Possibilities of multifaceted relationships and articulations of ‘program’ in architecture took the stage of architectural discourse numerous times over the century. Architects develop typological concepts to express their ideas based on their understanding of the relationships and needs of the ‘program’ in architecture. But, these ‘typological concepts’ rarely come from an ingrained understanding of the origin of the building’s function and people’s evolved attitude to these functions over time; specific to its ‘place’. This was notably different in the case of Charles Correa’s ideas for a modern museum in India.

As one attempts to understand the origin of the institution, the history suggests that the museum as an institution was born when the Government of France had first decided to throw the gates open of the French Royal Palace for the public, on the 10th of August, 1793. This act symbolized democracy, granting every citizen access to the state’s treasures, and subjecting the population into citizenry (Singh, 2017). This clarifies that the institution of a museum was born, only when the collection was opened to the public. Later in 2007, the International Committee on Museums (ICOM), Vienna; defined the museum using phrases like – ‘open to the public’, ‘to communicate and exhibit’, and, ‘for education, study, and enjoyment’. This again clarifies that the fundamental objective of the institution is to serve the public, and its merit lies majorly in public engagement; rather than the other aspects like record and preservation practices; which fall under the primary objective of its sister institution – ‘the archive’ (Singh, 2017).

In India, the concept of a ‘museum’ as we define it today did not exist before the colonial rule. There was no established system for gathering knowledge for common reference, with knowledge on literature and crafts being passed down through oral traditions (Jain, 1991). Since they were introduced in India at the beginning of the 19th century, museums played multiple roles in their functionality, reflecting the intentions of their patrons. On the contrary, the attitude of the Indian audience toward this emerging new institution was quite different from the West. The archival records suggest that the first museums established in Bombay, Delhi, and, Madras had massive footfalls, with records competitive with the National museums in London and Paris (Singh, 2017). However, the museum keepers of the time, constantly complained that Indian audiences hardly were concerned about the content displayed in the museums (Thurston, 1896), a recurring issue in Indian museum studies to this day. Art historian Kavita Singh speculates that the popularity of these museums may have been due to their attractive settings in grand colonial buildings within public gardens, often featuring amenities like bandstands and water fountains (Singh, 2017). To some extent, these observations clarify that the ‘museum’ was always a ‘place’ before it was a ‘repository’ for Indian audiences.

In the second half of the 20th century, since India announced its sovereignty, Charles Correa proposed typological concepts and built four museums funded by the state and central governments, across the country. Gandhi Samarak Sangrahalaya (1958 – 63) Ahmedabad; Bharat Bhavan (1975 – 81) Bhopal; National Crafts Museum (1975 – 90) New Delhi; and Jawahar Kala Kendra (1986 – 92) Jaipur. Two intertwined concepts stand out from a thorough study of the projects and his theoretical description of the typology.

1. Contrapuntal Spaces – Patterns of Concentration and Relaxation Spaces

From his early experiences, Correa observed that popular museums like the Prado and the Louvre were a continuous row of halls that completely lacked areas for visitors to pause and reflect amid continuous displays. He felt, that prolonged exposure to information would cause museum fatigue and leave the visitor tired and uninterested (Correa, 1999). He felt a strong need for non-programmatic ‘spaces for relaxation’ amidst the programmatic ‘spaces of concentration’ for a comfortable experience.

In general, Correa’s architecture for the warm climate is centered on the incorporation of ‘open-to-sky’ spaces and a whole spectrum of in-between spaces incorporated naturally with the enclosed spaces. In the case of museums, he envisioned enclosed galleries for concentration, contrasting with open-to-sky spaces intended for visual rest and contemplation (Correa, 1999). He termed these restful areas ‘Contrapuntal Spaces,’ drawing on the musical term ‘contrapuntal,’ which means a ‘Counterpoint’, that is used to describe harmonically related yet independent melodic parts. Applying this theory in practice, the contrapuntal spaces in all four museums, become vibrant public urban spaces, always filled with visitors. Correa detailed these counter spaces by articulating and creating ‘places in the shade’ that let the visitors enjoy the ambiance of moving fresh air and subtle changes in the light quality, from a comfortable position.

2. Ritualistic Pathway – Pedestrian Spine and Alternate Sequences

Correa identifies another fundamental problem in popular museums of the past; the galleries strung along in a row in consequence create a fixed sequence of the museum experience. Correa notes that some visitors who are only interested in specific galleries wouldn’t want to drag themselves through the whole. In response, he creates independent access to each gallery space and proposes a ‘ritualistic pathway’ – a circulation path running through the ‘contrapuntal’ spaces (open-to-sky and semi-open spaces) of the building. This pathway provides independent access to multiple programmatic spaces, allowing for multiple sequences as chosen by each visitor. This approach aims to make the museum experience more engaging and democratic by making the galleries accessible only by choice.

The manner in which these intertwined typological concepts are incorporated into spatial ideas, that respond to the site conditions, urban context, and the aspirations of the clients can become an elaborate study in itself. But, the epistle here focuses on throwing light on the merit of these typological concepts and ‘Contrapuntal spaces’ as an addition by Correa to the legacy of museum architectural history. These spaces are primarily focused on public engagement, while at the same time enriching the bodily experience of a museum visit. This intellectual contribution becomes especially relevant today and gives us a reference to question the theoretical stances of foreign pioneers like David Adjaye, Maki and Associates, and Herzog and De Meuron when they are proposing museums in India.