As Built Interview with Julián Zugazagoitia, Director & CEO of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art
In the first episode of a new series about the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art International Design Competition, As Built co-hosts Patience Jones and Brian Jones speak with Julián Zugazagoitia, the Museum’s Director & CEO, about the competition and the need for community involvement.
PJ: Hello and welcome to As Built, the podcast from Graphicmachine about architecture firms, buildings, and how both get built. I'm your host, Patience Jones, and with me is Brian Jones, your co-host. Today we are very excited to begin a new series within the podcast about the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art International Design Competition.
Our first guest in this series is Julián Zugazagoitia, Director and CEO of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art. Julián, thank you for joining us.
JZ: Thank you for having me.
PJ: Tell us about the expansion project for the Nelson-Atkins. What are some of the main goals?
JZ: We're very excited to be at this juncture of the process and the overarching goal is to take really stock of where the world is going, where our society is going, to take stock of what our community, the people who have come to the museum have told us. Also, we're also thinking of those who don't come to visit museums. What in our current architectural presence are we not doing? People say, “Well, I might not go to a museum.” So really the aspiration for this campaign is on the one side, to expand on what we're already doing beautifully, but to be closer to and responsive to the communities that have visited us - and to also those communities that have, for one reason or another, not yet totally embraced what a museum can do for them.
PJ: You spoke a little bit to this just now, but why now, at this point in history, is this the right time?
JZ: So the “now” is essential and the sense of urgency almost can be perceived by how quickly our society is evolving and continues to change. And when I say “our society,” you can see it from the people who visit the museum, from the artists who are creating in so many different ways, and from the people who are now looking also to museums, not only as a place of solace, a place of discovery, a place of creativity, but also a place of wellbeing, a place to come and restore yourself, a place to find solace. We have seen all of those indicators in a much stronger way after Covid. We've already been thinking about a project like this for a long time, but the sense of urgency is definitely emphasized in how people are coming now, more in troves, to the museum.
A museum that’s alive, by definition, continues to buy art, continues to be the expression of what artists have done both in the past and in the present. Our collection also reflects the notion that today, more voices that had been perhaps forgotten in the past, voices that were from minority communities, are now front and central. We're making more space for that. We're making more space for programs that bring life to art and make it more relevant for our visitors. And lastly, to make space for art that we cannot even foresee right now, for forms of art that we've never had the opportunity to showcase. We don't have a great digital presence, for instance. There's a lot of digital art being created and there's so much talent in Kansas City that I've already seen in the digital era, so it's to capture all of that.
So, if you think: we are already in 2025, so one quarter of the 21st century is already gone. And we just have to start adapting. When you think of that, let's just pause for a second and think, because you could also put it in a different way.
The question could be, “Julián, hasn't the Nelson-Atkins just expanded with the most beautiful architecturally significant wing that is the Bloch Wing designed by the great Steven Holl?” And I would say, “Of course!” And I actually attribute the success of what we're doing to having this beautiful expansion that has allowed us to engage in different ways with our audiences.
But when this building was open to the public, it almost coincided with the birth of something that is the iPhone. How our world has changed. Because now all of us, and especially our kids, our digital natives, have all the museums in the world on their phone. So how can we double down on making the experience of coming to see art in the flesh, in presence, more meaningful than what you can now automatically get on your phone.
That is a competition that we have. It's no longer another museum. It's no longer a movie theater. It’s that you can have everything on your palm. So we are looking into the new spaces as new spaces that accommodate for this mind shift: to be very engaging with our community and to be a place that is different from all different spaces. Again, a museum is a very unique space that brings a quality of a spark in people's minds of saying, “I am at the Nelson-Atkins.” So that's what we're working towards.
BJ: The question of who will design the expansion is being decided through an international competition. Why was it important to use a competition approach?
JZ: The competition approach was decided by the Board last time when we did the expansion that I'm right now sitting in in my office, in the Bloch Building. It was decided also by a competition, different, perhaps in the format. This is a very open competition, led marvelously by Malcolm Reading, and in conversation with him, the Board decided that we wanted the competition to be open for everyone.
So no shortage of an open competition in the way that it was framed. Anyone could submit and then those submissions would be measured against the complexity of the program that we have. I would say from the 182 submissions that we received, and we were so happy to receive so many, in preparation for those 182, for each proposal, at least 10, 15 people touched it all over the world. So for a month or a month and a half when they were submitting or preparing those submissions all over the world, an enormous amount of hours’ worth spent thinking about Kansas City, thinking about what the Nelson-Atkins was thinking, how a museum could engage into the future. And so I'm grateful for each and every one of those 182, which we, and I must say the selection committee, read with more attention than I would have ever anticipated. Because even if they were not selected, there were always ideas that would enrich us and enrich our thinking in each and every one of those 182. It was what we wanted through an open competition: to be open to see all the tendencies in architecture, all the voices that could come from different countries, from our own community to Africa to Australia, to everywhere. How are people looking and thinking about the world? It was a very purposeful exercise in that sense. We wanted to be as open as possible.
BJ: So how does the competition work? You mentioned a little bit about the entries that came in at first, but then how does this continue on as a process?
JZ: The competition by design was to be as open as possible. Malcolm Reading and his team of professional architects lead this day in, day out, and so they have a very good system. Once they got the 182 submissions, they had some criteria by which we had also informed the submitting firms, so it's very transparent as a process, very open-ended. What were the elements that were going to be factors for evaluating the submissions? And at that time, of course, we're not asking already for designs or ideas, but more, what of your past practice allows us to think confidently that this is a project you can embark on. There was a system of ratings and from all those ratings ensued a series of conversations over many days, boiling it down from 182 to then 100, then from 100 to 50, from 50 to 20. And I would say by the time that we're talking about 20, 25 submissions, all of them are extraordinary. So it's a very difficult choice. There could have been so many different slates around with those same 25 top firms that we would've loved to be able to do the 25, but that also it would've not been feasible. We had to boil it down to six firms. Those six represent a wide variety of kinds of practices, practices that have been for a long time, been very well established, to younger practices, names that are very familiar, names a bit less familiar but have all demonstrated already that they have already have some experience in the complexity of the kind of situations in which we're inviting them to discuss.
The context is of course, in an amazing city, a campus that is embedded into what we can call a cultural district and two amazing buildings, a fabulous sculpture park. How do you integrate so that all of this works much more closely altogether? That is the challenge that is daunting and some firms have experienced similar things in their other practice.
PJ: The search statement, which is the document that sets forth the details of how the competition works, used a phrase that I thought was so interesting in describing the kind of building the museum seeks: “one that is both physically and metaphorically transparent.” Can you expand on what that means?
JZ: Yes. I think the evolution of the museum as we see it in the 21st century is of that nature. If you think of the first 1930s Beaux-Arts classic building, it's conceived of as a temple on the hill. There's stairs to get to it. It's opaque or even more than that it's a fortress, because we have to protect the art, but also because only almost the “initiated” can enter.
It's a temple, and so that is the metaphor for where a building like this Beaux-Arts building is conceived. It also is intimidating to a certain degree; you need to know that you are invited there, that you can access it. So, by the end of the 20th century another set of trustees that are pillars of Kansas City said, “How do we evolve the museum?” They invited Steven Holl and the Steven Holl approach is, let's make it more translucent. The building has a beautiful, amazing way of capturing light because it’s translucent. Still, some people have complained. They don't know very much where the entrances are, although we have many entrances and we're free and everything. After experiencing this building, though, you also don't see the art very clearly and you don't see the people living or activating. So the next phase for us is that you go to a greater sense of transparency.
The process is a very open-ended process. From the moment we said we wanted to set this up, we said everyone can participate. Transparency at many levels: as an institution, we are very open to our community. We want to be in that sense also very transparent, so we envision that the next set of buildings will bring the elements that we already have, but that they will indicate more: there is a building that is a museum, but it is open to the outdoors, connecting to our neighborhoods in a very easy way. That is the notion that we go from what is built - this very strong presence of the Beaux-Arts building and a more translucent one that lets you see, oh, there are people inside, oh, they're doing maybe some conservation work, I might become a conservator one day. Oh, they're moving art so that the life of the museum is there. And, that at one point, perhaps you can even lose yourself in the notion of, am I inside or am I in the sculpture park? Oh no, I'm already in the restaurant.
You know, that kind of porosity, that is what we say. The metaphoric way of transparency. We didn't want to say we want a transparent building that is only glass because we don't want to be that prescriptive. That's why we want the architects to react. But that saying that, well, it could be physically transparent, too, but metaphorically is the one that is driving the program.
BJ: The search statement also notes the importance of an expansion that is of its time. Explain what that means and why it's crucial.
JZ: "Of its time” is reflecting on two things. Both the amazing Beaux-Arts building and the amazing Steven Holl building are of their time. They could not anticipate digital art in some way. They could not anticipate that today we might not need to be wired because we have wireless routers everywhere.
There are things from one side technologically and from the other side programmatically. They couldn't anticipate certain programs that now museums are doing. Or, for instance, if we are a well-being center, that we want to invite people to do creativity here, to be more hands-on.
So there's spaces that were not thought of. While I say that, I also am very humble knowing that whatever solution we find today will be the results of conversations we've been having with our community over the last 10 years. It will take 10 years to build. And so by the time we're all together and do the ribbon cutting, this will be of its time - and that time is the last 20 years in which we would be planning and discussing it and getting it.
And then some wise person will come 50 years from now and say, “Hey, well they got this right,” and I just hope that they say we got some things right. They will also say, “Hey, and now it needs to evolve because this and this could not be anticipated.” Or “this and this had to be cut from the budget” or “this is needed.” That's what I like of what I would say the philosophical movement that is the enlightenment. or the critical thinking of a movement. And there's a word by Goethe that says museums should always be in movement. Never finished. And I'm paraphrasing, the quote is much nicer, but that is the spirit. It’s saying, we don't think we will all get everything right. Neither is that our ambition. Our ambition is to create a museum of its time that we're in, but that its time is meaning that the students that are next door at the [Kansas City] Art Institute one day can say, “I can see myself there because the art that I'm doing might be there.” I'm not saying, “I have to be dead before they show me.” So that's a little bit of what I see, that I think “of its time” means.
PJ: The competition does include, as you mentioned, opportunities for community feedback before a decision is made. Why is that important?
JZ: Well, I would say it is important because it's the continuity of the work we've been doing. If you remember, in 2012-13, not necessarily in anticipation of this project, but as a way to start understanding Kansas City, we invited a group of architects to work with us and work with the community to discuss what the notion of a cultural district could be or how to emphasize that.
How to highlight the already extraordinary institutions we have all around us, where there's the [National] Museum of Toys and Miniatures, the Linda Hall Library, Stowers [Institute] next to us, of course KCAI, the Kemper [Museum of Contemporary Art]. I mean, there is the Plaza for a very different context, but there are so many, all institutions that are so close together, the Repertory Theater and, of course, the campus of UMKC. And it feels disconnected. That study and those discussions involved a lot of people in the community, and we learned by doing that. That was an ideas project. It was not that we're going to build the bridges or this or that, but it was more to say what is resonating in the community, what is not resonating. We started that already as a way of engaging the community and learning. Out of those learnings, there's a lot of things that are not happening in this brief. This brief that architects are receiving is informed already by 10 years of conversation with the community, 10 years of seeing how things are evolving. When we put this forward, we'll be displaying all the [architectural] models. We want to capture everyone's input. I think it’s going to be either digitally, or written cards when you're here. It’s all going to be processed by Malcolm’s team to give us and give the selection committee a little bit of the pulse of what people are reacting to. And I would say it's essential first and foremost, because we're building this for our community and with our community.
The input from the community is very important to us because sometimes I will say, what we bring to a project like this is all of our professional training. In my case, as a museum person, the architects, the architectural person - sometimes we're so close to the project that we are sometimes at loss. Having the visitors that come and enjoy the museum give us feedback is the most important because they are the people for whom we work. We know where the entrances are to the museum, so it's facilitating this conversation and having their input. And if they say to us, “Well, while all this looks great, where is the entrance?” If the entrance is still an issue, we want to resolve that. There are things we don't see anymore because we use this facility every day. It's been the questions that have been asked of us that we're trying to address, and that's why the input from every visitor is important. I would say even people who don't visit museums, who have not visited us before, and might be coming just to see the plans – we still want to know, would you come to something?
PJ: What kind of feedback is helpful? I ask that because I think probably most people in the region, or even not in the region, have never had the opportunity to give feedback on the design of a major art museum in the community where they live and work. What types of things are helpful to know?
JZ: This is the same conversation we're having even with the selection committee of the board. Jumping to a conclusion of saying, “Oh, I like this design and I don't like this design” is not it, because it's more the question, “Is this design solving the questions that we have? What is the best solution for an entry if I find that entry is not as fluid as it should be? Am I going to walk all this long way to see a new exhibition in this design? Or does this feel too far away and I might not want to walk that long? Whereas this other project seems to have this shorter walk that I would prefer.” So it's more on how would you project yourself using the building and visiting and using this facility for the various things you want to use it for. Is it for enjoying art? Is it to do an atelier, a live studio? Is it to bring your kids? Is it to have a lunch in a nice restaurant and have a quiet time? I want to hear how people see projecting themselves into this process rather than just an aesthetic gut reaction.
That is also for us very important. Even all the selection committees going through this is saying, what of these renderings and what of these conversations we've had with the different architects best meets the aspirations that our community has told us that they have: how they want to use this building on the one side, how they want to discover art on their own or in groups or come for another activity. Is this meeting all those needs that we see and also sustaining the quality of everything we've done before?
We want to maintain the excellence of what we bring already to the table but make it in a way that is even more accessible. Those would be the prisms from which I would want to engage people. The more perspectives we bring to the table, the more insights we can have, the more we can address that.
PJ: It sounds like the community feedback will play a very important role in the final decision. Is that fair?
JZ: I would venture to say even more. This project already begins as conversations we've been having over the last 10 years with our community. And I tell you, there were a lot of conversations when we were doing the last study that informs a lot of what we're doing. But it’s important to know also what will be captured through this process. Once we have a winner selected -- and I'm almost reluctant to use the word “winner” because knowing the quality of the things I'm already seeing, they're all winners in my mind -- but there's going to be one that solves some of those problems better than others. And once we see which one is the one that comes closer to those aspirations and solving many of the conundrums that this proposition brings and gives us the most flexibility and liberty to explore art that we have not even seen today, once we have that person or that team, that group, that studio, that will also be a new beginning. It's not like we select this team and then they go and it's constructed the next day. As you know, this is going to be then just the beginning of refining that. That's yet another opportunity that we will have to engage a lot of stakeholders, to engage our community, to give us more feedback because to fine tune the work, a lot of different stakeholders will be engaged.
BJ: The architecture of the Nelson-Atkins has become almost an art exhibit in itself, and the museum has hosted presentations from such noted architects as Maya Lin, Steven Holl, Marlon Blackwell, and Elizabeth Diller. What role does the Nelson-Atkins play in helping people see architecture as an art form?
JZ: Definitely the distinction of the Bloch Building is what has put us in the map in the architectural world. The lectures that we had over the last 10, 15 years, Atkins Lectures that were curated with the celebration of architecture in mind, was a way of celebrating already the excellence of the Bloch Building and starting to have voices in the architectural world come and look at it and start reflecting. I cannot say that we didn't have in mind that having the greatest architects come and see our site could be a preliminary for the competition. But I'm very happy that many of those who came to give some of those lectures were among the submissions. Again, if this had not been an open competition, as open as we wanted it to be, perhaps the shortlist could have been just the people that we had invited over the last 15 years to give a talk because they were high in our esteem and they’re high again in our admiration. The fact that great architects have come to talk to the Nelson-Atkins is our way to celebrate architecture. We do believe that the design, and what I would say these designs, is all the field of design. And I love that our AIA chapter in Kansas City led by Dawn Taylor has also brought all of the designers together. She has a way of framing the architecture in the larger scope.
We want the refinement that you can see in the Bloch Building and a continuation of excellence in architecture. And that's why whatever we do has to be so perfect that it is a continuation and a continuous celebration. But I do think that the challenge for any architecture team today coming into this is that you have already two or three propositions: the sculpture park is a masterpiece of landscape design, and there are two buildings that are unquestionable in their quality.
So it has to be both daring and respectful. That is another thing. We want architects to be themselves, and on the other side, we know that it has to be respectful because we already have beautiful things going on. When a third element is incorporated into this dialogue, what I hope is that definitely architecture is celebrated in the differences that each of these elements would bring, and in the dialogue that I hope is harmonious and very open to the public.
Transcript has been edited for clarity.
Photograph of Julián Zugazagoitia courtesy of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art
