ONE - TO - ONE
Let's think about the most basic features of architecture - the external shape and size of the building, the spatial design of the interior, materials, the impact of natural light and the use of artificial light, technical or craft details, and currently also technological or environmental properties. Most of these features have something in common that sets architecture fundamentally different from painting or sculpture as the most common media exhibited in galleries: they are non-transferable and therefore almost impossible to exhibit. Works of art are exhibited mainly because of their originality, uniqueness and irreplaceability, and the white cubes in which they are exhibited are intended to create ideal conditions for their presentation. In this environment, we can best examine the brush strokes in this environment, while in the case of a sculpture, for example, a detailed capture of the musculature. We perceive traces of chisels or the structure of color shades. Although different museums offer different experiences in presenting paintings or sculptures, it can be said that their exhibition brings a kind of unique, authentic experience. Simply put, you go to the art museum for paintings and sculptures, but you won't find architecture in an architectural museum - architectural exhibits in a museum similar to the sense of closeness that works of art do not create and will not help the "ideal" white cube. Not only the size and scale, but also the genius loci of architecture can be examined only in the face of the building itself. It is very difficult and practically impossible to transfer a real building to a museum or gallery so that its architectural qualities and the impression of it are preserved. Although there are several examples of “museumisation” of complete buildings, these are unique and expensive solutions, and most do not involve the transfer of architecture to a museum, but the transformation of an architectural “gem” into a museum.2 architecture is possible only in the form of exhibiting its representation - drawings, sketches, projects, models, photographs, etc. It is therefore desirable to exhibit architecture at all, if the experience of the exhibition does not reach What effect do paintings or sculptures have on the viewer? And isn't architecture, in fact, always exposed by itself in the eyes of passers-by and users?