separate or they
can intersect. In the architectural sense, the lines do
not indicate walls but the space between walls, cre-
ating voids, gaps, absence; referring to the absence
of Jewish life, culture and history in Berlin after the
Holocaust (Arnold-de Simine, 2012).
Libeskind (1992) starts his paper by stating
it is impossible to speak about a starting point in
architecture. He finds the whole notion of a start-
ing point doubtful because a starting point pre-
sumes that there is a past, while the past is always
being experienced as the present. Time, therefore,
is invisible and just passes by while its effects are
visible, he says. So in between a design, or just two Figure 5: Star of David, design concept (Libeskind, 1991)
drawings or works time passes and one has been
changed completely, just as the architecture itself
(Libeskind, 1992).
Thus, when speaking of architecture is to
speak of the paradigm of the irrational according
to Libeskind (1992). He finds that the best works of
contemporary spirit come from the irrational, while
reason kills these best works, but is dominating the
world. Therefore, this design originates in the irra-
tional, out of nothing. He then states that he cannot
tell how something started of nothing, but he can
share four elements that interested and inspired
him.

11
Opera of Aaron and Moses Names of killed and deported Jews
The second inspiration came from music, the opera Next to the architectural and musical dimension,
Aaron and Moses composed by Arnold Schönberg. the third is a textual dimension. Libeskind asked
The piece consists of three parts, but the third part the Federal Information Office and asked for doc-
was never finished, not only due to lack of inspi- uments with deported and missing Jews, and got
ration but also because of the rising limitations of two thick books with just names, birthdates, deport
the Jewish Berliners. The piece is a conversation dates and places where they were murdered.
between Aaron and Moses, Aaron representing the Libeskind sought out the names of Berliners which
people of Israel and Moses the one knowing that formed the third element of the design. (Libeskind,
there is nothing to tell the people. At the end of the 1991)
piece Aaron disappears, the music stops and Moses
stops singing, he ends with speaking the words
‘oh word, thou word, that I lack’. Lacking words is
what represents Jewish history (Libeskind, 1991).
Besides, Libeskind (1992) finds this opera emblem-
atic for his architecture, in that sense, it contains
vacant spaces and dead ends.

Figure 6: Void (Esakov, 2010)

Figure 8: Names of killed and deported Jews, design concept

(Libeskind, 1991)

Figure 7: Location of the voids (Floorplan First Floor, 2015)

12
‘One Way Street’ by Walter Benjamin According to Libeskind (1991), it is important for
The fourth and last aspect is the essay ‘One Way the design that the Jewish Museum is not just for
Street’ by Walter Benjamin (Libeskind, 1991). This the current Berlin citizens, but it should also be,
essay consist of sixty short pieces varying a lot in imaginatively, accessible for citizens of the past
theme and writing style. This inspiration led to and the future. The museum must be a place for
incorporating a sequence of sixty sections in the all Berliners to confirm their common heritage, a
zig-zag line and the randomly placed windows. shared hope that originates in individual desire. To
They represent the ‘Stations of the Star’ described achieve this Libeskind tried to find a way to discour-
by Benjamin. age passivity of visitors in the museum. He wanted
to give visitors space in the museum to make them
decide how, where and what to do for themselves
in a museum which function is that of showing the
history of the city (Libeskind, 1992). The new build-
ing is conceived as an emblem that makes itself
apparent through the invisible, the void (Libeskind,
1991). He writes that the museum is not about text,
construction or knowledge, it is about existence
and in-existence.
The Jewish Museum is not only meant to
inspire poetry, music and drama, but it should be
a home for everyone and a spiritual site (Libeskind,
1992). He writes that it should also represent the
uncertainty of Berlin’s future and the Jewish role
in it. It is looking to reconnect the history of Ber-
lin, which should not be camouflaged or forgotten.
Libeskind (1992) sought to see again the implicit
meaning of Berlin and tried to make it visible and
apparent in the building and the site.
The new Jewish Museum is, as mentioned
earlier, conceived as an emblem. An emblem of the
void and the invisible where the void is the base
and the building is shaped around it (Libeskind,
1992). He writes that this void is not only a means
of characterizing the building to the public, it is also
a result of the literal void in Jewish documents and
objects. The building tries to provoke the absence
rather than presence. According to Libeskind, the
museum materializes the void that runs through
the contemporary culture of Berlin and makes it
Figure 9: Facade (Esakov, 2010)
accessible to the public.
To summarize these four dimensions of the design: From the start, the idea existed that the new
the first dimension is an invisible and irrational rela- building should have a deep connection with the
tion between unconnected individual addresses old Baroque building (Libeskind, 1991). However,
that together form a star. The second is a musical the connection should not be visible from the out-
dimension of vacant spaces and dead ends. The side, this resulted in an underground connection
third one is the aspect of thousands of deported between the two buildings. His idea was that this
and missing Berlin Jews. The fourth and last aspect particular way of connecting preserves the con-
is that of the ‘One Way Street’ essay by Walter Ben- tradictory autonomy of the buildings, but invisibly
jamin. bonds them together even more. This past fatality
of the connection of the Jewish culture with that
of Berlin is now invisibly embodied in the building
(Libeskind, 1991).
13
Experiencing the Museum

The previous two chapters showed the theory

behind the design of the museum. First explaining
the need for a different kind of museum, namely
a memorial museum showing stories of eyewit-
nesses of the tragedies that took place. Conse-
quently, creating a place for mourning and contem-
plation where experience is more important than
historical facts. The following chapter explained
Libeskind’s way of thinking behind this museum, Figure 10: Distribution of ratings
(Suoto, 2018)
the framework he used and the writings he wrote
to support his design. This chapter will dive into the
experience that people have in the museum. The
experience of experts and ‘normal’ people will be
used and compared to the theory to see whether
the ideas behind the design and the design itself
are in accordance with what visitors’ experience.

Suoto’s research (2018) shows that more than half

of the ratings are five stars and another quarter
are four star ratings, see figure 10. In the five-star
reviews on TripAdvisor (figure 11) the architec-
ture in general or Libeskind himself is often men-
Figure 11: Theme frequency according to ratings
tioned. Also, many reviews mention some of the
(Suoto, 2018)
most important spaces in the building (figure 12)
like the Garden of Exile, the Tower of Holocaust,
the Axis of Continuity and the voids. Furthermore,
many of the five-star reviews refer to the provoca-
tion of thoughts and emotions in the building. Her
research shows that among the four-star reviews
many of the same comments are made as in the
five-star reviews. However, some of the reviews
write things like that the design is ‘too clever’ and
‘overshadowing the collection’ also some comment
on the unclear and distracting circulation (figure
Figure 12: Comments on architecture and design features.
13). The three-star reviews mention the same nega- Percentages according to ratings (Suoto, 2018)
tive things as the four-star reviews about the design
and circulation, but more often. Some of the three-
star reviews also mention that the underground is
disconnected from the rest of the museum, hereby
the underground is marked as very interesting and
the upper floors as boring. The two- and one-star
reviews describe the building as boring, sterile and
cold and often mention the layout, while some
comments say that the museum is not enough
about the Holocaust and that there are better (free)
museums and memorials about the Holocaust.
(Suoto, 2018) Figure 13: Negative comments according to ratings (Suoto,
2018)

14
Figure 14: Location of the voids (Floorplan First Floor, 2015)

Figure 15: Three axes (Floorplan Underground Floor, 2015)

Voids

Memory void

Axis of continuity

Tower of Holocaust

Garden of exile
Figure 16: Section through the three axes (Studio Libeskind, n.d.)
15
Henrik Reeh6 did a guided tour through the museum Entrance
before it was officially inaugurated, so there was An example of this design playing to the senses
not yet an exhibition inside. He describes his visit already starts when entering the museum by a
as “a ground-breaking initiation into a complex cul- descending staircase from the baroque building
tural landscape, revealing many of the expectations that brings you through the underground connec-
which underlie the reception of architecture. “This tion into the basement of the building (Reeh, 2016).
encounter allows us to single out some of the situ- The stair ends in a dark hallway with cold and harsh
ations in which the perception of exhibited archi- concrete walls, and immediately starts to work on
tecture turns into cultural reflexivity.” (Reeh, 2016, the visitors’ balance for the floor has a slight slope
p. 4). According to Reeh, architecture normally is to it that goes up in the hallway. Because of the
just about sight, however, this building touches smallness of the slope, it is not really experienced
besides that on the other senses which creates a as one, yet it feels like you are counteracted to con-
unique experience, speaking to the emotions of tinue through the hallway. After a few meters, when
visitors. According to Souto, this is one of the main turning into another hallway, the slope changes
reasons for most people to visit this museum, she without being aware and thus destabilizing the vis-
states that didactic and emotional experiences are itors once more. This playing with the visitors’ per-
rated very high (2018). This aligns with Libeskind’s ception, experience and orientation ensures that
objective when designing the building, as written the visitor disconnects from the real world accord-
before, he tried to create a building that makes ing to Reeh (2016). He writes that this disconnec-
people relate with the Jews that were deported and tion results in a better emotional connection with
murdered to make an emotional impact (Arnold-de the stories told in the basement of the building.
Simine, 2012). The basement houses a few biographies and family
histories about persecution, escape and annihila-
tion to immediately speak to the visitors’ emotions.
These individual objects do not form a fluid story, to
prevent the visitors from an easy visit with an easy-
to-follow story, forcing them to actively connect
with what they see and their emotions (Arnold-de
Simine, 2012). At the same time, she writes, these
very fragmented pieces are also simply the lack of
an entire story. The void that was created in Jewish
history becomes eminent in the lack of exhibition
material making it even more poignant.

Figure 17: Entrance (Bruns, n.d.)

6
“Henrik Reeh covers the research fields of humanistic urban studies and studies in modern culture. Based in humanistic
urban studies as practiced in the Department of Arts and Cultural Studies, University of Copenhagen, SPATIAL CULTURE out-
lines a novel framework for understanding the social and cultural environments of the modern and contemporary metropo-
lis.” (Univesity of Copenhagen, Department of Arts and Cultural Studies, z.d.)
16
Voids Three axes
The voids as described before are also physi- In the basement, three intersecting axes form the
cally represented in the building. Not far into the configurative basis of the floorplan, all three axes,
museum, the visitor enters a space that is crucial shaped as corridors, end at specific places that are
for the design’s concept (Libeskind, 1992), however, the most important in terms of architectural means
most visitors might not even notice. This space is of provoking emotion. The first axis the ‘Axis of
the first of the six voids in the museums, only seen Continuity’, that was just described, leads from the
when looking up into a very high concrete space, entering staircase to the staircase that brings the
almost like the shaft of an elevator without doors. visitor back up to the ground level and higher floors
At the ceiling, some daylight passes through small of the building. The second axis, the ‘Axis of Exile’
openings. On the levels above, these voids pene- leads to the ‘Garden of Exile’ a sunken square with
trate through the floors and disrupt the spaces. a sloped floor with 49 big pillars towering high over
Together with the strange and unfathomable shape the visitors’ head with plants on top. And the third
and route through the building, this results in irrita- axis, the ‘Axis of Holocaust’ leads to the ‘voided Void’,
tion of visitors according to Suoto (2018), however, where before entering a board informs visitors that
this is exactly what Libeskind wanted to achieve Libeskind insisted to get your own interpretation.
(Libeskind, 1992). He deliberately created these The tower was later named ‘Tower of Holocaust’
slanted halls, diagonal windows and claustrophobic indicating how visitors try to make the design more
spaces according to Arnold-de Simine (2012). She concrete (Arnold-de Simine, 2012).
writes that this disoriented feeling and irritation is
not trying to imitate the feeling of the persecuted
Jews, but especially to undermine the interpreta-
tion of security of the visitor. The design does not
pretend that it can mimic the terrible experience
and fate of the victims of the Holocaust according
to Arnold-de Simine (2012). She also writes that
only by active and difficult engagement with the
conceptual architecture, the fragmented exhibition
and Libeskind’s fragmented writings, the complex
history of Jewish-Germany can be understood. Figure 19: Axes on the underground level
(Esakov, 2010)

Figure 18: Void (Bredt, n.d.) Figure 20: Axis of Continuity

(Hufton+Crow, n.d.) 17
Garden of Exile Tower of Holocaust
This garden is officially called the ETA Hoffman Gar- As written before, Libeskind called this space the
den of Exile and Emigration. It is a walled, sunken ‘voided Void’, but its name has been changed to
exterior garden, located outside of the building the tower of Holocaust by the public. According to
reached by the axis of exile. The garden is filled with Arnold-de Simine (2012), this is an attempt from
forty-nine concrete columns on a seven by seven the visitors to concretize this abstract design. It is
grid, towering above the visitor’s heads. On top of understandable how visitors read this space sym-
these columns, Russian olive trees are growing as bolically. The space is entered from the axis of Hol-
a symbol of hope according to Jüdisches Museum ocaust through a heavy metal door, that closes the
Berlin (z.d.). Forty-eight of the columns are filled space and disconnects the visitor from everything
with soil from Berlin and the last one, in the cen- else. At the top a narrow slit allows light into the
tre, is filled with soil from Jerusalem. The columns unheated space creates a heat difference and thick
are placed perpendicular to the 12 degrees sloped concrete walls dull all sound from outside (Suoto,
floor and are thus oblique, making the visitors feel 2018). Arnold-the Simine (2012) writes that this
dizzy, unsteady and disoriented. Together with the interpretation of the Holocaust tower is problem-
unreachable green on top, the experience in the atic because it assumes that it is possible to have
garden tries to recall the feeling of disorientation a physical experience of how it felt to be living
and instability by the Jews that were forced out of through or dying in the Holocaust. Besides, she
Germany (Jüdisches Museum Berlin, z.d.). Accord- writes, that this interpretation also comes short of
ing to Suoto (2018), the garden is often mentioned the space that Libeskind designed: the emptiness
by visitors, mostly in positive comments. She writes of the claustrophobic space “throws the visitors
that it is most often described as a very poignant back onto themselves, encouraging them to con-
experience. This is exactly what Libeskind meant to template this sensation.” (Arnold-de Simine, 2012,
do with this garden (Arnold-de Simine, 2012). p. 11).

Figure 21: Garden of Exile (Nastasi, n.d.) Figure 22: Tower of Holocaust (Ziehe, n.d.)

18
Memory Void Upper floors
The last important space in the building is the The upper floors house the more informative part
Memory Void, where the artwork Shalechet, or of the museum, these floors are, in contrast to the
Fallen Leaves, by Israeli artist Menashe Kadishman underground floor, much lighter with windows and
is placed. This space is dedicated to victims of the white walls. Reeh (2016) describes these floors as
Holocaust and the Second World War as a whole. relatively neutral and more functional. However,
The space is several meters deep and three stories he calls the normality relative, the zigzag floorplan
high, the entire floor is covered with metal faces that adds labyrinth quality to the building. Also, the
represent the suffering of all victims. When walking voids going up from the basement break the con-
over them, stepping on these suffering faces, they tinuity of the upper floors and can only be passed
create a lot of unpleasant noise echoed by the bare on the sides. The lower ratings given by visitors
concrete walls creates a feeling of guilt as written according to Suoto (2018) where difficulty to orient
by Arnold-de Simine (2012). Suoto refers to Walter is mentioned as the main reason is probably mostly
C. Metz (2008, p. 34) who writes: “This walk: Is also directed to these upper floors. Underground this
about spectatorship: it asks us to question not only disorientation is less problematic because there is
what kind of human being walks on others, but no story to follow, it is about fragmented experi-
what kind of human watches such stomping and ences. However, it is imaginable that on the upper
does nothing. Who is the more barbaric?”. In Suo- floors, where the exhibition does tell a more fluid
to’s research (2018), she mentions that many other story, this unclear floorplan and route can be
visitors have had the same experience when walk- annoying. Consequently, the museum decided to
ing through this space. They describe it as a moving add red arrows on the floor to create a route and
and unforgettable experience and encourage oth- compensate for this, unfortunately, the arrows take
ers to do the same. away from Libeskind’s design concept and were
therefore removed again (Suoto, 2018).
Libeskind insisted to get your own interpretation.
The tower was later named ‘Tower of Holocaust’
indicating how visitors try to make the design more
concrete (Arnold-de Simine, 2012).

Figure 24: Upper floor (Bredt, 2008)

Figure 23: Memory void (Ziehe, n.d.)

19
Conclusion

As the Holocaust is one of the most horrendous The aim is to confront and sometimes discomfort
events in history it is important to make people the visitor and pushes them into self-reflection and
aware of what happened, to never forget and to responsibility.
prevent something similar from happening again. The design of Daniel Libeskind for the Jew-
Memorials and museums are built for this cause, ish Museum Berlin is one of the first museums or
however, not just any museum succeeds in this countermonuments, which makes it an experimen-
task. According to neurophysiology, memory is tal practice as well. Many argue that Libeskind suc-
based on re-imagining and thus, a museum of this ceeded in this experiment, in terms of its function
kind should create an experience that makes peo- as well as its architectural shape.
ple re-imagine the Holocaust, which is exactly what
Daniel Libeskind tried to do with his design for the Some even claim that the design is more an archi-
extension of the Jewish Museum Berlin. tectural manifesto or a philosophical program.
This idea is amplified by the writings Libeskind did
The origin of the museum lies with several private to support his design, explaining the multiple lay-
collections of Jewish art and artefacts with the first ers of it. These writings give three perspectives on
official inauguration in 1933. The Nazis forced the the design, first that of experience, with the build-
museum to close in 1938 and all properties were ing provoking emotional and visceral reactions.
taken and almost all were destroyed. The Berlin Secondly the perspective of the metaphor, of the
Museum reopened in 1969 in the Baroque build- voids placed on the intersection of the two lines.
ing in which it is still accommodated. With the And the third perspective, describing the building
Holocaust becoming a more and more important as an ‘emblem’ meaning that there is no eminent
topic and the growth of the Jewish division of the connection between concept and building and that
museum a design competition for an extension the writings are needed to understand the ideas
especially for the Jewish division was written out in behind the design.
1988. From 165 entries, Daniel Libeskind’s design
was chosen. Some financial problems and discus- Libeskind named the museum ‘Between the Lines’
sion about the design and location postponed the which is also the title of the paper he wrote, sup-
start of the build until the cornerstone of the ‘Jewish porting the design. Although Libeskind starts this
Museum Berlin’ was laid on November 9, 1992. The paper that it is impossible to speak about a starting
building was completed in 1999 and officially inau- point when designing, because he believes that the
gurated in 2001. Now the museum has won several best works of the contemporary spirit come from
architecture awards and is one of the most impor- the irrational, these writings show that the inspi-
tant Jewish museums around the world receiving ration for the design comes from four elements.
around 700.000 visitors yearly. First, the star of David and the connection of the
addresses of Jewish citizens of Berlin, forming an
To make people aware of what happened in the irrational and invisible matrix. The second is the
past, museums and memorials are needed. How- ‘Opera of Aaron and Moses’, from which the third
ever, the traditional museums are not capable of part was never finished and therefore ended sud-
fully reaching this desired goal. To make people denly, in a void, lacking words, just like Jewish his-
remember, re-imaging and emotional connection tory. This translated into the voids and dead ends
are needed and therefore a new type of memorial in the building. The third element is a list of killed
museum is necessary. Such a monument that does and deported Berlin Jews. The fourth element is the
not conform to the traditional style for monuments, essay ‘One Way Street’ by Walter Benjamin result-
can be called a countermonument, still a place for ing in the zig-zag shape and the shape of the win-
contemplation, commemoration and mourning dows of the building.
but in a completely different manner. It is all about With his design, Libeskind tries to create
emotional connection, the exhibition is no longer a building of contemplation and memory for all
about the displayed objects, but about experiences Berliners to confirm their common heritage. The
of ‘witnesses’ of the past to make the visitor re-im- museum should be a home for everyone and a
agine the past. The visitor is made ‘secondary wit- spiritual site and it tries to reconnect the history
ness’ by often audio-visual exhibitions that are even of Berlin to the Jewish community as it is now bro-
haptic, breaking away from traditional museums. ken. The building is conceived as an emblem of
20
the void, representing the void in history and also sive architectural spaces as mentioned before.
just the lack of exhibition objects, trying to provoke Some visitors who dislike the building, give
absence. The new building is autonomous, yet liter- reasons like the architecture is too smart and over-
ally deeply connected to the Berlin Museum, just as shadowing the collection, the circulation is unclear
the connection of the history of the Jewish commu- and disturbing and that top floors are too sterile
nity to Berlin. and disconnected from the underground part.
However, the number of negative comments is
According to experts, the building succeeded in much smaller than the number of positive com-
speaking to the visitors’ emotions, even when the ments. These comments indicate that not all visi-
building was still empty between 1999 until 2001. tors are able to understand the design, which is
The design is not just about sight, but it speaks to obvious for people calling the design to clever, but
all senses creating a unique and memorable expe- that goes for comments about unclear circulation
rience. The same becomes apparent from the as well. The unclear circulation is namely part of
research into the experience of ‘normal’ peoples’ Libeskind’s design concept. At last, it is impossible
visits. This was exactly what Libeskind wanted to to design a building that everyone likes and under-
accomplish. He wanted the building to make an stands, especially with a building with such a diffi-
impact by making people relate to the Jews who cult function.
lived during the Holocaust, creating a lasting emo-
tional experience. To conclude, Libeskind succeeded in designing a
By most visitors the building is appreci- memorial museum for the difficult past of the Jew-
ated for its emotional impact and provocation of ish community in Germany. He designed a building
thoughts, mostly mentioning the most important that makes its visitors re-imagine and emotionally
and touching spaces in the building like the Tower connected to the past, with the aim to never forget
of Holocaust, Garden of Exile, Axis of Continuity and the horrors of the Holocaust.
the Memory Void with the Fallen Leaves artwork.
These spaces are also mostly described by experts
writing about the design, although, it is apparent
that Libeskind does not elaborate on these spe-
cific spaces in hit writing ‘Between the Lines’. How-
ever, it can be concluded that the aspects he writes
about in this text regarding emotional involvement
are most eminent in these specific spaces. Thus,
he is indirectly writing about spaces because he
describes the effect, he wants to achieve with them,
he just does not mention them literally in the writ-
ing.
Although the building mostly has the effect
that was desired by Libeskind on its visitors, not
everything is interpreted the way he meant it. The
most obvious example is the Tower of Holocaust,
which was originally called the voided Void, but
changed by the public. However, Libeskind does
not see this as a problem. At the entrance of the
tower, there is even a note from Libeskind that says
the museum can be interpreted the way you want,
as long as it makes you think. Also, the museum
was not designed as a Holocaust museum, how-
ever, it is not a surprise that by many it is perceived
that way as the Holocaust is probably the most well
known part of Jewish history in Germany. Besides,
the entire underground floor of the building is des-
ignated to the Holocaust, housing the most impres-
21
Bibliography

Akcan, E. (2010). Apology and Triumph: Memory Transference, Erasure, and a Rereading of the Berlin
Jewish Museum. New German Critique, 37(2), 153–179. https://doi.org/10.1215/0094033x-2010-009

Arnold-de Simine, S. (n.d.). Dr Silke Arnold-De Simine — Birkbeck, University of London. Birkbeck University of
London. Retrieved 25 April 2021, from https://www.bbk.ac.uk/our-staff/profile/8003695/silke-arnold-de-
simine

Arnold-de Simine, S. (2012). Memory Museum and Museum Text. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(1), 14–35.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276411423034

Center for International Studies. (n.d.). Esra Akcan | Einaudi Center. Retrieved 25 April 2021, from https://
einaudi.cornell.edu/discover/people/esra-akcan

College of Humanities & Fine Arts, Department of English. (n.d.). James Young | Department of English |
UMass Amherst. University of Massachusetts Amherst. Retrieved 25 April 2021, from https://www.umass.
edu/english/member/james-young

Jüdisches Museum Berlin. (n.d.). The Libeskind Building. Jewish Museum Berlin. Retrieved 3 April 2021, from
https://www.jmberlin.de/en/libeskind-building

Libeskind, D. (1991). Daniel Libeskind (Architectural Monographs No 16) Countersign. Academy editions.

Libeskind, D. (1992). Between the Lines: The Jewish Museum, Berlin. Research in Phenomenology, 22(1),
82–87. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916492x00089

Libeskind, D. (2001). Jewish Museum Berlin. Libeskind. https://libeskind.com/work/jewish-museum-berlin/

Libeskind, D., & Binet, H. (1999). Jewish Museum, Berlin. G + B Arts International.

Metz, W. C. (2008). “Show Me the Shoah!”: Generic Experience and Spectatorship in Popular
Representations of the Holocaust. Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies, 27(1), 16–35. https://
doi.org/10.1353/sho.0.0304

Nottingham Trent University. (n.d.). Ana Souto. NTU. Retrieved 25 April 2021, from https://www.ntu.ac.uk/
staff-profiles/architecture-design-built-environment/ana-souto

Reeh, H. (2016). Encountering empty architecture: Libeskind’s Jewish Museum Berlin. Journal of Art
Historiography, 5, 1–14. https://arthistoriography.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/reeh.pdf

Smith, T. (2005). Daniel Among the Philosophers: Architectural Theory Review, 10(1), 105–124. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13264820509478532

Souto, A. (2018). Experiencing memory museums in Berlin. The Otto Weidt Workshop for the Blind
Museum and the Jewish Museum Berlin. Museum and Society, 16(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.29311/mas.
v16i1.2598

University of Pittsburgh. (n.d.). Terry Smith | History of Art and Architecture | University of Pittsburgh.
Retrieved 25 April 2021, from https://www.haa.pitt.edu/people/terry-smith

Univesity of Copenhagen, Department of Arts and Cultural Studies. (n.d.). Henrik Reeh - Staff. University
of Copenhagen. Retrieved 25 April 2021, from https://artsandculturalstudies.ku.dk/staff/?pure=en/
persons/173707

Young, J. E. (2000). Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum in Berlin: The Uncanny Arts of Memorial
Architecture. Jewish Social Studies, 6(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1353/jss.2000.0007

22
Image bibliography

Bredt, B. (n.d.-a). Areal view [Picture]. Studio Libeskind. https://libeskind.com/work/jewish-museum-berlin/

Bredt, B. (n.d.-b). Void [Picture]. Studio Libeskind. https://libeskind.com/work/jewish-museum-berlin/

Bredt, B. (2008, September 24). Upper floor [Picture]. E-Architect. https://www.e-architect.com/berlin/

jewish-museum-building

Bruns, T. (n.d.). Entrance [Picture]. Jüdisches Museum Berlin. https://www.jmberlin.de/en/libeskind-

building

Esakov, D. (2010a, November 25). Axes on the underground level [Picture]. AD Classics: Jewish Museum,
Berlin / Studio Libeskind. https://www.archdaily.com/91273/ad-classics-jewish-museum-berlin-daniel-
libeskind

Esakov, D. (2010b, November 25). Facade [Picture]. AD Classics: Jewish Museum, Berlin / Studio Libeskind.
https://www.archdaily.com/91273/ad-classics-jewish-museum-berlin-daniel-libeskind

Esakov, D. (2010c, November 25). Void [Picture]. AD Classics: Jewish Museum, Berlin / Studio Libeskind.
https://www.archdaily.com/91273/ad-classics-jewish-museum-berlin-daniel-libeskind

Floorplan first floor. (2015). [Plan]. A Thorough Investigation of Precedent. https://tessomeara.com/A-

Thorough-Investigation-of-Precedent

Floorplan underground floor. (2015). [Plan]. A Thorough Investigation of Precedent. https://tessomeara.

com/A-Thorough-Investigation-of-Precedent

Hufton+Crow. (n.d.-a). Axis of Continuity [Picture]. Studio Libeskind. https://libeskind.com/work/jewish-

museum-berlin/

Hufton+Crow. (n.d.-b). Front facade [Picture]. Studio Libeskind. https://libeskind.com/work/jewish-

museum-berlin/

Hufton+Crow. (n.d.-c). Windows [Picture]. Studio Libeskind. https://libeskind.com/work/jewish-museum-

berlin/

Libeskind, D. (1991a). Names of killed and deported Jews, design concept [Picture]. In Architectural
Monographs (No 16 Countersign ed., p. 102).

Libeskind, D. (1991b). Star of David, design concept [Sketch]. In Architectural Monographs (No 16
Countersign ed., p. 85).

Memory void. (n.d.). [Picture]. Pinterest. https://nl.pinterest.com/pin/95279348336750627/

Nastasi, M. (n.d.). Garden of Exile [Picture]. Studio Libeskind. https://libeskind.com/work/jewish-museum-

berlin/

Studio Libeskind. (n.d.). Section through the three axes [Section]. Studio Libeskind. https://libeskind.com/
work/jewish-museum-berlin/

Suoto, A. (2018, March 27). TripAdvisor ratings on the Jewish Museum Berlin [Graphs]. In Experiencing
memory museums in Berlin. The Otto Weidt Workshop for the Blind Museum and the Jewish Museum Berlin (pp.
12–15).

Ziehe, J. (n.d.-a). Memory Void [Picture]. Jüdisches Museum Berlin. https://www.jmberlin.de/en/shalekhet-

fallen-leaves

Ziehe, J. (n.d.-b). Tower of Holocaust [Picture]. Jüdisches Museum Berlin. https://www.jmberlin.de/en/

libeskind-building
23