Yasuko Okuyama
December 6, 2004
20th Century Case Studies 333
Professor Woofter
Case Studies Analytical Paper
The Foundation Cartier:
A Museum of the New Decade
Along the Boulevard Raspail in the historic part of Paris sits an innovative building
designed by Jean Nouvel—the Foundation Cartier. Opened to public in 1994, this building,
designed by the architect well known for his use of advanced technology, first appears as a mere
simple, big glass box. Consisting of eleven floors—with nine of which reserved for office
functions—, the Foundation Cartier resembles a typical twentieth-century office building with steel
frame grids delineating each office window. Thus, using a series of glass windows as walls
seems appropriate in the design of the office floors; however, the continuation of this scheme to
the exhibition floor may seem questionable. Some critics expect that the transparent glass walls
would distract the exhibition visitors from engaging with the art works1. Others express their
concern that the glass walls are limiting because they cannot exhibit paintings efficiently2. In fact,
this seemingly simple and radical design of the Foundation Cartier raises the questions of
functionality, perhaps because it rejects some characteristics of the familiar museum scheme of
the twentieth century and adds new, unfamiliar ones.
Studying museum designs of the twentieth century, Stanislaus von Moos, a prize-winning
author and an Art History professor at Zurich University, analyzes four typical museum schemes
of the twentieth century: museums as converted monuments, open museums, museums with
traditional enfilade, and museums as sculptural architecture3. The glass exhibition space of the
Foundation Cartier may appear controversial and radical because not only does it demonstrate
some characteristics of the four categories, but also does its design bring additional benefits,
such as encouragement of analytical thinking, the celebration of total creativity, and reflection of
art in everyday life,. In fact, by his radical use of glass walls in the exhibition design, Nouvel
delivers an innovative message for artists and museum visitors of the new millennium: art must
“breathe into people’s lives” and practice of any type of art must be encouraged4.
The design of the exhibition space in the Foundation Cartier shows characteristics of Von
Moos’s first two types—museums as converted monuments and open museums, but Nouvel
rejects the last two—museums with traditional enfilade and museums as sculptural architecture.
Using characteristics of the first museum type—the museums resembling converted
monuments—, Nouvel successfully makes the Foundation an aesthetic monument. Nouvel was
expected to make the Foundation monumental because of the historical, cultural, and cliental
significance of the site. Approximately two hundred years ago, this site where the Foundation
Cartier now stands used to belong to a house of a famous French poet, Chateaubriand. Thus, the
design of the Foundation Cartier was expected to preserve both the idea of a house and the Tree
of Liberty planted along the Boulevard by Chateaubriand himself. The site also holds a cultural
significance because the American Cultural Center used to occupy it. Lastly, as a building for one
of the world’s most successful jewelry company, Cartier, Nouvel knew that the level of
architectural elegance of the Foundation was expected to correspond to the company’s high
reputation. Yet, he also knew to avoid making “any links between Cartier products or advertising
and the Foundation” because he knew that the exhibited art works, and not his architecture,
deserve primary attention5.
Understanding their importance, Nouvel designs the Foundation to meet such
expectations of monumentality by careful structural planning and the use of advanced technology.
For example, Nouvel establishes glass-and-steel façades to define the boundaries of the building;
he places the first layer adjacent to the sidewalk to create the entry path and to set back the
second layer, or the actual wall of the building, from the sidewalk, just as a house would be set
back from the streets. These layers consist of glass panels contained by thin steel frames, and
these gridded frames enable some parts of the façade to be glassless. This flexibility enabled
Nouvel to eliminate the glass panels in front of the Tree of Liberty, so this tree would mark the
entrance of the Foundation and the museum visitors would walk under it. In addition to preserving
1
the historical significance, these glass layers express cultural importance by symbolizing the
technological achievements of the twentieth century. The glass panels on the layers also allow
the passer-bys of the Boulevard to see the art works exhibited on the first floor, offering them the
view of how artistic ideas change over time. Also, just as suggested in the Case Studies
representation drawings, the layering of the tree façade, the façade of the structure of the
building, and the entry façade creates a new vision every time a layer is added; this idea of
discovery parallels the layering of past ideas evolving and building the present culture. Lastly, the
thin steel frames defining the glass layers add delicacy and beauty to the Foundation, appropriate
for the Cartier Company that is known for its attentiveness to the aesthetics. The aesthetic
pleasure achieved by the glass walls also matches such reputation of the Cartier. The transparent
glass panels change their appearance depending on the time of the day, some staying
transparent and some reflecting the surrounding scenery. In fact, these glass layers act not only
as walls of the building but also as changing screens that enhance the aesthetic qualities of the
building.
In addition to the idea of monumentality, Nouvel also uses the characteristics of Von
Moos’s second museum type, the open space museum, in the Foundation Cartier. The scheme of
open space museums are often used in twentieth-century museums because it helps the visitors
focus only on the art works and allows flexible placement of the works. Creating a big open space
for an exhibition space makes the art works the main focus of the exhibition space because it
eliminates the distraction of architectural elements and prevents the architecture from
“overpower[ing] the art it houses”6. The flexible placement of the art works is also important
because it allows the circulation in the museum to be rearranged every time the exhibit changes
so the circulation can adjust according to the intention of the exhibit. Because the program of the
Foundation Cartier was to house temporary exhibits from all artistic fields, Nouvel saw the
importance of addressing this flexibility in addition to the subordination of his architecture to the
exhibit.
Nouvel fulfills these criteria by choosing a neutral structure for the first floor exhibition
space, creating two different exhibition spaces, and designing adjustable structures both in the
interior and the exterior on the first floor. According to a Japanese architect, Arata Isozaki,
“’skeletal structures made up of abstract cubical frames is so conventional and comprehensible
that, on the contrary, it evokes no distinct image”7. Effectively using this principle, Nouvel extends
the gridded glass walls to the first floor exhibition space and makes the boundary between the
inside and the outside ambiguous. As a result, he creates a “neutralized” exhibition space that
gives an amorphous, empty feel to the visitors and draws their primary attention to the exhibited
art works.
To further promote flexibility and respect
for the art works, Nouvel designs an exhibition
space surrounded by white walls on the ground
floor, in addition to the amorphous space on the
first floor. While the first floor may host art works
that either need a high ceiling or are intended to
interact with the surrounding environment, the
ground floor, defined by six-meter high white walls
holding up a ceiling with three glass panels, may
host works that negate the surrounding scenery or
require sparse lighting. This option of a more
private exhibition area has made exhibits of young
artists, such as Issey Miyake, successful. In his
exhibition of “Making Things” in 1999, Miyake
chose to cover the white walls with gold sheets to create an artificial, reflective environment for
his theme of exploring fragile materials, as shown in the picture on the right. Because he intended
to express the sensibility of the garments, he needed a dimly lit room—just like the one on the
ground floor.
In contrast to this private ground floor space, Nouvel makes the double-height first floor
exhibition space as open and as public as possible by making the interior walls moveable and by
allowing easy access between the interior and the outside garden, which also functions as an
2
exhibition space. The three glass panels, inlaid into
the floor to the left of the entrance, usually subdivide
the big open space, but they can be lifted up for
exhibits requiring extra space8. As shown in the
picture on the top right, Lebbeus Woods took
advantage of this flexibility in the exhibition of his
work, “The Fall,” which required the entire 53-by-66by-25-foot space9. The vast space successfully
captured the Woods’ intention to express the intense
violence of a collapse of the ceiling. Also, the floorheight doors on west and east sides of the building
allow access to outdoor exhibits, such as one by
Fragilisme10. In this exhibit, the Foundation provided a
space that successfully enhanced Fragilisme’s theme of
connection to nature as expressed in the picture of a chair
on the right. Similarly, in Raymond Hains’s exhibition of
trees shown in the picture of the Case Studies
representation, he chose to place his work in the doubleheight exhibition space next to the doors to the outside
garden; this placement appropriately separated Hains’s
trees from the trees in the outside garden to allow the
visitors to study their aesthetic forms, but at the same time,
to remind them of the trees’ organic qualities by providing
the outdoor garden as the background of the exhibition11.
And if the visitors wish to further study their natural forms,
they can easily walk to the garden where many trees are planted. In fact, Nouvel designed the
Foundation Cartier to offer many options to place artists’ works to maximize the strength of the
message the art works deliver.
While Nouvel incorporates the characteristics of Von Moos’s first two museum types in
the Foundation Cartier, he rejects the last two—museums with traditional enfilade, and museums
as sculptural architecture; in fact, to avoid delivering their vices, Nouvel rejects the use of these
characteristics, but he designs the Foundation Cartier so that it still delivers the benefits of these
museum types. Nouvel avoids including traditional enfilade in the exhibition space because
enfilade can only successfully host art exhibits that require one path of circulation. As seen in the
plan of Giorgio Vasari’s Uffizi built in 1560 shown below, the enfilade creates small separate
rooms along the straight path of the hall and forces to group the exhibited art works in the rigidly
defined spaces12. The straight hallway also regulates the visitors’ circulation and the order in
which the visitors see the exhibition. In the Foundation Cartier, Nouvel refuses to create such
limitations, but he still creates a space for works that may require regulated circulation or
grouping. For example, an artist
may align the movable walls on
the first floor to enforce a certain
circulation, or the artist may
create a temporary wall in other
areas on the first floor, for the
double-height ceiling may allow
the artist to do so. The east side
of the ground floor exhibition
area occupies a smaller
exhibition space that may be
appropriate for grouped
projects.
Nouvel also avoids
making the Foundation Cartier
sculptural to avoid the danger of
the sculptural characteristics of
3
the museum “exploiting [the art works] as
‘decoration’ for [the museum] architecture”13.
For example, although Frank Lloyd Wright’s
Guggenheim Museum in New York provides
an unusual museum with a beautiful spiraling
organic form, the all painting exhibits aligned
along the spiral on the top floors must be
separated by the structure of the building as
shown in the picture above. Similar to the
Uffizi, the visitors of the Guggenheim are
forced to experience the paintings in the order
of the spiral. The design of the Foundation
Cartier building itself may not express organic
qualities, but Nouvel still integrates nature by
connecting the outdoor garden to the
exhibition spaces. Rather than making the museum architecture resemble an organic form,
Nouvel directly incorporates the actual organisms of tress and grass to encourage the
appreciation of nature as it is. Also, his choice to use glass walls to cover the first floor
successfully integrates the building with the
surrounding organic environment. The glass walls
reflect the surrounding trees onto them like a screen
and sometimes allow the trees to be reflected onto the
exhibits. For example, the exhibition of glass tables by
Ron Arad in 1994, shown in the picture on the right,
took advantage of the natural surroundings and made
beautiful patterns on the table that changed at different
times of the day14. In fact, Nouvel chose a
technological, neutral design for the Foundation
Cartier, instead of a sculptural one, because he
wanted to celebrate actual organisms instead of
designing an artificial one.
As Nouvel incorporates some ideas of Von Moos’s four museum types in the Foundation
Cartier, he tries to deliver four types of motivation through the design of the exhibition spaces:
encouragement of the visitor’s personal celebration of art, encouragement of total work of art, and
encouragement of art in ordinary landscape. By designing an empty exhibition space on the first
floor with transparent walls that further emphasizes its emptiness, Nouvel encourages the visitor
to discover his own interpretation of the exhibited works. Using the human tendency to “invent
something in [an empty] place”15 resulting from the dislike of “feeling of non-existence,”16 Nouvel
lets the visitor focus on the exhibit and “challenges [him] to add something of his own” 17. Also, the
lack of defined circulation paths in the exhibition floors allows the visitors to freely choose their
own paths of approaching or returning to the works. Because the glass walls reflect the scenery
that changes over time, each visitor is likely to develop an understanding of the art that becomes
personal to his experience. In fact, Nouvel encourages the exhibition visitor to learn to make
autonomous, conscious choices in interpreting art and to think critically of its meaning.
Just as Nouvel offers an intellectual challenge to the visitors, his design of the exhibition
space also offers a challenge to the artists of the exhibit. Due to the movable walls, three choices
of exhibition spaces—first floor, ground floor, and outside—, the emptiness of the spaces, and the
double-height ceiling, the Foundation leaves the artists with much freedom of expression. The
artist can even create his own stage to exhibit his works, instead of trying to place his works
within a set limitation. By giving this possibility, Nouvel implies that the method of presentation of
the exhibit is also a practice of art. In fact, Nouvel forbids the artists from relying on the
convention to shape their works and challenges them to produce works that are truly
independent, autonomous, and complete pursuit of art.
Nouvel delivers another message by his design of the first floor exhibition space: the
encouragement of “an access to works of art that is much more natural and direct”18. The visible
tress in the surrounding and the vastness of the empty space resembles more of a natural plain in
4
a landscape rather than of an interior space. By encouraging the placement of art works onto a
natural environment provided on the first floor, Nouvel emphasizes the idea that “art should be
everywhere, at every moment, and in every place” and not just in museums19. Although Nouvel
notes the necessity of museums20, he made the space of the Foundation Cartier almost empty
and its structure neutral to make the visitors realize that all art works, public or professional,
deserve to be celebrated. In fact, by the design of the Foundation Cartier, Nouvel not only
motivates the visitors to notice and study the art works and phenomena happening in everyday
life but also supports the practice of art in ordinary life and the exhibition of it.
The design purpose of the exhibition space of the Foundation Cartier is not about
creating a special, distraction-free environment for the art works but about creating a place for
them to look the most natural. Typical museums usually create a quiet, secluded environment to
draw undivided attention of the visitors to the exhibits. This secluding museum may help the
visitors interpret and appreciate the works. However, this museum denies the visitors access to
the inspiration from which the artist derived the resulting product: the moments in his/her daily
lives. The everyday distractions—the traffic, buildings, food, smell, weather—are what energized
the artists to produce the exhibits. In fact, art works are just the visible representation of the
world; and by allowing the visitors access to these distractions, the Foundation Cartier provides a
new museum model for the twenty-first century: one that celebrates all forms of human artistic
creativity.
Boissière, Olivier. “Cartier Foundation for Contemporary Art and Head Office of Cartier France”.
Jean Nouvel. (Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland) 1996. p 163.
2 Lampugnani, Vittorio Magnago and Sachs, Angeli. Museums for a New Mellenium: Concepts
Projects Buildings. (Prestel, Munich, Germany 1999). p 152.
3 Ibid. p 20-21.
4 Galinsky. “Foundation Cartier, Paris: Jean Nouvel, Emanuel Cattani 1994”. People Enjoying
Buildings Worldwide. 28 October, 2004. <http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/cartier>.
5 La Fondation Cartier. “Fondation Cartier”. The Building by Jean Nouvel. 30 November, 2004.
<http://www.fondation.cartier.fr/flash.html>.
6 Boissière. p 14.
7 Drew, Philip. “Arata Isozaki: The Museum of Modern Art, Gunma. Gunma Prefecture 1971-4”.
20th Century Museums II. (Phaidon, London, England 1999). p 16.
8 Lampugnani and Sachs. p 149.
9 Woods, Lebbeus. “Lebbeus Woods: The Fall”. Fondation Cartier pour L’Art Contemporain. 2
December, 20004. <http://www.onoci.net/virilio/pages_uk/artistes/index.php?id=1&th=2>.
10 La Fondation Cartier. 30 November, 2004.
11 GA. “Fondation Cartier [Paris, France]”. Lotus International. Vol. 84 2002. p 101.
12 Lampugnani and Sachs. p 19.
13 Ibid. p 15.
14 GA. p 100.
15 Drew. p 15.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 Galinsky. 28 October, 2004.
19 Davis, Douglas. The Museum Transformed: Design and Culture in the Post-Pompidou Age.
(Abbeville Press, Inc., New York, New York 1990). p 7.
20 Galinsky. 28 October, 2004.
1
5
Bibliography
Boissière, Olivier. “Cartier Foundation for Contemporary Art and Head Office of Cartier France”.
Jean Nouvel. (Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland) 1996.
Davis, Douglas. The Museum Transformed: Design and Culture in the Post-Pompidou Age.
(Abbeville Press, Inc., New York, New York 1990).
Drew, Philip. “Arata Isozaki: The Museum of Modern Art, Gunma. Gunma Prefecture 1971-4”.
20th Century Museums II. (Phaidon, London, England 1999).
GA. “Fondation Cartier [Paris, France]”. Lotus International. Vol. 84 2002.
Galinsky. “Foundation Cartier, Paris: Jean Nouvel, Emanuel Cattani 1994”. People Enjoying
Buildings Worldwide. 28 October, 2004.
<http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/cartier>.
Lampugnani, Vittorio Magnago and Sachs, Angeli. Museums for a New Mellenium: Concepts
Projects Buildings. (Prestel, Munich, Germany 1999).
Woods, Lebbeus. “Lebbeus Woods: The Fall”. Fondation Cartier pour L’Art Contemporain. 2
December, 20004.
<http://www.onoci.net/virilio/pages_uk/artistes/index.php?id=1&th=2>.
6