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

Előadások: - Architecture and identtity

1. Some characteristics of 20th century architectural development in Hungary 1.1. Stylistic and ideological pluralism characterised a good part of 20th century architecture. It was a consequence of political pluralism (sometimes even fragmentation) of Hungarian society, ranging from conservativism and liberalism up to Folkish ideologies. 1.2. The re-emergence of certain architectural traditions after their apparent demise is an important feature of Hungarian 20th century architecture. For instance, Neo-Baroque appeared several times starting from the Fellner and Hellmer theatre buildings around the turn-of-thecentury period and being the official style of the Horthy-era — the socalled Wälder-Baroque (after the conservative architect Gyula Wälder) — ending with the postcommunistic NeoBaroque villas. Similarly some ideas of the regionalism (anti-liberalism) that appeared with the group Fiatalok from the beginning of the 20th century reappeared in the Organic School of the late 20th century. 1.3. There has been an intense ideological background behind some stylistic expressions, the seriousness with which the adherents of these movements handled ideational questions and their manifestation in architecture is amazing. 1.4. The history of 20th century architecture in Hungary has had its monistic and pluralistic periods. However, unlike the common scheme according to which the monistic cycle represented somehow the Kuhnian normal period, or the paradigmatic one and the pluralistic the unstable, or the crisis, here in Hungary pluralism was the normal condition, and monistic periods represented the crisis. The crisis, however, was not pimarily a crisis in architecture as in the social sphere that resulted a strictly one-way development like in the period of Social Realism under the pressure of the Communist Party during early Kádár-era. 1.5. The development of architecture in Hungary was often not spontaneous, but dictated by cultural policy of the state, that was frequently governed by totalitarian systems of the far right or extreme left. 1.6. Architectural theory in Hungary was frequently a mediator between the political system and everyday architectural practice. 1.7. Architects often resorted to theoretical concepts in Hungary. Theory, debates were appreciated very much in some periods. As a consequence architectural theory usually enjoyed a high esteem and great importance among practising architects. The discreditation of architectural theory in the late Kádár-era contributed to the disorientation of contemporary Hungarian architecture. 1.8. Hungarian architecture was often an important medium for conveying elements of national or cultural identity. In this context architectural theory had the role to specify what was Hungarian, or later socialistic, in architecture. Thus, architectural theory often reached spheres that were traditionally far from its realm.