RETHINKING LIMINALITY:

BUILT FORM AS THRESHOLD-SPACE

Anda Ioana Sfinte
University of Architecture and Urbanism Ion Mincu Bucharest (ROMANIA)
anda.sfintes@mai!.com
A!"t#a$t
This article explores the conceptualization of museums as threshold-spaces by extending the related
concepts of boundary/threshold/liminality to the scale of the building as a whole (architecture, impact,
use). The facade represents the material boundary between inside and outside and its openings
become thresholds, thus being perceived not only at a physical level, but also psychologically and as
having philosophical connotations. t the same time, there are liminal spaces which transpose the
boundary and threshold characteristics three-dimensional, in what is called transitory or in-between
spaces. !owever, the liminal state can be considered to characterize, in some cases, the whole
building if we consider the "uxtaposition of space and liminality theories coming from different
disciplines. #n this article, we aim at highlighting the way in which the museum can be thought of as
liminal and what does this conceptual position assume. $e see the threshold-space as a built form
which demarcates a brea%through from everyday life and accommodates a parallel reality. #n this
context, architecture represents a participatory frame and bac%ground for interpreting the exhibition
and accumulating %nowledge. The museum is a blurred space, where different realities are being
"uxtaposed. !uman perception, spatial experimentation and attribution of meaning are influenced by
this liminal status determined by the correlation between curatorial intent and architecture which
became, through the evolution of museum concept, part of the exhibition.
&eywords' threshold, boundary, threshold-space, museum, rites of passage, heterotopia
% INTRODUCTION
The boundary, mar%ed in architecture by the building enclosure, has, besides its clear, physical
presence, a certain affect upon the man watching it or passing through its openings. (ven if we place
ourselves primarily in the field of architecture, this characteristic brings us to consider not only
architectural analysis, but also anthropological and environment-behavior studies, as what architects
design is meant to satisfy human needs )*+, ma%ing empirically impossible the separation of form,
function, usage, meanings. There is a reciprocal influence between people and built form. (ven if the
latter doesn,t necessarily determine behavior )-+, but rather reactions ).+, what is important is that
people attribute to the places they inhabit meanings which help them classify and organize the world
they live in and orient themselves )/+. s mos 0apoport says, 1!uman behavior )2+ is influenced by
roles, context, and situations that, in turn, are fre3uently communicated by cues in the settings ma%ing
up the environment4 )/'56+. Thus, the importance of architecture goes far beyond its primarily
sheltering and socially representative roles. 7y establishing contextual frames that ta%e as invariants
the cues which lay in the space configuration, we can further consider it together with the socio-
behavioral issues it implies )8+.
Through this approach, we propose the rethin%ing of form and function in terms of reference to two of
the fundamental concepts in understanding space and place 9 the boundary and the threshold. The
boundary concept itself helps us define the strong interrelation between people and space, by having
physical, psychological, social, philosophical, temporal connotations' the boundaries between real
and/or virtual spaces: the extreme points that mar% the ending of a surface or time se3uence (which,
eventually cannot be crossed-over or even reached): the physical or intellectual limits of human being
)5,;+ etc. 7oundaries define places and existence, but evolution implies transgression and passage
which happen through thresholds or breaches. s the threshold also symbolizes the passage from one
state to another, transgression becomes an initiation rite.
7y transposing these concepts to a larger scale, we see the building itself as a threshold-space' a bui!t
form "hich demarcates a brea#throuh from everyday !ife and accommodates a $ara!!e! rea!ity%
mediatin contem$orary forms of initiation. Thus, it cannot be conceived outside both spatial and
human considerations. 7y this, not only we recognize the symbolic function of architecture beyond its
materiality, but also we accept it as being part of a totality which brings together space, people and
behavior. This interpretation underlines the social needs that architecture serves to accomplish (li%e
the needs for companionship and acceptance, involvement and amusement, the need for creating a
personal identity, change information, accumulate %nowledge) and highlights the non-verbal
communication dimensions of built form, its psychological and behavioral implications.
$e can name as threshold-spaces' the cinema and theatres (which accommodate practices of
identification with different characters), the opera and concert halls (that house arts which imply
reaching different states of mind), museums, libraries (as places of %nowledge accession), stadiums
and athletic fields, but also pubs and club houses (as recreation places) etc. ll these buildings have
certain characteristics that, although responding to functional needs, also facilitate the brea%through
from everyday reality and the attribution of symbolic meanings. <or example, we can notice, in some
cases (li%e in cinemas, theatres, museums), the poor level of natural light or the minimum level of
communication with the outside. !owever, as these features depend on several factors and cannot be
ta%en out of context, we shall focus on museums as threshold-spaces.
$e consider that the contemporary museum illustrates best our approach towards emphasizing the
interrelationship between space and people. The building fre3uently becomes a landmar%, expressing
collective identities, history, purposes. Therefore, the choices in matter of architectural design have
deeper meanings. =oreover, through the shifting that occurred in thin%ing the design layout 9 from
simply exhibiting to allowing interpretation 9 and through considering the visitors, perception 9 instead
of the ob"ects 9 as determinant elements, the museum building admits now the personal
transformation and initiation which happen through accumulating %nowledge, in a manner closer to
van >ennep,s theory of passage )6+. $e ta%e his theory as a starting point in our analysis and
definition of threshold-space. The rites of passage he identifies can be analyzed from the perspective
of both the symbolical space that accommodates them and the ideal time during which they happen.
!ere we can also introduce <oucault,s definitions of heterotopia and chronotopia as out-of-place and
out-of-time spaces )?+. The museum thus introduces its visitors into a parallel reality in which time and
space have other meanings and dimensions than in everyday life, being experienced differently. The
building becomes a transitional space, a 1thirdspace in-between4 )*@+.
$e found very useful recent research wor%s in the field of museum studies. $e particularly mention
Aompanion to =useum Btudies4 edited by Bharon =acdonald )**+ which comprises six parts,
regarding concepts, history and identities, architecture, interactions, practices and, at last,
transformations and further considerations. This Aompanion24 offers both a general and in-depth
image of museum practices by bringing together papers that come from different disciplines and thus
emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary approaches.
s we wish to emphasize the role of spatial and architectural expressions, we call on space syntax
research studies, mentioning especially those of !illier and Tzortzi )*-,*.+ which point to experiencing
space inside museums at the same time with experiencing and understanding the display layout.
$e also mention Aatherine Bmith )*@+ who analyses liminality in architecture. lthough she refers
mainly to architecture as experimental art in outside spaces, she also considers museums as liminal
spaces and a set of characteristics she identifies and further develops from a <oucauldian perspective
(li%e the interaction between space and people, the "uxtaposition of different realities etc.) also apply to
the definition of threshold-space.
$e will begin our in3uiry by defining the main notions used in our approach and only after that we
shall analyze the elements which help conceptualize the museum as a threshold-space of cognitive
initiation, starting from the changes that too% place in museum configuration and discourse. 7y
identifying spatial characteristics which help create places inside museums that accommodate the
different rites of passage theorized by van >ennep )6+ (separating, liminal and re-aggregating rites),
we aim to define a correspondence between architectural configuration and its effect upon human
behavior and perception.
& CONCEPTS
#n this article we will be referring to a basic set of concepts that come from various disciplines, all
related to the idea of threshold.
The boundary is a very important concept, no matter its form' physical/abstract, spatial/temporal etc.
Cne of its main spatial characteristics which concern us in tal%ing about built forms is the ambiguity
conferred by its property of setting apart and binding in the same time, and the fact that it belongs to
both sides but can also be treated independently. t an abstract level, we find important its 3uality of
"uxtaposing different, often opposed, realities (this world/the beyond: real/virtual: %nown/un%nown:
allowable/forbidden). The boundary spea%s of dualities by separating two different
states/spaces/realities etc. 7ut it also spea%s of connections through the thresholds that lin% them and
mar% the passage from one to another.
#n architecture, the boundary mar%ed by the enclosure and the thresholds mar%ed by openings define
the inside/outside relationship. Dlad >aivoronschi identifies three types of boundaries and associated
thresholds' thic% (massive, opa3ue), thin (transparent) and multiple (in which the threshold becomes
spatial, re3uiring more time for crossing the boundary) )*/+. (ach of these types have different effects
on people, from being perceived as dramatic, to smooth or continuous. !e 3ualifies the last category
as s$aces of the !imit (1spaEii ale limitei4) and refers to bridges, gates, interspaces etc. These are only
in-between spaces, physically mar%ed, which separate two different states. Through our approach, we
extend these intermediate spaces to encompass places that assume a certain remoteness from
everyday life and temporal ad"ournment, but also the return to common place and time, thus mar%ing
contemporary dichotomies between states of opposed nature as real/virtual, present/timeless, from
which the latter are temporarily accessible through breaches.
The <rench ethnographer rnold van >ennep )6+ advanced the theory of passage which implied the
existence of three sets of rites' separation (preliminal) rites, liminal rites and re-aggregation
(postliminal) rites. The first phase consisted of withdrawal from society, followed by an ambiguous
state which mar%ed the in-between character of the person which was going through the change. t
the end, through the postliminal rites, the individual re-entered society with a new, recognized identity.
Thereby, the concept of threshold extended through time and space, as each of these rites needed a
certain period and a certain space context in which to ta%e place. !aving this in mind, we admit that
this theory was applied to archaic societies, but also recognize its present potential by identifying
contemporary forms of passage that respect the same scheme, although they lost their former
dramatic dimension and their strong social importance. #n our case, the passage referes to passing
through the museum galleries, and the associated initiation has as intend accumulating %nowledge,
learning about whatever the museum is about. The passage still implies the change of status from
%nowing to not-%nowing, from ignorant to connoisseur, and the social acceptance as such.
#n as far as museum architecture, we have as separation rites' passing through the entrance door or,
eventually, through the space that separates the entrance foyer from the tour starting point (tunnels,
stairs, doors etc). The presence of these elements and their configuration differ, as their impact on
visitors. The tour itself constitutes the liminal rite, by participating to a parallel reality, with different
rules and expectations than those of the everyday life. #n the spaces where this %ind of rites ta%e
place, the conceptual separation between inside/outside is complete and time and space have ideal
dimensions. The postliminal rites comprised mostly of consumption (meals, ob"ects etc). #n a museum,
we usually find, on our way to leaving, souvenir shops, restaurants and cafFs which allow us to re-
accommodate with the outside world by participating to common practices. =oreover, these spaces
(which, as the entrance foyer, belong, at a conceptual level, both to the inside and to the outside) are
usually treated differently from the rest of the museum by communicating (directly or through
transparency) with the outside world.
fter considering the connection between rites of passage and space, we must also elaborate the
concept of heterotopia coming from the <rench philosopher =ichel <oucault )?+. !e considers
heterotopia the spatial e3uivalent of utopia' an ideal space which exists neither here nor there. #n the
primitive societies, these heterotopias were spaces that accommodated the rites of passage. #t is a
certain %ind of space which, even if related to all the others, neutralizes, inverts, counters the set of
relations between them. They are both physical and mental and have several layers of meaning. They
allow the "uxtaposition of incompatible sites and are lin%ed to heterochronies which double these
characteristics in time. The museum is a heterotopia of accumulating time, a space where 1time never
stops building up and topping its own summit4 )?'-5+. The inside and outside are being clearly
separated conceptually and 9 often 9 also physically, thus creating a breach from everyday
experience. The ambiguity of existing both in a real and virtual time and place creates tensions which
accompany the initiating transformation.
These being said, before analyzing more deeply the "uxtaposition between architectural characteristics
and human behavior, we should consider the changes that too% place in museum configuration,
because the current discussion wouldn,t be possible outside the shifting that too% place in the ways of
thin%ing and conceptualizing the museum.
' THE E(OLUTION OF MUSEUM CONCEPT
The information communicated by the museum depends, among others, on the museum type and
theme, on the exhibition concept and the ideas wanted to be communicated, and last but not least, on
the public. !owever, in recent years, there have been ma"or changes regarding all these elements.
The first museums were opened only to a narrow segment of elitist population )*8,*5+, but gradually,
from the G#Gth century, they began opening up to a wider public. nother ma"or shift has been the
introduction of a narrative discourse, replacing the simple display of ob"ects. This is what Dergo calls
1the new museology4 which explores the conceptual foundations that give ob"ects and ideas
significance )**,*;+ and allows visitors to read the exhibition in a sub"ective, personal manner
)*-,*8,*6,*?+.
Ahanging discourse also led to rethin%ing the visitor position (from neutral 9 having zero importance
for the way in which the exhibition was designed 9 to central 9 constituting the element that generated
it) and his interaction with the exhibition (from passive 9 not influencing the exhibition meaning 9 to
dynamic 9 allowing interpretation and personal attribution of meaning). How the visitor participates,
both physically and psychologically, at the creation and negotiation of meaning )see **,-@,-*,--+, a
process which is strongly lin%ed to communication practices through 1constructing, sharing and
interpreting a range of content, attitudes and values4 )--'.+. The public is now thought of as
heterogeneous instead of undifferentiated )-*+ and this means accepting that some of its readings may
be opposed to those intended by curators )-.+. Cne of the most important conse3uences of these
changes is that learning through interpretation goes beyond museum space because it doesn,t remain
limited to curatorial intent and it facilitates the correlation of learned facts with everyday realities
)-*,-/+, thus extending the social role of museums beyond its enclosure. nyway, allowing
participation implies %nowing the visitors, profile and behavior' movement patterns, ob"ects that come
into his notice and the display context which draws his attention, commentaries etc., and all these
issues have been widely in3uired )see **,*5,-@,-*,--,-8,-5,-;+.
7esides the shifting that too% place from simply exposing ob"ects to interpreting them, contemporary
museums left aside the organization of %nowledge and concentrated upon expressing collective
identities )*?+. #n this context, information is no longer transmitted authoritatively and ascribed to a
single discipline, but to various domains )**+. The themes are critically displayed and opened to
debate from pluri-disciplinary perspectives )-.+.
=ax 0oss states that, although all these changes haven,t been determined solely by economic factors,
we cannot ignore the fact that museum mar%etization had an important role in enhancing accessibility
and participation of a wider public )-6+.
The various changes that mar%ed the transition from old to new museology form the context in which
the interaction between architecture, display layout and visitor behavior gains its importance. #n the
next section we shall analyze the connection between all these elements.
) MUSEUMS AS THRESHOLD-SPACE
<irst of all, we should consider the impact of the building itself on the visitor. 7y becoming a landmar%
and emerging from the surroundings, the contemporary museum architecture mar%s, already from the
distance, its out-of-place and out-of-time characteristics, in the <oucauldian sense of the heterotopia
)?+. Iust by seeing the building, we prepare ourselves for entering another reality and this can be
considered a preliminal rite )6+, as well as passing through the physical threshold represented by the
enclosure and buying the tic%et. $hether we are at our first visit or not, doesn,t change our perception
much. &nowing what awaits us on the other side of the faJade (ob"ects, display mode, spatial
configuration) does not neutralize the surprise factor as long as the contemporary museum gives to its
visitor the freedom to interpret the exhibition and to attach new meanings with every come-bac%
because, as Arane says' 1$e bring to the exhibitions those accumulated life experiences and maturity,
those constantly changing iterations of the personal which construct our daily identities.4 )-?'*@.+.
The museum architecture is usually opa3ue (even if that means creating enclosed opa3ue spaces
behind the transparent faJade) because of the limitations that the ob"ects and display imply' the
natural light causes the degradation of the ob"ects and may not permit a proper visualization. Cn the
other hand, because of the difference between the time and place exposed and the real time and
place, the understanding of the exhibition depends on the remoteness created from the outside world.
ll these constraints emphasize the idea of the museum as threshold-space and heterotopia by
creating a strong delimitation between inside and outside. s <oucault says, 1!eterotopias always
presuppose a system of opening and closing that both isolates them and ma%es them penetrable4
)?'-5+, mar%ing the restrictive access to a different reality. nother important heterotopic feature is the
tension which, as Aatherine Bmith notes, 1resides within the simultaneous interconnection with, and
difference from, everyday space4 )*@+. lthough the physical delimitation is strong, it cannot exist
outside the opposition against everyday reality because 1)o+ur awareness of the discrepancy between
the past and the present never entirely disappears, but we en"oy the illusion of timelessness4 )-?'*@@+.
To give an example, new museums li%e the one designed by =K in (rdos, =ongolia, are more than a
simple enclosure created to accommodate and expose valuable ob"ects or ideas. The building itself
ma%es a statement by interpreting a collective identity. Btanding in the center of a new city, built in the
>obi Kesert, the museum architecture is a reaction against the systematic plan of the city, which
showed no consideration for the residents. The proposal 9 a blob-li%e form 9 wishes to integrate the
new building into the surroundings through form and finishing (reflecting polished metal louvers) and to
become an expression of local history and tradition ).@+. The museum becomes a threshold-space by
separating not only the inside from the outside but also an urban, inappropriate reality from a timeless
one.
>oing forward, the main entrance, as well as the entrance foyer, is a space that pertains in the same
time to the outside and to the inside, at a conceptual level. lthough physically achieved, at a
psychological level, the dissociation from the outside world is not always complete here and the
breach is further mar%ed through other elements (which correspond to the 1spaces of the limit4
identified by >aivoronschi and mentioned above )*/+)' for example, the capsule-li%e elevator in The
=ercedes-7enz =useum, Btuttgart which time travels from the ground floor (the present) to the last
floor (the past) where the history of the automobile begins: the escalator in Lorsche =useum, also in
Btuttgart, which leads to the exhibition starting point.
Cnce we start the tour, we find ourselves in a transitional stage as we no longer participate to the
every-day reality but to a parallel one, by ma%ing contact with ob"ects and ideas coming from another
time and place. The route itself is a threshold or liminal rite of passage )6+, experienced physically but
also symbolical. t a basic level, we can thin%, for example, at <ran% Mloyd $right,s spiral ramp in the
>uggenheim =useum, Hew Nor%' climbing it up re3uires ma%ing a continuous physical effort doubled
by the symbolical meaning of accumulating %nowledge.
s the museum concept evolved from displaying to interpreting, so did its architectural expression,
from being solely the container to being part of the display )see *8,*6+. The contemporary museum
architecture implies creating a connection between building and ob"ects or discourse. This can be
exemplified by the Iewish =useum in 7erlin designed by Kaniel Mibes%ind or by the Nad Dashem
!olocaust =useum in Ierusalem designed by Bafdie rchitects (where we may note especially 1The
wful 7eginning4 >allery). They both add a strong impact of the build form on the visitor,s perception.
The heavy architecture (built in concrete and with a low level of natural light) becomes incumbent and
expresses pain and hopelessness. 0eferring to another main aspect of the heterotopic space 9 the
fact that it is a place 1outside of all spaces4 )?'-/+ 9 we experience, inside the Iewish =useum, the
void which, as Mibes%ind declares, refers to Othat which can never be exhibited when it comes to
Iewish 7erlin history' !umanity reduced to ashes4 )Mibes%ind apud .*+. Bo here, architecture is being
used to express something that cannot be displayed. !owever, Mibes%ind,s museum tends to minimize
the importance of the ob"ects and the narrative is being mainly staged by the iconic landmar%
architecture )**,*8,*6,.-,..+. lthough this %ind of cases are rare, we must note the general, strong
relationship, between spatial configuration and display layout. (ven when designing these two
components is not a synchronic process, they become related to one another and have different
impacts on human perception, understanding, interpretation and even movement pattern. Aatherine
Bmith )*@+ asserts the existence of a blurred zone between ma%ing and experiencing space, and, in
the context of museums which allow interpretation and buildings which express the same ideas as the
exhibition layout, we can consider that differences between design intent and interpretation reflect the
success of the museum as a threshold-space.
&ali Tzortzi identifies three main strategies of relating the curatorial decision for display and the built
form )*.+' (*) creating a correspondence between them which means exploiting the space in order to
enhance the impact of the ob"ects: (-) integrating the ob"ects within the contiguous built environment,
emphasizing space: (.) treating space and display autonomously, the former being neutralized. Cne of
the conclusions of Tzortzi,s article is that we can spea% not only of experiencing the exhibition, the
ob"ects displayed, but also of experiencing space because 1it is not only the architectural strategies
that affect curatorial choices but strategic curatorial decisions can determine our spatial experience.4
)*.';-.?+. The problem of movement pattern and impact of space and display on the visitor brings us
to the space syntax analysis, based on two ideas' space is an intrinsic aspect of human activity and
experience, and the way space is perceived doesn,t depend solely on its properties but also on the
relationship within the layout )*-+.
$e should mention again Aatherine Bmith )*@+ who brings closer in her article, 1Moo%ing for Miminality
in rchitectural Bpace4, architectural praxis and liminality theories. Bhe asserts that liminality is a
common cultural concept used to refer to contemporary art and space experimentation. 7y accepting
the definition of liminality as the interaction between space and people, the audience experience
becomes a priority in designing the spatial configuration.
$ith these ideas we go bac% to the importance attached to the visitor as these relationships between
space and display have no other reason than enhancing the affective and perceptive dimensions of
the tour. lso, it stresses the idea of the museum as heterotopia and threshold-space by "uxtaposing
meanings' meanings that come from the curatorial intent, meanings conferred by architecture, and
personal meanings which are the result of interpretation.
s liminality implies the existence not only of separation rites which lead to the liminal state, but also of
re-aggregation rites which facilitate the return to the real world and to the society which has been left
in a different state )6+, we shall mention lastly the correspondence between these last rites and the exit
from the museum.
Cn our way to exiting the museum, we find shops and restaurants 9 places of consumption which
facilitate the return to everyday reality (for example you can buy boo%s and albums that you can loo%
into at home, or other house items). The souvenirs bought are mnemonic elements which also testify
for their owner,s itinerancy while the restaurants and cafFs are rather places of celebration. nyway,
we may note that these facilities are usually treated differently than the exhibition, by communicating
with outdoor spaces or by relating to everyday practices. =usFe du Puai 7ranly has a cafF which open
up towards the museum garden and a restaurant which offers a view of the Beine and (iffel Tower.
(ven if these entertainment facilities are considered to mar% the decline of the museum because of
their prominence and because 1)t+hey interfere with the purity of the cultural experience4 )*6'8?+, we
may note their role as places which accommodate post-liminal rites.
Through the foregoing mentioned aspects, we argued that the museum, through all its components
(building, discourse and layout, visitors), can be considered a threshold-space. (ntering the museum
does not only mean leaving a space to enter another for a short wile, but also leaving the outside
reality in order to participate to a parallel one, the result being the 3uasi-formal/3uasi-informal
accumulation of %nowledge. The motivations and concerns that stay behind this desire for %nowledge
are, as Bharon =acdonald says' 1anxieties about Qsocial amnesiaR (forgetting the past), 3uests for
authenticity (Qthe real thingR, and QantidotesR to the throwaway consumer society), attempts to deal
with the fragmentation of identity and individualization, desires for life-long and experiential learning4
)**'8+. ll these relate to the need of distance from the present and of a timeless experience. Thus, the
museum as threshold-space in not "ust a fact, a byproduct of constraints and curatorial desires: it also
mar%s social needs li%e those for involvement and amusement, accumulation of %nowledge or the
need to be part of a collective identity. s Buzanne =acleod puts it, 1architecture can be conceived as
the outcome of a perceived social need, located in the specifics of time, space and site. s society
changes and new social needs arise, new building forms will be produced in order to fulfil that social
need.4 )..'*.+.
* CONCLUSIONS
#n this article we tried to lin% theories concerning the threshold with the architecture of the museums
from a contemporary perspective that puts the built form in the special position of being itself a form of
display and being part of the exhibition. $e saw that ob"ects and space become related, contributing
together at enhancing the curatorial intent which, although varies from one museum to another,
recognizes the visitor as the main actor. 7y ta%ing into consideration all these elements, we can get to
a different understanding of the built form, as a space that can still have a sacred dimension (in the
modern sense of the word) by opening a breach in space and time. This approach is based upon the
shift that too% place between the old and new museology, transforming the museum in something
much more than the place of conservation, salvgardation and display of ob"ects. The dynamic
introduced through opening the museum to interpretation expands from curatorial intent to ways of
perceiving and experiencing not only the exhibition but also the space (from spatial distribution to
architectural aesthetics).
#n the recent years, there have been many in3uiries developed within museums, especially in that
which concerns the visitor,s behavior and the impact of different elements on him. Bpatial configuration
and display layout become interrelated and determine cognitive processes of interpretation which lead
to informal accumulation of %nowledge, but also to the attribution of meaning. This organic, informal
mode of accumulation becomes important as it tends to be understood at a deeper level and used
afterwards, in everyday life.
#n the field of architecture, the continuous effort of designing iconic buildings that illustrate concepts
related to the future content, have brought closer the ideas of architecture as art and as part of a
totality. They also made possible viewing the museum not only as a heterotopia, but as a threshold-
space which accommodates rites of passage. Aombining this view with human behavior research may
help to further investigate the social needs that museums respond to.
This article focused on contemporary museums because, through their guiding principles and program
evolution, emphasize best the interrelationship between space and people at a level which goes
beyond the primary, explicit meanings, while, in the same time, allow the "uxtaposition of threshold and
passage theories. nyway, the analysis can be further developed to encompass other threshold-
spaces identified in the beginning (as theaters, the cinema, the opera etc.). The discourse and
conclusions will be slightly different in every case because of the contextual references which cannot
be ignored, but ta%ing as a reference point the liminal status as seen here can help establish frames
and patterns useful in different in3uiries, developed within different disciplines, concerning the built
environment, the humans and society.
REFERENCES
)*+ >ary T. =oore, 1rchitecture and !uman 7ehavior' The Llace of (nvironment-7ehavior Btudies in
rchitecture4 in &isconsin Architect, *?;?, pp. *6--*,
http'//sydney.edu.au/architecture/documents/staff/garymoore/-6.pdf accessed =ars -@, -@*-
)-+ =ar% 7aldassare, 1!uman Bpatial 7ehavior4 in Annua! Revie" of 'ocio!oy, *?;6, Dol. /, pp. -?-
85, http'//www."stor.org/stable/-?/8?5/ accessed =ars -@, -@*-
).+ >ary T. =oore, 1(nvironment 7ehavior Btudies4 in I.A. Bnyder and .I. Aatanese ((ds.)
Introduction to Architecture, Hew Nor%' =c>raw !ill, *?;?, pp. /5-;*,
http'//sydney.edu.au/architecture/documents/staff/garymoore/-?.LK< accessed =ars -@, -@*-
)/+ mos 0apoport, (he Meanin of the Bui!t )nvironment. A Nonverba! *ommunication A$$roach,
Tucson' The Sniversity of rizona Lress, *??@
)8+ >ary T. =oore, 1Hew Kirections for (nvironment 7ehavior 0esearch in rchitecture4 in I.A. Bnyder
((d.) Architectura! Research, Hew Nor%' Dan Hostrand 0einhold, *?6/, pp. ?8-**-,
http'//sydney.edu.au/architecture/documents/staff/garymoore//?.LK< accessed =ars -@, -@*-
)5+ >abriel Miiceanu, +es$re !imit,, 7ucureTti' !umanitas, *??;, ediEia a ##-a
);+ #ulia Btanciu, -ocuri!e intermediare. arii vai% arii de mediere, 7ucureTti' (ditura SniversitarU 1#on
=incu4, -@@;
)6+ rnold van >ennep, Rituri!e de trecere, #aTi' Lolirom, *??5
)?+ =ichel <oucault and Iay =is%owiec, 1Cf Cther Bpaces4 in +iacritics, Dol. *5, Ho.*, pp. ----;
http'//www."stor.org/stable//5/5/6 accessed Iune -., -@*@
)*@+ Aatherine Bmith, 1Moo%ing for Miminality in rchitectural Bpace, in -imen, -@@*, Ho. *,
http'//limen.mi-.hr/limen*--@@*/catherineVsmith.html, accessed pril -*, -@**
)**+ Bharon =acdonald, 1(xpanding =useum Btudies' n #ntroduction4 in Bharon =acdonald ((d.), A
*om$anion to Museum 'tudies, Cxford' 7lac%well Lublishing Lub., -@@5, pp. *-*-
)*-+ 7ill !illier and &ali Tzortzi, 1Bpace Byntax' The Manguage of =useum Bpace4 in B. =acdonald
((d.), A *om$anion to Museum 'tudies, Cxford' 7lac%well Lublishing Lub., -@@5, pp. -6--.@*
)*.+ &ali Tzortzi, 1=useum 7uilding Kesign and (xhibition Mayout' Latterns of #nteraction4, in
/roceedins% 5th #nternational Bpace Byntax Bymposium, Wstanbul, pp. ;-.*-;-.*5,
http'//www.spacesyntaxistanbul.itu.edu.tr/papers/longpapers/@;- - Tzortzi.pdf accessed =ars @.,
-@*-
)*/+ Dlad >aivoronschi, Matrici!e s$a0iu!ui tradi0iona!, 7ucureTti' Laideia, -@@-
)*8+ =ichaela >iebelhausen, 1=useum rchitecture' 7rief !istory4 in B. =acdonald ((d.), A
*om$anion to Museum 'tudies, Cxford' 7lac%well Lublishing Lub., -@@5, pp. --.--//
)*5+ >ordon <yfe, 1Bociology and the Bocial spects of =useums4 in B. =acdonald ((d.), A
*om$anion to Museum 'tudies, Cxford' 7lac%well Lublishing Lub., -@@5, pp. ..-/?
)*;+ Leter Dergo, 1#ntroduction4, in Leter Dergo ((d.), (he Ne" Museo!oy, Mondon' 0ea%tion 7oo%s,
-@@5 )*?6?+, pp. *-8
)*6+ Kavid <leming, 1Areative space4 in B. =acMeod ((d.), Resha$in museum s$ace. architecture%
desin% e1hibitions, Taylor X <rancis e-Mibrary, -@@8, pp. 8.-5*
)*?+ Bophia Lsarra, 1Bpatial culture, way-finding and the educational message. The impact of layout on
the spatial, social and educational experiences of visitors to museums and galleries4 in B.
=acMeod ((d.), Resha$in museum s$ace. architecture% desin% e1hibitions, Taylor X <rancis e-
Mibrary, -@@8, pp. ;6-?/
)-@+ lessandro 7ollo and Muca dal Lozzolo, 1nalysis of Disitor 7ehaviour inside the =useum' n
(mpirical Btudy4, #=A Aonference article
http'//neumann.hec.ca/aimac-@@8/LK<VText/7olloVKalLozzoloM.pdf, accessed <ebruary @.,
-@*-
)-*+ (ilean !ooper->reenhill, 1Btudying Disitors4 in B. =acdonald ((d.), A *om$anion to Museum
'tudies, Cxford' 7lac%well Lublishing Lub., -@@5, pp. .5--.;5
)--+ Mouise I. 0avelli, Museum (e1ts. *ommunication 2rame"or#s, Taylor X <rancis e-Mibrary, -@@5
)-.+ 0hiannon =ason, 1Aultural Theory and =useum Btudies4 in B. =acdonald ((d.), A *om$anion to
Museum 'tudies, Cxford' 7lac%well Lublishing Lub., -@@5, pp. *;-.-
)-/+ =ie%e 7al, 1(xposing the Lublic4 in B. =acdonald ((d.), A *om$anion to Museum 'tudies, Cxford'
7lac%well Lublishing Lub., -@@5, pp. 8-8-8/-
)-8+ Btephen 7itgood, 1The 0ole of ttention in Kesigning (ffective #nterpretive Mabels4, in 3ourna! of
Inter$retation Research, *??5, Dol. 8, Ho. -, pp. .*-/8, http'//www."su.edu/psychology/docs/8.*-
roleVofVattention.pdf accessed <ebruary @., -@*-
)-5+ Meslie I. t%ins, Misanne Delez, Kavid >oudy and &evin H. Kunbar, 4The Snintended (ffects of
#nteractive Cb"ects and Mabels in the Bcience =useum4 in 'cience )ducation, Dol. ?., Ho. *, pp.
*5*-*6/, http'//www.utsc.utoronto.ca/Ydunbarlab/pubpdfs//.@@5.5/--/*;885?8;.pdf, accessed
<ebruary @., -@*-
)-;+ =assimo Zancanaro et alii, 1nalysing =useum Disitors, 7ehavior Latterns4 in Aristina Aonati,
&atleen =cAoy and >eorgios Laliouras ((ds.) User Mode!in 5667. -ecture Notes in *om$uter
'cience, Dol. /8**, pp. -.6--/5, http'//www.springerlin%.com/content/3.@n/5585*;./56@/,
accessed <ebruary @., -@*-
)-6+ =ax 0oss, 1#nterpreting the Hew =useology4 in Museum an 'ociety, -@@/, Dol. -, Ho. -, pp. 6/-
*@.,
http'//www-.le.ac.u%/departments/museumstudies/museumsociety/documents/volumes/ross.pdf,
accessed =ars -@, -@*-
)-?+ Busan . Arane, 1The Aonundrum of (phmerality' Time, =emory, and =useums4 in B. =acdonald
((d.), A *om$anion to Museum 'tudies, Cxford' 7lac%well Lublishing Lub., -@@5, pp. ?6-*@?
).@+ &aren Ailento, 1Spdate' (rdos =useum/=K4 in rchKaily, Beptember -*, -@**,
http'//www.archdaily.com/*;@.@/, accessed =ars -@, -@*-
).*+ (he -ibes#ind Bui!din% http'//www."mberlin.de/main/(H/@/-bout-The-=useum/@*-
rchitecture/@*-libes%ind-7uilding.php, accessed =ars -@, -@*-
).-+ Dittorio =agnago Mampugnani, #nsight versus (ntertainment' Sntimely =editations on the
rchitecture of Twentieth-century rt =useums4 in B. =acdonald ((d.), A *om$anion to Museum
'tudies, Cxford' 7lac%well Lublishing Lub., -@@5, pp. -/8--5-
)..+ Buzanne =acMeod ((d.), 0ethin%ing museum architecture. Towards a site-specific history of
production and use4 in Resha$in museum s$ace. architecture% desin% e1hibitions, Taylor X
<rancis e-Mibrary, -@@8, pp. ?--8.