Műemlékállományunk bővülése, új műemlékfajták (Az Egri Nyári Egyetem előadásai 1987 Eger, 1987)

Nováki Gyula: Őskori és középkori földvárak Magyarországon

portant whereby any intervention that disturbs the historic veracity of the building, is false or leads to the destruction of part of the building should be avoided. It is vital to understand that it is the building itself that is to be preserved; it is the ultimate value. Copies, descriptions and diagrams are all of lesser value, just as would be the case in the arts where no reproduction, however good, can replace the original work. Historicity has no limit in time, as Dvorak explained. It would therefore not be right if there was some minimum age for monuments of, let's say, 50, 100 or 200 years. By the 1960's, there were already XXth centrury buildings listed in Hungary. The number is continuously growing as a result of continuous research. We feel that the less historical buildings also have a historical value, just seen from a different perspective. It is at the same time clear that the newer the building, the greater the importance of other factors such as the aesthetic, and it is here that we have to be even more careful about our choice. In Hungary, all monuments that are mediaeval or older are automatically considered to be monuments, while in the case of the others it is only after a process of careful evaluation that a decision is taken, the strictness of which being in indirect proportion to the buildings age. It is worth pointing out here that there are memorials that are of historic value but are not listed as historic monuments here in Hungary. They are simply classified as memorials. However, if we take a closer look at the question, we quickly realize that the historic significance of a historic monument or a monument erected to celebrate an important perso nor event is quite different. A historic monument is built as a dwelling, church or castle, not in memory of anyone. However with the passing of time, the building gains historic significance and may well even lose its original function. This importance becomes an internal feature of the building, not something deliberately created. This is why memorials are not considered to historical monuments here in Hungary, unlike in many other countries, unless there artistic value is so great as to put them into a special category, as is the case with the Millenium Memorial in Budapest. Historic sites are usually not included either because, as is the case with a battlefield, such as Mohács, no buildings are to be found there. The term aesthetic value expressed the artistic standard of the monument. The fact that due to Riegl historicity has become such an important critérium does not mean that beauty and artistic quality have lost their importance. Nevertheless, many monuments and other listed buildings lack this characteristic. You may ask why. Well, the vicissitudes of history may lead to the physical destruction of the building, leading only ruins behind, which completely lack any aesthetic value. A large number of archaeological monuments fall into this category, and there are also types of monument that per se lack any great visual appeal, such as earth forts, monuments related to individuals or events or individual industrial monuments. Attila József s bithplace in Gát utca is an insignificant building, just like many others in Budapest. The reason for it being a monument though is that it relates to a great national figure, a poet. The evaluation of aesthetic appeal, like the evalution of a historic monument itself is highly subjective, and people and tastes change. 40 years ago. Art Nouveau architecture was considered ugly and only a few buildings were listed, usually for historical reasons. Perhaps with the strengthening of Post-modernism, Socreal will become of interest to preservationists. According to Frigyes Pogány, the ethical value of a building depends on its história and aesthetic value. Historic monuments promote catharsis and with the knowledge and emotions they transmit, they promote good taste, develop the mind, teach and educate. A monument is able to teach us to respect societies of the past, other peoples, nationalities and cultures and they encourage good taste and a humanist approach to life. It is of course not only buildings that are capable of doing this, but in their own language all the other arts. A historic monument is though perhaps an everi more complicated transmitter of aesthetic value—it can pass on historic information directly, can be viewed from a distance or from nearby, from inside or outside; it can create a whole with its surroundings, natural or urban providing an account of centuries of history and taste. These ethical factors should forewarn us of the possibility that a building may have an intrinsically negative quality too. The birthplaces and homes of famous people deserve preservation, but those of the dark figures of history do not. If Hitler's birthplace is still standing, it should never be listed. In a similar way, it has been questioned whether reactionary, out-dated artistic forms deserve preservation. This might be said of the official Neo-baroque of the Horthy period or the artistic Electicism of the Stalinist Era. For this very reason, I would not like to see the Cistercian Church in Budapest or the underground stations of Moscow listed, although they are of documentary interest and are not bad pieces of architecture in their own way. Enough of the theory. How does this all work out in practice? What buildings were at one time considered to be historical monuments and how do we judge buildings now? In the last 150 years, since there has been conservation at all, an ever increasing number of buildings have fallen under the eyes of preservationists. As with all modern developments, the fundamental change in attitudes is becoming increasingly clear. As Dvorak said, newer and more humble buildings deserve attention. In the XlXth century, conservation only covered Classical, Mediaeval and Renaissance architecture and in a few cases Baroque. The XlXth and early XXth centruries saw great destruction resulting from massive redevelopment. It was in this period that Hausmann rebuilt Paris, destroying its Mediaval and Baroque centre. In Pest major redevelopment around the approaches to Erzsébet hid (Bridge) lead to the destruction of the majority the Baroque and Neo-classicist centre, with its Mediaeval street structure. The approach was the same everywhere: attention was restricted to cathedrals, castles and chateaux. The new humble monuments could never achieve the same standard. One of the main changes in attitude in the XXth century does not relate to the introduction of new types of monument, but the advent of greater public participation in the evaluation of historic monuments. After Dvorak, it was primarily the Italian Giovannoni who stressed the importance of the simpler monuments and the significance of groups of buildings and complex monuments. This view was finally accepted when in 1931, effectively the first world