A műemlékek sokszínűsége (A 28. Egri Nyári Egyetem előadásai 1998 Eger, 1998)

Előadások / Presentations - MEZŐS Tamás: What in german is known as „Bodendenkmalschutz”

TAMÁS MEZŐS WHAT IN GERMAN IS KNOWN AS „BODENDENKMALSCHUTZ" In the preservation of ancient monuments in Germany, a fine distinction is made between building remains that archaeological excavations have discovered and the ruins of buildings which have survived continuously on the surface. The latter - historic buildings or castles, for instance - form part of the landscape and the environment even in their unusable condition. Their preservation as monuments is understood to mean keeping them in their present condition. In the last century, monuments such as these were associated with romantic ideals, and as such can be regarded as a kind of cultural concept. The Enlightenment rediscovered of ancient cultural heritage not only admired the magnificence of what they imagined the original architectural creations to be, but attached great significance to the ruined monuments themselves. We need look no further than the influence of Piranesi's etchings and their status in cultural history, It is not only today, and not only in Germany, that it is considered important to preserve monuments without changing them. Let us take two typical examples. Cologne Cathedral, had stood for centuries as a dominant feature of the cityscape in its unfinished state when, at the beginning of the 19th century, reverence for the past gave rise to a burst of enthusiasm for bringing construction to completion. In the arguments that broke out at the time over the principles involved, one of the most hotly debated issues was as to whether or not we have the right to intervene in the fabric of a building which has survived for so long as a torso. The discovery in 1814 of the original medieval plans for the Cathedral neither strengthened nor weakened the case on either side, and the dispute raged on unabated. In principle there was no obstacle to completing the Cathedral, the intention of the original architects was clear and unambiguous. The question that remained was whether the primary purpose should be to preserve the spectacle of centuries, or to bring to completion an object from a different cultural epoch. The architectural dispute at the time produced a multitude of arguments for and against. It is interesting to note that those who resisted construction according to the original plan included more names which have remained well known, such as Karl Friedrich Schinkel, whereas most of those who supported completion have only stayed on the pages of cultural history and monument conservation textbooks by virtue of their part in the debate. The problem had already existed in exactly the same form for a good three-quarters of a century, ever since the proposal was put forward to rebuild the Renaissance palace of Heidelberg Castle, which had been burnt down in the Prusso-French War. One wing was reconstructed in its original form, but work on the ruin on the other side of the courtyard was prevented by a public outcry. In this case, the public was not just architectural opinion, but the viewpoint of „diletiantes" interested in the past. The same, two-century-old question is just as insoluble in the debates ensuing today both here in Hungary and internationally. The architectural battles involved in deciding the fate of the former War Ministry building in Buda Castle are a case in point. Although the proposed function of the building was also disputed, the interesting questions concerned the extent to which the ruins should be kept as such, the amount and form of restoration, and the permissible extent of demolition of a building which in any case was architecturally quite undistinguished. Then there are the architectural conservation debates surrounding the latest restoration in Zsámbék. The dispute was initiated by sculptor Miklós Melocco, who accused monument conservation