In what ways did museum and exhibition architecture (form and space) attempt to represent ideas of
empire and imperial authority?
A museum presents probably the only effectual means of educating the adult, who cannot be expected to go
to school like the youth, [ yet] the necessity for teaching the grown man is quite as great as that of training
a child.
Henry Cole, First Report (1853), p. 30.
Political power finds expression in many forms. In addition to the more directly evidenced rule of their
charismatic leaders, law systems, or military presence, social regimes can also utilise their physical
environment to great effect.1 A considerable body of research argues that the architecture of government
houses, treasuries, churches, town halls, museums and other state buildings were manipulated according to
the political needs of the time and in this way became a powerful propaganda instrument of the British
Empire.2 It is the architecture of the museums built during the reign of the British Empire that I want to
draw particular attention to, because it became a grand public-oriented means of teaching ‘history,’
enshrining ‘national identities,’ and labeling everything that was under the government’s control.3 With
respect to the question at hand I intend to analyse the development of South Kensington Museum (SKM)
from 1857 to 1909 in order to explore how the contemporary politics during this period influenced the
museum’s architecture and layout.4
The analysis will show that SKM’s architecture, planning, and
decorations corresponded to the contemporary political ideas, and were gradually changing in accordance
with the imperial needs of the time. I shall start by introducing the historical background that surrounds the
construction of the museum and by discussing its early structures. Later on, I will explore the architectural
expansion from about 1870 to the mid-1880s, and Aston Webb’s (1849-1930) design for the completion of
the museum’s complex.
The founding of a ‘cabinet of excellence’ was a logical step towards the materialization of the Victorian
attitudes about national and individual progress.5 The idea of establishing the museum was born from The
Great Exhibition of 1851, which presented not only the most advanced engineering objects of the age, but
1
L.J .Vale, Architecture Power and National Identity (London, 1992), p. 4; R. Fermor-Hesketh, Architecture of the British
Empire (London, 1986), p.186.
2
L.J .Vale, Architecture Power and National Identity, p. 4.
3
J.M. MacKenzie, ‘Introduction’ in Museums and Empire: A Natural History, Human Cultures and Colonial Identities
(Manchester, 2009), pp. 4-9.
4
Know since 1909 as The Victoria and Albert Museum.
5
S. Pearce, R. Flanders, ‘The South Kensington Museum Is Established’ in The Collector’s Voice: Critical Readings in the
Practice of Collecting, Volume 3 (Aldershot, Hampshire 2002), p. 14.
1
also examples of the finest human craftsmanship.6 Inspired by the exhibition, Sir Henry Cole (1808-1852) a trusted counselor of Prince Albert (1819-1861) and the first director of the museum - proposed the idea to
establish a ‘useful, national institution,’ which would permanently house a range of applied arts and
science from around the world.7 Indeed, one of the core purposes of the museum would be strictly didactic
and orientated towards educating the British. Since even before the arrangement the Great Exhibition,
Prince Albert was aware of Britain’s flagging position over the commercial designs of other European
countries; indeed, one of the Empire’s objectives after the Exhibition became the improvement of British
design standards.8 For this reason Cole convinced the Prince that he can accomplish these concerns in
SKM by basing the philosophy of the museum on the application of arts to industry.9 Because the funding
of the museum came directly from the government’s purse, the form and content of the institution were
tightly connected to the imperial needs.10
The objectives of the Empire influenced from its earliest days the museum’s appearance and planning. A
ground floor plan from 1860 (Fig.1) shows that the SKM was not simply a rectangular museum hall. Even
in this initial phase, its site included large Male and Female Training Schools, an Art Library, a Lecture
Theater, and offices to accommodate a Science and Art Department - in short, what they were building was
an institution suitable to meet the government’s design education needs.11 In order to emphasise that SKM
was intended to be an influential institution, it is worth noting that the official control of its departmental
machinery spread across the lands of Britain and Ireland, and the teachers trained in South Kensington
were to be employed throughout the colonial states and dominions.12 The so-called ‘Brompton Boilers’
(1855-1856) (Fig.2) were the first structures erected to house the original collection. Despite some
criticisms leveled at their utilitarian aesthetics, the prefabricated iron structures were admired by Prince
Albert, who from the time of the Great Exhibition encouraged the development of British corrugated iron
manufacturing.13 Since the primary intention behind the museum was didactic, the clear and ordered
arrangement of the collections into Ornamental, Architectural, Educational, and Patent Collection sections
(Fig.1 building C) allowed the visitors to orientate themselves in the building without difficulty, and,
6
Ibid., p. 14.
Ibid., p. 14.
8
G. Stamp and C. Amery, Victorian buildings of London 1837-1887 (London, 1980), p. 61.
9
I.A. Syteffensen-Bruce, ‘Establishing a Style: Boston, New York and Chicago’ in Marble Palaces, Temples of Art: art
museums, architecture, and American (Cranbury, 1998), pp. 17-8.
10
L. Pubrick, ‘South Kensington Museum: The Building of the House of Henry Cole’ in M. Pointon (ed.) Art Apart: Art
Institutions and Ideology across England and America (New York, 1994), p. 77.
11
T. Baringer, ‘The South Kensington Museum and the Colonial Project’ in T. Baringer and T. Flynn (ed.) Colonialism
and the object (London, 1998), p. 14.
12
Ibid., p. 14.
13
A. Mornement and S. Holway, Corrugated iron: building on the frontier (London, 2007), pp. 35-7.
7
2
according to Cole, made it ‘an impressive schoolroom for everyone.’14 Despite this, some of the underlying
political tones could already be detected in one of the earliest guidebooks the SKM published in 1857; rich
ornamental designs from Oriental countries were promoted in the guide by John-Charles Robinson (18241913) - the first curator of the museum – as an especially good source of inspiration for the British
manufacturers.15 Tim Barringer argues that it was in this way that the officers of the museum indirectly
started to promote the Empire’s policy of changing people’s attitudes towards colonial possession: after the
loss of thirty colonies, the commercial importance shifted from America to Asia.16 In addition, not only
had the museum’s guide reflected the political changes, but also the whole financial politics reflected an
increasing interest in Oriental objects. A greater proportion of the collections budget was spent on buying
Oriental objects rather than British ones, making a clear statement that Britain had started to acknowledge
the cultural and political importance of non-Western colonies.17
Rapidly expanding collections required more space. So, for this reason, and only after SKM had been
‘declared a success,’ the British parliament provided the money for an expansion.18 Captain Francis
Fowke (1823-1865) was appointed to build new structures for housing the architecture collections as
well as those for the fine and decorative arts. The choice of the main building materials – cast iron, red
brick, and terra cotta – was influenced by the contemporary fashion of applying a combination of both
arts and industry in architecture.19 The façade of Henry Scott’s new Lecture Theater (1864-1866),
which occupied a northern part of the recently created internal courtyard (fig.3 building R, Fig. 4), is
good example of the employment of mixed materials as well as a great exemplar of Victorian
eclecticism.20 The popular and contemporary Anglo-Palladian style can be seen to have been mixed
with ideas borrowed from John Ruskin’s (1819-1900) promotion of the dignity of the Gothic style
(especially Northern Italian Gothic).21 Buff-coloured terra-cotta ornaments contrast with the brick
walls and mosaic in the pediment adding a polychromatic affect to the Gothic style. However, the
overall composition creates an effect more akin to a Renaissance style than a Gothic one.22 This
impression is achieved by the employment of a massive triple arch over the rusticated ground floor
14
Baringer, ‘The South Kensington Museum and the Colonial Project,’ p.15.
Ibid., p. 15.
16
Ibid., p. 12.
17
Ibid., p. 15.
18
Syteffensen-Bruce, ‘Establishing a Style: Boston, New York and Chicago,’ p. 17.
19
Ibid., p. 17.
20
The Lecture Theater was originally designed by Captain Francis Fowke. After his early death the expansion of SKM and
the completion of the Theater’s building were entrusted to Major-General Henry Scott (1822-1883).
21
J. Ruskin wan a contemporary intellectual who promoted the Gothic Revival in such influential books as Seven Lamps of
Architecture (1849) and The Stones of Vice (1853). He extended A.W.N. Pugin and contemporary ecclesiologists’
discussion about the Gothic style appropriateness for churches to its appropriateness for public buildings.
22
Syteffensen-Bruce, ‘Establishing a Style: Boston, New York and Chicago,’ p. 18.
15
3
and a smaller arcade running through the attic, which is crowned by an entablature.23 One might
wonder how the state managed to overlook this stylistic inconsistency. A possible answer might be
that the eclectic façade actually elegantly reconciles two distinct opinions that for a long time
provoked debate about the appropriate ‘national’ style. The employment of brick and carefully
considered rich surface decorations pleased the supporters of the Gothic style, while the symmetrical
massing of the Theater’s form and the employment of classical architectural details satisfied the
advocates of neo-classical style.
The imperial messages not only penetrated the sophisticated architectural language, but were also
reflected in the Theater’s exterior decorations. In the centre of the pediment’s mosaic, for example, is a
majestic image of Queen Victoria (1819-1901) standing in front of the silhouette of Crystal Palace (1851)
and opening the Great Exhibition (Fig.5).24 To Her Majesty’s right, people are holding symbolic offerings
from the sphere of industry and science (including an image of one of only a very few locomotives that had
ever been depicted in mosaic form), while to Her left, equally important positions are given to people
carrying the gifts and symbols from the realms of the arts.25 Names of the countries and colonies that
participated in the Exhibition run across the edges of the mosaic triangle. Queen Victoria - as a symbolic
representation of British Empire - is given a superior position to all of the other countries, and in this way
the piece celebrates Britain’s eminence as the manufacturing powerhouse of the world.26 Moreover, since
SKM was originally intended as an educational institution in the studies of science and arts, the edifying
message of the importance of instruction was reinforced by the symbolic sculptural representations on top
of the pediment.27 In addition to this, the extensive employment of Italian Renaissance inspired terra cotta
relief sculptures in the façade’s decoration manifest the state/museum’s philosophy that fine art can be well
incorporated into architecture.28
Other buildings designed by Fowke are also rich in symbolism. The structure of South Court (1861-1862)
(Fig.3 building K, Fig. 6), for example, is clearly reminiscent of the train sheds built for the railway
stations of the time – a type of transportation that was vigorously promoted by the Empire.29 Fowke did not
conceal the massive cast iron arches in the interior. However, following the museum’s philosophy of the
23
Ibid., p. 17.
J. Timbs, Curiosities of London (London, 1867), p. 604.
25
‘Architectural History of V&A 1862-1863’ in The V&A Website (http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/architecturalhistory-of-the-v-and-a-1862-1863-the-north-and-south-courts-a-double-sided-showpiece/).
26
Ibid., ‘History of V&A 1862-1863.’
27
Ibid., ‘History of V&A 1862-1863.’
28
On the appliance of terra cotta in SKM see H.V. Lemmen’s Architectural Ceramics (Buckinghamshire, 2002), pp. 14-15.
29
Stamp and Amery, Victorian buildings of London 1837-1887, p. 63.
24
4
employment of arts for industry, he beautifully carved the industrial iron structures making the richness of
the building a legitimate source for learning design. These elaborate decorations not only served as tools
for improving ‘national taste,’ but also embodied some of the Victorian ideas about moral improvement.30
It was thought that rich architectural decorations were naturally morally improving, and further function in
preparing the viewers’ minds for the appreciation of the collections.31
The interior design of the Oriental Cloister, originally located in one of the side cloisters of South Court
(Fig.3 building Kc), was another excellent example of the embodiment of Victorian moral and political
ideas. What was innovative in this section was that the wall ornaments were intended to correspond to the
content of the collections. Owen Jones (1809-1874) was the man commissioned to design decorative
patterns that would evoke the ornamental styles of Oriental countries.32 Vibrant Indian style wall
decorations, such as those depicted in Fig.7, were continuously being promoted as good sources for the
British designs.33 The rich, evocative atmosphere of the Oriental Cloister clearly manifested to the observer
the ‘othernesses’ of these countries, and, it could be argued, indirectly corresponded to various
contemporary, pseudo-scientific discussions regarding race issues.34 A number of writers at the time,
including prominent Victorian intellectuals Francis Galton (1822-1911) and Herbert Spenser (1820-1903),
started proposing various totalizing perceptions that ‘scientifically’ explained the cultural superiority of the
white western Europeans.35 Since the definition of race was blurred with the definition of culture,36 the
same ‘totalizing classificatory grid’ was applied to the artistic artifacts of the Empire.37 Thus, the Oriental
Court, through its distinctive architectural design to the rest of the South Court (which mainly exhibited
European objects), served the function of emphasizing the difference between the Occidental world and
Oriental world.38 It is not surprising, therefore, that the contemporary press writing about the Oriental
Court focused mainly on the magnificence of the building’s interior decorations, rather than on its
collections.39 What could be read between the lines of these writings was that the colonial objects of the
Oriental countries were subordinate to the magnificence of the imperial power.40 Moreover, all the cultural
30
C. Whitehead, ‘Museum architecture and Moral Improvement’ in The Public Art Museum in Nineteenth Century Britain
(Aldershot, 2005), pp. 64-66.
31
Ibid., pp. 64-66.
32
Baringer, ‘The South Kensington Museum and the Colonial Project,’ p. 15.
33
Ibid., p. 15.
34
Ibid., pp. 15-16.
35
See M. Spenser’s Principles of Biology (1864), F. Galton’s Hereditary Genius (1869).
36
C. Bolt, ‘The Scientific View’ in Victorian Attitudes to Race (London, 1971), p. 9.
37
J.M. MacKenzie, ‘Introduction,’ p. 8.
38
Baringer, ‘The South Kensington Museum and the Colonial Project,’ p. 15.
39
Ibid., p. 17.
40
Ibid., p. 17.
5
differences within the Oriental section were mainly ignored by simply clustering the objects together in
lavishly decorated rooms under the label ‘Oriental.’41
After the death of SKM’s architect Fowke, the commission for the next major architectural development
– Cast Courts (1873) (Fig.3, building U) - went to Henry Scott (1822-1883). Despite the letters sent to the
museum’s director complaining that “Show rooms should be made not to assert themselves,”42
the
expansion of the museum followed the same extravagant fashion, and in many respects even outdid the
buildings that were already in place. The experience of the sheer physical size of the Cast Court (Fig.8)
was compared in The Builder with ‘the first glimpse of Mont Blanc.’43 A significant proportion of the court
was intended to house a collection of large-scale plaster casts and originals of great European and Asian
monuments. Probably the grandest of them all was the Trojan’s Column (CA 113) - a symbol of the
Roman Empire, which overshadowed all other the objects of smaller scale.44 The choice to house the
column was obviously a symbolic one, since the British Empire saw itself as on a par with Imperial
Rome.45 A self-proclaimed right to manipulate one of the greatest Roman monuments reflected the
confidence of the British Empire and symbolically manifested their superiority over the Romans.
After Scott’s expansion, a new arrangement of the exhibition space in the museum reflected changes in
the political climate. Just a couple of years before Queen Victoria was crowned Empress of India (1876),
the museum acquired a vast collection of Indian objects and casts.46 The interest in Indian art was most
likely motivated by the changing political status of India and its increasingly important economical role.
India became one of the main markets for selling British produced goods and created a number of
occupations for middle and upper class British citizens.47 The Indian collection was expanded again in
1880 after the artifacts from the Indian Museum were moved to the SKM’s Cross Gallery, in this way once
more reinforcing the importance of having Indian objects under the roof of the state’s museum.48 The most
prominent exhibition space of Indian section was given to the Eastern Gateway of Great Stupa in Sanchi
41
Ibid., p. 15
‘Architectural History of the V&A 1863–1873’ in the The V&A Website
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/architectural-history-of-the-v-and-a-1863-1873-fowkes-architectural-master-planan-interrupted-vision/).
43
F.H.W. Sheppard, ‘Victoria and Albert Museum’ in Survey of London: Volume 38 – South Kensington Museum Area
(London, 1975), pp. 97-123.
44
‘The History of the Cast Courts’ in The V&A website (http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/t/the-cast-courts/).
45
Baringer, ‘The South Kensington Museum and the Colonial Project,’ p. 17.
46
Ibid., p. 17.
47
Ibid., p. 17.
48
This collection was originally formed by East India Company and housed in Indian Museum on the opposite side of the
Exhibition Road. East India Company’s rule in India lasted until 1874. One of the results of the Company’s deposition was
Queen Victoria’s coronation ‘Empress of India’ in 1876.
42
6
(3rd century BC) - the political importance of which was unmistakable at the time.49 The monument was
discovered and excavated by various British military expeditions in India. As a result of this, it became a
great propaganda tool for the British Empire, not only illustrating to all the museum’s visitors the
responsible nature of British attitudes towards Indian history and culture, but also demonstrating the
Empire’s authority over them.50
In the early 1870s, when Britain’s economic supremacy was beginning to falter and the museum’s first
director retired, the purpose of the museum became increasingly uncertain.51 Despite the fact that even
after the construction of the Cast Courts the museum complex was still overcrowded, 52 valuable exhibition
space started to be used more for political rather than aesthetic objects.53 One of the best examples of this
expression of aggressive triumphalism was the decision to display aesthetically worthless spolia from the
war with King Theodore of Abyssinia, which included a picture of Theodore’s decapitated head lying in
blood, and other trophies from further remarkably bloody campaigns in Africa.54 Such displays did not
contribute to the museum’s original objective of teaching good design and inspiring the moral development
of the public. However, if one bears in mind the contemporary political situation, the decision to exhibit
these objects could be understood better. Around the early 1870s, Germany, Russia, and the United States
were emerging as powerful economic rivals to the British Empire. As a consequence of this, Britain started
facing a ‘crisis of confidence in national supremacy.’55 Thus, it is not surprising that the state’s officers
were focused on presenting Victorian Londoners with propagandistic images of defeated enemies
presented in a culturally inferior manner.56 Furthermore, even the collections that justifiably occupied the
precious exhibition space and were related to the museum’s original duty of improving design standards
started to convey new messages. Craig Clunas argues that the constantly growing Chinese art collection,
for example, started to serve a symbolic mission of self-definition.57 Since British political control was
never fully imposed in China, but the British victoriously emerged from both Opium Wars (1839-1842 and
1856-1860), the increasing collection of Chinese art started to display in some respects the ‘margins’ of the
geographical territory of the Empire.58 Because imperial confidence was trembling in the 1870s, it became
49
Ibid., p. 17.
Ibid., p. 17.
51
Ibid., p. 21.
52
Sheppard, ‘Victoria and Albert Museum,’ pp. 97-123.
53
Baringer, ‘The South Kensington Museum and the Colonial Project,’ p. 22.
54
Ibid., p. 21.
55
D. Bell, ‘Introduction: Building Greater Britain’ in The Idea of Greater Britain: Empire and Future of World Order,
1860-1900 (Princeton, 2007), pp. 1-3.
56
Baringer, ‘The South Kensington Museum and the Colonial Project,’ p. 21.
57
C. Clunas, ‘Imperiasl Collectionc: East Asia Art’ in The V&A Website
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsites/1159_grand_design/essay-the-empire-of-things_new.html).
58
Ibid., ‘Imperiasl Collectionc: East Asia Art.’
50
7
politically important to define the geographical boundaries, in this way presenting a strong and powerful
imperial ‘center.’59 The remarkable irony of this propagandistic project of the state is that despite all the
bloody campaigns in China and Africa, the museum was called ‘the ripest fruit of the long Victorian and
victorious era of Peace.’60
Following such important political events as the Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee (1887), the economic
depression of the 1880s, and the crisis in confidence over British supremacy, the need for a grand and
stylistically coherent façade of the influential imperial museum was at its greatest. Indeed, as a result of
more than thirty years of constant expansion, by the 1880s the complex of SKM looked more like as a
cluster of individual architectural statements than a grand imperial institution.61 A competition to complete
the SKM’s scheme was held in 1891 – just a couple of years before the completion of the Imperial
Institute: another grand public institution of similar educational (or propagandistic) importance.62 A group
of judges – four Ministers, including the Prime Minister, and the established Victorian architect Alfred
Waterhouse (1830-1905) – chose the design submitted by the architect Aston Webb (Fig. 3, drawing in
red).63 The building works, however, did not start until almost ten years later because of a number of
political and financial debates surrounding the expansion. One of the key events that put an end to these
long lasting discussions was the relocation of the Department of Science and Art from the SKM into new
offices.64 For the first time in history the matters of the SKM and its expansion were more firmly given
over to the hands of the museum itself rather than the imperial officials.65 A foundation stone laid by
Queen
Victoria
in
1899
marked
the
beginnings
of
this
new
expansion.
The expansion paid homage to the imperial rulers and gave the SKM a unified façade without
compromising the original aims of the museum laid down by Henry Cole. Webb’s grand architectural
statement manifested itself as a 220m x 80m stylistically unified façade facing onto Cromwell and
Exhibition Roads respectively. For the façade on Cromwell Road , for example, he employed a mix of
ponderous Romanesque and Renaissance details on the lower part, and a square exotic dome and turrets on
the upper part above the main doorway (Fig. 9). As a reference to the importance of the British
59
Ibid., ‘Imperiasl Collectionc: East Asia Art.’
M.D. Conway, Travels in South Kensington (London, 1882), 72.
61
Stamp and Amery, Victorian buildings of London 1837-1887, p. 63.
62
See G.A. Bremner “Some Imperial Institute”: Architecture, Symbolism and the Ideal of Empire in Late Victorian
Britain’ Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 62, No. 1 (2003), pp. 50-73.
63
Sheppard, ‘Victoria and Albert Museum,’ pp. 97-123.
64
‘Architectural History of the V&A 1873–1899: The Great Design Competition’ in The V&A Website
http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/architectural-history-of-the-v-and-a-1873-1899-the-great-design-competition/
65
Ibid., ‘The great design competition.’
60
8
contribution to the development of world’s art and design, he designed statues of English painters,
architects, and sculptors and placed them in the first floor niches between the windows.66 Bearing in mind
the mix of stylistic inspirations reflected on the façade, it could be argued that his exterior for the first time
started to respond to the content of the museum; the exotic forms of the dome (Fig. 10) and the statues of
the English artists refer to the Oriental and Occidental collections of SKM - all of them housed under the
dome, which symbolically represents the imperial crown.67 Thus, in a similar way to the Imperial Institute,
the architecture of SKM started to communicate the idea of a harmonious union between Britain and its
colonies. Rich exterior sculptural decorations also paid homage to Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, after
whom it was renamed in a grand reopening ceremony in 1909. Above the central arch of the main entrance
Webb placed a full size statue of Queen Victoria flanked on either side by St. George and St. Michael,
while below the arch an equally prominent position was given to a statue of Prince Albert.68 The attempt to
return to the original aim of the museum – teaching about design – can be seen throughout the details of
Webb’s interior. His expansion enabled the curators of SKM to return to the material-based arrangement
originally favoured by Cole (instead of the racial arrangement, favoured by his successor).69 Moreover, one
can see some liberalisation in Webb’s interior decorations; the expositions in his structures were not
overwhelmed by rich interior decorations, but set against plain walls finally emphasizing the appropriate
level of focus on the exhibitions objects.70
In summary, this essay has explored the architectural and ideological development of South Kensington
Museum during the second half of the nineteenth century. It has been shown that overtly propagandistic
decorations, like the pediment of the Lecture Theatre, were coupled with more subtle techniques of
organization, as in the Oriental Cloister, to serve the government’s desire to illustrate the power
relationships of Imperial world. In case the message about the racial inferiority of the Orientals was
missed, the ‘morally improving’ interior decorations or such grand structures as the Cast Court did not fail
to overwhelm the visitors with the magnificence of the Empire and its museum. Furthermore, it has been
argued that the arrangement of SKM’s interior space gained a particular importance in the 1870s, when the
state was facing economic decline and a crisis in Imperial confidence. The choice to exhibit aesthetically
worthless objects of defeated enemies from cruel campaigns in Africa straightforwardly manifested the
government’s aim to restore the Londoners’ faith in the Empire. In addition, the insistence on housing
66
‘Decorative Sculpture on the Exterior of Victoria and Albert Museum’ in The V&A Website
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/d/decorative-sculpture-on-the-exterior-of-the-victoria-and-albert-museum/).
67
Ibid., ‘Decorative Sculpture on the Exterior.’
68
Ibid., ‘Decorative Sculpture on the Exterior.’
69
R. Dunn and A. Burton, ‘The Victoria and Albert Museum: An Illustrated Chronology’ in The V&A Website
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsites/1159_grand_design/essay-vanda_new.html).
70
. Ibid., ‘An Illustrated Chronology.’
9
large Chinese art collections after the Opium Wars in what was already an overcrowded museum could be
interpreted as propagandistic tactics to define the geographical ‘margins’ of the Empire. Only in late 1890s,
when the Department of Science and Art was moved out from SKM, did the museum begin to enjoy a less
politicised management, enabling the architect Webb to re-focus attention on the importance of the
exhibitions’ objects rather than on the lavish decoration of the building. While bearing in mind the
examples of the close link between changes in the British Empire and SKM’s architecture, one can draw
the conclusion that in exactly the same way as the telegraph or steam engine, the institution of the museum
became a powerful tool for the Empire.71 It communicated to its visitors a very particular understanding of
‘history’ and presented the colonial countries by showing off the spoils the Empire had reaped from them.
The keen eye of contemporary historians, however, trace a complicated dialogue between the surface of
display of imperial museums and the depth of historical background which is embodied in the displayed
objects.72 Thus, the significance of SMK lies not only in its public educational function, but also in its
reflection of the shifting messages of political concerns in late nineteenth century Britain.
71
72
J.M. MacKenzie, ‘Introduction,’ p. 7.
Ibid., p. 6.
10
Fig 1. South Kensington Museum Complex, Ground Floor Plan in 1860. For Key to Building Plans,
see Appendix.
Fig. 2. Iron Museum or Brompton Boilers (1855–6), General View.
11
Fig. 3 South Kensington Museum Plan showing the expansions by Fowke, H. Scott and Aston Webb's
completion plan in red, 1891. For Key to Building Plans, see Appendix.
12
Fig. 4. Facade of the Lecture Theatre designed by H. Scott 1864-1866.
Fig. 5. Pediment mosaic of the Lecture Theatre.
13
Fig. 6. The South Court interior, picture taken c.1886.
Fig. 7. J. Owen’s design for the decorations of the Oriental Courts, South Kensington Museum.
14
Fig. 8. View of the Architectural Courts, by Henry Tidmarsh (1855-1939). Pencil, watercolour.
Fig. 9. A. Webb’s façade facing Cromwell Road (1899-1907).
15
Fig. 10. Dome designed by A. Webb (1899-1907). Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington,
London.
16
Appendix: Key to Plans
A. Brompton Park House (Pre-existing)
a. Architect and engineer's house
b. Deputy Superintendent (formerly female training school)
c. Royal Engineers' barracks
d. Male training school
B. Wooden sheds from Marlborough House. Male training school
C. Iron Museum ('Brompton Boilers', 1855-6)
a. Museum of Ornamental Art. Sculpture in gallery over
b. Education Museum. Architectural Museum western gallery over
c. Patent collection. Architectural Museum in western gallery over
d. Museum of Construction. Food and Animal Products Museums in eastern gallery over b, c, d
D. 'Junction' building (1856)
a. Male training school
b. School corridor and stores
c. Offices (art library until 1859)
d. Board room
e. Museum corridor
f. Lecture Theatre
E. Sheepshanks Gallery (1856-7). Museum collection. Sheepshanks collection on 1st floor to 1865,
Forster and Dyce collections in 1891, 1909
F. First Refreshment Room and photographic room (1857)
G. Vernon and Turner Galleries (1859). Art library 1859-84 and museum collection. Vernon and
Turner collections on 1st floor in 1865, 1869-70,1874
H. North and east ranges (1859-c.1861)
a. Female training school until 1863, then museum collection. Raphael cartoons on 1st floor from 1865
b. Museum collection and offices. Picture galleries on 1st floor
c. Fernery (c. 1863)
I. Entrance Lodge (c. 1861)
J. North Court (1860-2). Museum Collection
K. South Court (first phase, 1861-2)
a. Loan collection
b. Museum collection. Prince Consort Gallery on 1st floor
c. Oriental Courts (decorated 1863 onwards). Competition Galleries on 1st floor
L. Residences range (1862-3)
a. Museum collection. Official residences on 1st floor and above until c.1897
b. Official residences and on 1st floor and above until c. 1897
M. National Art Training School ranges (1863).
Museum collection. Art training school on 1st floor and above
17
N. Workshop range (c. 1863-5)
O. North staircase (1864-5)
P. East staircase and extension to Kc (1864-5)
Q. Office range (1864-5)
R. Lecture Theatre range (1864-6)
a. Ceramic Staircase
b. Museum collection. Ceramic Gallery on 1st floor
c. Green Dining Room
d. Refreshment Room. Lecture Theatre on 1st floor
e. Grill Room
S. Science Schools (1867-71). In 1973 Huxley Building of Imperial College
T. Office Extension (1868-9)
a. Offices
b. Gateway. Board Room on 1st floor
U. Cast Courts (1868-73)
W. South Court extension (1869-71)
a, b. Uses as Ka, b
X. Art Library range and Rooms 41, 45 (1879-84)
a. Museum collection. Art library on 1st floor
b. Science and education library, later museum collection
c. Museum collection
18
Bibliography:
-
‘Architectural History of the V&A 1863–1873’ in The V&A Website
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/architectural-history-of-the-v-and-a-1863-1873fowkes-architectural-master-plan-an-interrupted-vision/).
-
‘Architectural History of the V&A 1873–1899: The Great Design Competition’ in The V&A
Website (http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/architectural-history-of-the-v-and-a-18731899-the-great-design-competition/).
-
‘Architectural History of V&A 1862-1863’ in The V&A Website
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/architectural-history-of-the-v-and-a-1862-1863-thenorth-and-south-courts-a-double-sided-showpiece/).
-
‘Decorative Sculpture on the Exterior of Victoria and Albert Museum’ in The V&A Website
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/d/decorative-sculpture-on-the-exterior-of-the-victoriaand-albert-museum/).
-
‘The History of the Cast Courts’ in The V&A Website
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/t/the-cast-courts/).
-
Baringer, T. ‘The South Kensington Museum and the Colonial Project’ in T. Baringer and T.
Flynn (ed.) Colonialism and the object (London, 1998), pp. 11-27.
-
Bell, D., ‘Introduction: Building Greater Britain’ in The Idea of Greater Britain: Empire and
Future of World Order, 1860-1900 (Princeton, 2007), pp. 1-27.
-
Bolt, C., ‘The Scientific View’ in Victorian Attitudes to Race (London, 1971), pp. 1-28.
-
Bremner G. A., “Some Imperial Institute”: Architecture, Symbolism and the Ideal of Empire in
Late Victorian Britain’ Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 62, No. 1
(2003), pp. 50-73.
19
-
Clunas, C., ‘Imperiasl Collectionc: East Asia Art’ in The V&A Website
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsites/1159_grand_design/essay-the-empire-ofthings_new.html).
-
Conway, M. D., Travels in South Kensington (London, 1882).
-
Dunn, R. and Burton, A., ‘The Victoria and Albert Museum: An Illustrated Chronology’ in The
V&A Website (http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsites/1159_grand_design/essayvanda_new.html).
-
Fermor-Hesketh, R., Architecture of the British Empire (London, 1986).
-
J.M. MacKenzie, ‘Introduction’ in Museums and Empire: A Natural History, Human Cultures
and Colonial Identities (Manchester, 2009), pp. 1-20.
-
Lemmen, H.V., Architectural Ceramics (Buckinghamshire, 2002).
-
Mornement A., and Holway, S., Corrugated Iron: Building on the Frontier (London, 2007).
-
Pearce, S., Flanders, R., ‘The South Kensington Museum Is Established’ in The Collector’s
Voice: Critical Readings in the Practice of Collecting, Volume 3 (Aldershot, Hampshire 2002),
pp. 14-18.
-
Pubrick, L., ‘South Kensington Museum: The Building of the House of Henry Cole’ in M.
Pointon (ed.) Art Apart: Art Institutions and Ideology across England and America (New
York, 1994), pp. 69-88.
-
Sheppard, F.H.W., ‘Victoria and Albert Museum’ in Survey of London: Volume 38 – South
Kensington Museum Area (London, 1975), pp. 97-123.
-
Stamp, G. and Amery, C., Victorian buildings of London1837-1887 (London, 1980).
-
Syteffensen-Bruce, I.A., ‘Establishing a Style: Boston, New York and Chicago’ in Marble
Palaces, Temples of Art: art museums, architecture, and American (Cranbury, 1998), pp. 1648.
-
Timbs, J., Curiosities of London (London, 1867).
20
-
Vale, L.J., Architecture Power and National Identity (London, 1992).
-
Whitehead, C., ‘Museum architecture and Moral Improvement’ in The Public Art Museum in
Nineteenth Century Britain (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 59-69.
List of Illustrations:
Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 - Sheppard, F.H.W., ‘Victoria and Albert Museum’ in Survey of London: Volume 38
– South Kensington Museum Area (London, 1975), Plan sheet A.
Fig. 2 – ‘A Grand Design: A History of the Victoria and Albert Museum’ in The W&A Website
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsites/1159_grand_design/essay-vanda_new.html)
Fig. 4 – Kriegel, L., Grand Designs: Labor, Empire, and the Museum in Victorian culture (USA,
2007), p. 179.
Fig. 5 – Sutcliffe, A., London: An Architectural History (London, 2006), 124.
Fig. 6 – ‘A Grand Design: A History of the Victoria and Albert Museum’ in The W&A Website
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsites/1159_grand_design/essay-vanda_new.html).
Fig. 7 – Baringer T. and Flynn T. (ed.) Colonialism and the object (London, 1998), p. 16.
Fig. 8 – ‘Architectural History of the V&A 1863–1873’ in The V&A Website
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/architectural-history-of-the-v-and-a-1863-1873-fowkesarchitectural-master-plan-an-interrupted-vision/).
Fig. 9 – ‘Victoria and Albert Museum London’ in E-architect Website
(http://www.earchitect.co.uk/images/jpgs/london/v_a_museum_nw120709_1.jpg)
Fig. 10 – ‘A Grand Design: A History of the Victoria and Albert Museum’ in The W&A Website
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsites/1159_grand_design/intro.php)
21