Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum: A Comparative Study

Although structure and utility as the meaning of act of ‘building’, architecture has a crucial visual component as well, and throughout the centuries, buildings have either failed or succeed in terms of either individual or societal aesthetic standards (Zukowsky, 2015). In this essay, two buildings are selected in similar functions with strong contrast in design and built within 20 years of each other. As for the function, museum as an important medium of communication to be analyzed, which is primarily but not essentially exclusively and engaged in the visual communication of objects of scientific and cultural interest. Therefore, museum design, both in terms of display and architecture, must thus at least contribute communicate to an individual actively and preferably (Brawne, 1965). The museums that have been chosen to compare are National Museum of Roman Art and Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum and the selection of
To achieve educational and social role, the theming method implemented in the museum stand for an additional layer in the site to generate educational, effective and emotional visiting experience (Oren and Shani, 2012). This implementation of theming is expressed successfully through the rebuilding of new visitor’s center (Mevoah) in the museum (figure 3), which is an arcaded concrete pavilion roofed by trellises and skylight, and cast ever-changing shadow patterns. Besides the Mevoah, a new history museum replaced the previous museum constructed in 1953 (Figure 4), and galleries for Holocaust art, a Hall of Names, a synagogue; a visual and learning canter and an exhibitions pavilion are included in the new design (Safdie Architects, 2011). A network of sky lit underground galleries lines both sides of the