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

Előadások: - Architecture and identtity

1.9. Architecture and architectural theory in Hungary often became a battle-field where different political ideas and movements confronted with each other. This circumstance made a very positve impact: architecture and its theory were very important for the entire Hungarian society. This applies almost for the whole 20th century architecture, except perhaps the late- and postcommunistic period. 2. Brief history of Hungarian architecture in the 20th century 21 The Period between 1900 and 1918 After Frigyes Feszl's already mentioned early attempt to create some kind of national expression in architecture, the researches of Hungarian folklore done by József Huszka in the late 1880s reopened the question of Hungarian style. Several years after, architect Ödön Lechner explicitly initiated the cultivation of a specific style that he considered to be Hungarian. 2.1.1. Ödön Lechner expressed his views on Hungarian architecture in his writings and pubiic lectures, according to which his main aim was to create a Hungarian national style. (Ödön Lechner: Magyar formanyelv nem volt, hanem lesz! In English: There has been no Hungarian language of architecture, but it will be! In: Művészet 1906. pp. 1—18.) Seen from today's perspective, however, the main point of his architecture is not only the Hungarian folklorist decoration but modernism, i.e. the negation of the late-Eclecticism, the plastic decoration of the facade, i.e. the refusal on the 'carved image' in favour of the plain surface, no matter that it is colourfully decorated. (This procedure is paralleled by Otto Wagner's technique in Vienna, that was realised already by Hungarian contemporaries, like architect László Vágó.) Hungarian identity in architecture is, thus, not a sake for itself, but a way that leads to the universal, i.e. modernism as the ultimate goal. Nevertheless, Lechner's expression remained on the facade and interior decoration, leaving space conception untouched. The parliamentary ban imposed on Lechnerian architecture in 1902 hampered its wide-spread in the country. Still, Lechner's followers were numerous and there are few major cities in Hungary where one cannot find some public buildings or dwelling-houses erected in the Lechnerian expression. 2.1.2. After about ten years of Lechner's first endeavours, Karoly Kosch (later Kós) condemned Ödön Lechner that his 'Hungarian style' was artificial and arbitrary and had nothing to do with the Hungarian national, or — as he put it — racial character. Károly Kós's article National art (Nemzeti művészet, In: Magyar Iparművészet, 1910, pp. 141—157) was a crucial prrogrammatic paper expressin g the philosophy of the group Fiatalok. Opposing Lechner's and his followers' liberal concept of being Hungarian, Kós's concept is more strict being based on the people's national spirit ('racial character'). He speaks about a new national feeling in his period: T would like to emphasise that national pride is not equal to the love of race'. National pride supposed to be an element of the past, i.e. the 19th century, the love of race, according to Kós, was the new, much stronger feeling characterising his times. Thus, whereas for Lechner everybody's Hungarian intentions are welcomed independently from his or her national origin, Kosch initiated a revision of this concept.