Background and Problem
War museums and memorial spaces are not merely repositories of historical objects but architectural environments in which memory, historical interpretation, and visitor experience are encountered through space. In such environments, architecture participates in organizing how visitors move, pause, observe, perceive, and encounter historical narratives and material traces. Spatial narrative therefore extends beyond exhibition content and involves the interaction of spatial organization, movement, sensory qualities, embodied experience, and cultural and memory contexts. Although previous studies have addressed spatial storytelling, narrative architecture, museum circulation, atmosphere, embodied perception, collective memory, trauma, and the politics of war representation, these dimensions have often been examined separately. As a result, there remains limited understanding of how architectural, experiential, and semantic components interact to produce different forms of spatial narrative within diverse cultural and memory contexts. This study addresses this gap by examining spatial narrative as a relational process in which architectural organization, sensory-perceptual qualities, and cultural and memory-related meanings are considered together.
Aim and Research Question
This study aims to identify the principal components involved in the formation of spatial narrative in contemporary war museums and to examine their relationships across different architectural, cultural, and memory contexts. Rather than treating spatial narrative as a predetermined sequence or the direct result of a single architectural feature, the study investigates how different components interact and contribute to different narrative configurations.
The main research question is:
How does spatial narrative in contemporary war museums emerge through the interaction among cultural and memory contexts, architectural spatial organization, and visitor experience?
Methodology
The study adopts a qualitative and interpretive perspective and uses a multiple-case study design combined with comparative analysis. The research is based on documentary study and qualitative analysis using a common theoretical framework. Data were drawn from scholarly literature, architectural documents, plans, maps, photographs, institutional materials, exhibition information, and other reliable visual and documentary sources. Visitor experience was not directly measured through observation, interviews, behavioral tracking, or empirical sensory assessment; sensory and embodied aspects were interpreted from documented spatial and environmental characteristics.
The research was conducted in four stages. First, relevant literature was reviewed across four complementary theoretical domains: spatial storytelling and narrative architecture; movement and spatial organization; spatial experience, atmosphere, and embodied perception; and collective memory, trauma, and the politics of war representation. These domains were selected because they address three related levels of spatial narrative: architectural organization, perceptual and experiential encounter, and semantic, cultural, and memory-related context.
Second, relevant concepts were extracted and organized according to their conceptual and analytical relevance. Overlapping concepts were integrated and grouped into three analytical dimensions: physical–structural, sensory–perceptual, and semantic–cultural. Third, five cases were purposively selected according to their relationship with war and memory, variation in spatial organization and modes of representation, cultural and geographical diversity, and availability of reliable documentation. The selection was intended to provide conceptual variation rather than statistical representation. Fourth, all cases were examined using the same analytical framework and then compared to identify similarities, differences, and relationships among the analytical components.
The selected cases are Imperial War Museum London, War Memorial of Korea, Tehran Garden Museum of Sacred Defense, Beit Beirut, and Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park.
Analytical Framework
The analytical framework consists of three interconnected dimensions. The physical–structural dimension includes spatial organization, circulation and movement, spatial sequence, form and scale, and material and memorial elements. The sensory–perceptual dimension includes light and environmental qualities, spatial atmosphere, embodied experience, and media and interaction. The semantic–cultural dimension includes collective memory, trauma and the representation of war consequences, memory politics and modes of representation, and polyphonic narratives.
These dimensions are analytically distinguished but are not considered independent in actual spatial experience. Their relationships are understood as reciprocal rather than linear. The framework therefore does not assume that memory context determines architectural organization or that architecture directly determines visitor interpretation. Instead, spatial narrative is understood as emerging from the interaction of these dimensions within each case.
Findings
The comparative analysis shows that spatial narrative cannot be explained by any single architectural component. Rather, it emerges through the interaction among physical–structural, sensory–perceptual, and semantic–cultural dimensions. Similar spatial strategies may also acquire different narrative meanings depending on their relationship with memory context, symbolic content, sensory qualities, and modes of representation.
At the physical–structural level, the War Memorial of Korea emphasizes organized movement, axial relationships, memorial sequence, and formal scale. Imperial War Museum London provides greater spatial diversity and visitor choice. Tehran Garden Museum of Sacred Defense connects spatial organization with landscape axes, open spaces, symbolic elements, and memorial structures. Beit Beirut incorporates the existing damaged fabric and traces of destruction into its narrative, making the building itself an important material carrier of memory. Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park emphasizes gradual movement, open space, memorial elements, historical remains, and opportunities for pause and reflection.
The sensory–perceptual comparison reveals different approaches to atmosphere and embodied experience. Imperial War Museum London combines controlled lighting, varied environmental stimuli, and extensive media, whereas Hiroshima relies more strongly on silence, natural light, openness, distance, and spatial pauses. Beit Beirut derives an important part of its experiential quality from encounters with material traces of destruction. These findings suggest that narrative capacity cannot be assessed simply by the intensity or number of sensory stimuli, but should be understood in relation to their integration with spatial organization and memory content.
At the semantic–cultural level, the War Memorial of Korea and Tehran Garden Museum of Sacred Defense are more strongly situated within national and value-oriented memory frameworks. Imperial War Museum London accommodates more diverse experiences and consequences of war, while Beit Beirut addresses a contested past through the material presence of the building itself. Hiroshima connects destruction and loss with human consequences and reflection on peace.
The comparison further demonstrates that guided movement does not necessarily imply a single official interpretation, nor does free movement automatically produce a polyphonic narrative. The narrative significance of spatial strategies depends on their relationship with other architectural, experiential, and semantic components. Thus, no direct or deterministic correspondence can be established between a particular spatial pattern and a particular narrative outcome.
Discussion and Theoretical Contribution
Based on the comparative analysis, three dominant spatial narrative logics are identified: guided–memorial, exploratory–multilayered, and reflective–human-centered. These are not fixed typologies or mutually exclusive categories. A single museum may combine more than one depending on how its spatial, sensory, and semantic components are configured and interact.
The main theoretical contribution of the study is the formulation of spatial narrative as a relational process rather than a collection of independent architectural elements or a linear sequence from context to space and experience. The proposed conceptual model connects physical–structural, sensory–perceptual, and semantic–cultural dimensions through reciprocal and non-linear relationships. Its novelty lies primarily in the relational organization of existing concepts within a framework specifically developed for analyzing spatial narratives in war museums.
The findings also challenge a deterministic interpretation of the relationship between architecture and meaning. Architecture can organize movement, spatial sequence, pause, sensory encounter, and material presence, but it does not independently determine how visitors interpret a war narrative. Meaning remains related to cultural context, prior knowledge, memory structures, and the particular configuration of spatial and experiential conditions.
Conclusion
The study concludes that the narrative capacity of contemporary war museums emerges from the dynamic relationship among architectural organization, sensory and embodied experience, and cultural and memory structures. Architecture consequently functions not merely as a container for historical content, but as a mediator through which memory and meaning are encountered and interpreted through space and experience. Different combinations of spatial, sensory, and semantic components can therefore produce distinct narrative logics without establishing a rigid correspondence between architectural form and narrative meaning.
The study is limited by its reliance on documentary analysis without direct observation, interviews, behavioral tracking, or empirical measurement of visitor experience. Its five-case qualitative design also does not permit statistical generalization to all war museums. Future studies may extend the framework through behavioral observation, interviews, sensory assessment, direct investigation of visitor interpretation, and analysis of a broader range of war museums and memorial environments across different cultural and political contexts.