AHO WORKS Studies 2012
Institute of Form, Theory and History
Projects
THe naTIonaL GaLLery and THe PHysIoGnoMy oF THe cITy
an archival study by Mathilde s. dahl
Architecture on Display
MasTer sTudIo | one seMesTer
If we consider the situation from a pure aesthetic point of view, there is something ugly about lining art and science
up in procession. Local conditions may force such a solution, and the authorities may then excuse themselves with
the comment ‘unfortunately it could not be arranged otherwise.’ But where the situation is unrestricted, where op-
portunity offers itself in the most advantageous form, there one places art and science face to face; there, one does
not place one behind the other, but façade towards façade.
1
HEINRICH ERNST SCHIRMER, 1872
The siting of the Norwegian National Gallery has been a hot topic in 2012, but the quarrel is not new. In a letter
dated 2
nd
of April 1872, Heinrich Ernst Schirmer (1814–1887) proposed that The Studenterlunden park opposite
the Royal Frederik’s University in Christiania should be the site for the National Museum.
2
This suggestion to
the Building committee was accompanied by a site plan showing a building with two side wings closing the uni-
versity square, crossed by Karl Johansgate. The committee, however, wanted a site that provided the museum
with a longer façade, and Fredrik Ludvig Vibe (1803–1881) suggested Tullinløkka.
Schirmer disagreed. As he saw it, Studenterlunden park was ”the most suitable and appropriate site for the
Museum, not only with respect to the building itself, but also in regard to the use of the University grounds.”
3
In a detailed analysis, Schirmer argues his case. He evaluates the different parts of the Tullinløkka proposal,
with the conclusion that none of them are suitable, neither considered in and of themselves, nor with respect
to their connection with the city. His arguments did not sway the Parliament, however, who in 1874 decided
on Tullinløkka as the site for the national gallery. The building committee reports its complaints as following:
If one were to consider the urban physiognomy, with which Schirmer ( jr.) thought one could rightfully count,
then one would plan the future buildings of the university simultaneously. Without such a plan for the total
development of the block (Tullinløkka), one would end up with an arbitrary and randomly connected assem-
blage of public buildings, which must be considered despicable.
4
History has proven this remark to be right: The museumwas in the end built without a master plan, and the use
of Tullinløkka and its buildings remains unsolved.
1
”Til Byggekommissionen for det vordende Skulptur-Museum” signed Kristiania 9th of February
1873, H. Schirmer.
Tullinløkken. Skulpturmuseet,
Riksarkivet, Finansdepartementet, Administra-
sjonskontoret E og F (og W) - RA/S-1063/E/L0139/0003 1871–1878, p. 11.
2
”Til Byggekommisionen for opførelse af et Skulptur-Museum i Kristiania” signed H. Schirmer Kristia-
nia, 24th of April 1872.
3
”Til Byggekommisionen for opførelse af et Skulptur-Museum i Kristiania”, signert H. Schirmer
Kristiania den 24. April 1872.
4
”Udskrift af Protocollen for Bygningskommisionen for opførelse af Skulpturmusaet, forsaavidt
Efterstaaende angaar” 13th July 1874. Bygningskommisionen. Tullinløkken. Skulpturmuseet, Riks-
arkivet, Finansdepartementet, Administrasjonskontoret E og F (og W) - RA/S-1063/E/L0139/0003
1871 – 1878
