XX. századi műemlékek és védelmük (A 26. Egri Nyári Egyetem előadásai 1996 Eger, 1996)

Előadások: - Architecture and identtity

Kós names Napoleon to have started the idea of national style. Kós stresses the significance of the Ring der Niebelungen for the Germans, the Edda for the Scandinavians and the Cid for the French not only as elements of national past, but as creations of pre-Christian world, emphasising that 'these magnificient creations were done by the old pagan world'. According to him the enthusiasm of the Middle Ages pushed back this heritage and it survived among the common people. Kós names the blue and foggy ballades of the Székelys as relevants, emphasising that the common people represent the nation, the race, according to his terminology. Kós gives his particular reading of Ruskin, according to which Ruskin had created a socialist and even racial art, working on the creation of the homes of the little men in order to foster fhe feeling of belonging to a home, to achieve rootedness. Kós complains that 99% of Hungarian architects are of foreign origin. (Kós himself was not Kós from the beginning, but Kosch, i.e. of German origin.). He refuses the Hungarian urban culture as it was influenced by foreigners, German's, Slavonic people and the Jews. Kós favours the region of Transilvania because it was remote from Western Europe and Western culture — and as a consequence the unspoiled Hungarian spirit could survive there. Kós's anti-Western or even anti-Christian feelings and the emphasis of nation-spirit and the little man represent new elements in the Hungarian architectural theory, paving the way for some ideologies of the folk-cult of the period after World War One or even later populistic movements. This spirit survived the difficult times of the 20th century, revived after the fall of Communism in the Hungarian Organic School of Imre Makovecz and his followers. 2.1.3. Besides Lechner's and Kós's lines the previously exclusive, conservative architecture represented by the professors of the Technical University still existed and characterised the mainstream of Hungarian architecture in the first decades of the 20th century. The professors expressed their scepticism about national expression in architecture through the professional press. They did not let the Lechnerians and Kósians to teach at the Techn ical University. Thus, between 1900 and World War One in Hungary there were mainly three streamings in architecture: a) the liberal or modern Lechnerian, b) the anti-liberal or anti-modern Koschian and c) the conservative or establishment, represented by the professors of the Technical University. The somewhat longer elaboration of the turn-of-the-century architecture is justified as the main ideas of 20th century Hungarian architecture were delineated already in this period. Later, some of this ideas were re-evaluated like in the period between the two World Wars, or just referred to as in our times. In all cases, however, we witness almost the same pluralism of ideas manifested in different ways via architectural form. 2.2. The Period Between the two World Wars (1919-1945) In the period between the two World Wars Hungarian architecture became much more fragmented. The new economic and social conditions (the lost of previous territories and the economic crises, antiliberal governments) changed the perception of architecture. This period of Hungarian architecture was multi-faceted. Except the Modernists, all movements considered the