modern monument preservation in hungary: should we

220 studies in History & Theory of Architecture

Modern Monument Preservation in Hungary: Should We Conserve the Modern Prostheses of Restoration?

Ákos Zsembery, Maja ToshikjPhD, Assistant Professor, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

[email protected]

PhD student, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, [email protected]

KEYWORDS: monument protection; historical layers; Venice Charter; modern prosthesis

Introduction

Monument preservation has deep theoretical roots, which have always influenced its practice. The interventions are always contemporary architectural acts or works where this relationship between theory and practice is essential; however, the “contemporary” element is not independent of architectural styles (although stylistic questions can be raised with the appearance of Modernism). Until the early 1920s, the dominant style was based on historicism, where contemporary and previous historical architecture used the same forms and materials. The real changes were in new forms and techniques that made the distinction between old and new architecture crucial aspects in the field of conservation.Giovanni Carbonara, in his recent book,1 writes about three contemporary architectural approaches in the field of architectural restoration: (1) the High Tech global style, which is based on a striking contrast between old and new; (2) the postmodern style, with its assimilated and mimetic architectural language, and (3) an alternative based on a dialogic connection between the original remnants and the new parts. The latter is the approach of “critical restoration,” rooted in the early period of monument-preservation-thinking.2

Not only in contemporary architecture, but also in the field of restoration, the growing influence of individual architects’ expressions and styles is apparent. The decline of the era of charters and the rising principle of “case-by-case” approach led to the weakening of the former theoretical backgrounds. This development concurs with S. Catucci’s claim that singular, objective theories do not exist; rather, these can only be traced through the individual works of architects.3 Consequently, there are “new trends” in restoration, where the most characteristic of all is when the architectural design is polarized between the relationship and contrast of old and new architecture and their conscious tension.Within the terminology of contemporary architecture thus arise new, quasi-independent categories such as rehabilitation, revitalization, recycling, re-use, and transformation,4 which do not fit well with the classical categories of monument preservation, such as conservation, restoration, and even reconstruction. A compelling question arises when current contemporary architecture meets modern architecture featuring preservative interventions. What should be made of the value of these buildings?

1 Giovanni Carbonara, Architettura d’oggi e restauro (Milano: UTET, 2011).2 Born in Italy in the 1960s by Renato Bonelli and Roberto Pane, and based on the theories of Cesare

Brandi.3 Stefano Catucci, “Senso e progetto,” in Barucci-Strappa-Venditelli-Catucci: Il progetto di architettura come

sintesi delle discipline (Roma: KAPPA, 2008), 49-63.4 Anna Nóra Kóródy and Zorán Vukoszávlyev, “Built on Modernism: The theoretical basis of contemporary

heritage preservation in the Spanish architectural scene,” Arquiteturarevista 13, 1 (2017): 9-20.

221Seasoned Modernism. Prudent Perspectives on an Unwary Past

Regarding styles, it seems evident that in conservation and restoration the modern-based minimal style is current, but in the controversial full architectural reconstruction the mimetic style unfolds. In the case of postmodern featured interventions or stylistic rebuilding, the main problem is the contrast between using historical forms and choosing new materials. Mimetic or reconstructed forms can falsify the authenticity of original remains5 through the “modern prosthesis” (referring to the blending of old and new architectural elements) that was carried out during the twentieth century, justified as a way of authentic restoration developed in the face of purism. This type of architectural reference or allusion, which can be called “didactics,” was born in the modern style and was based on the old principles of distinguishing between old and new architecture.6 From the early 1960s until the turn of the century, it was the dominant approach to architectural preservation, and could also be seen in Hungary.Shortly before the twenty-first century, many historical monuments in Hungary were in disrepair or in an otherwise aged condition, while the grand centers of attention remained the castles of Esztergom, Visegrád, and the ruins of the coronation cathedral in Székesfehérvár.7 Each of these mostly archaeological sites were iconic examples of modern restoration in the first half of the twentieth century. The restoration of the royal chapel and old tower in Esztergom, accomplished between 1934 and 1938, and the lapidary building and ruin conservation in Székesfehérvár in 1939 (both designed by Kálmán and Géza Lux) remain fine examples of the new architectural style influenced by Italian architecture and the “Novecento” art movement. There was an excellent professional relationship between Italy and Hungary from this period until the 1960s, where the Hungarian architects met with and were influenced by the thinking of these “critical restorers.” After the Second World War, the full reconstruction of national monuments demolished in armed conflicts was forbidden in Hungary. Following the early 1930s, new strict theories prospered between the world wars and, re-establishing them in practice, it is unsurprising that after the International Conference in Venice in 1964, Hungary was one of the first countries to codify the Venice Charter. The “spirit of the charter” remained fundamental in Hungarian conservation practices; it can readily be seen that the modern methods were in vogue until 2000. The influence of postmodern architecture on monument protection practices arrived in Hungary, with a slight delay, in the late 1990s; however, even today, it can be recognized through the stylistic architectural reconstructions currently under way.8 A brief history of current thinking is included, which presents the approaches of modern didactics in Hungarian practice through the twentieth century and the specific questions that led to an interesting phenomenon, during which, modern prostheses became “historical” layers of monuments.

Theoretical Background of Modern Methods of Conservation

The problem of restoring and preserving historical buildings had become increasingly pressing in the last decade of the nineteenth century when issues of historical authenticity began to multiply at an alarming rate following the influence of Gothic revival architecture.This new “restorationist” approach focused on removing the later additions to historic buildings to restore them to their previous forms. Meanwhile, contradictory ideas began to take shape in the public mind regarding these historic buildings, even as an awareness of the value of a

5 John Bold, P. J. Larkham, and Rob Pickard, Authentic Reconstruction (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2018).

6 Ákos Zsembery, “Authenticity and didactics: theory and practice in the preservation of our medieval monuments,” Periodica Polytechnica Architecture 40, 1 (2009): 37-46.

7 All of them have been renovated between 2000 and 2008.8 CastlereconstructionsasFüzér-castle,Diósgyőr-castleorthecaseoftherebuildingoftheroyalridinghall

in Buda-castle in the capital.


national past began to grow. Clearly, “the public was torn between two compelling alternatives; the ideals of modernization and efficiency were often at odds with the wish to preserve a picturesque village or the unique physiognomy of a town.”9 Initially, the criteria for modernization permitted only conservation of the existing remains to the extent necessary to retain their historical character and originality, rejecting the restoration of any missing parts using imitative artistic forms merely to attain stylistic authenticity despite this being the approach supported by restorers. That each layer of the monuments’ stratigraphy is the product of a specific period, according to the conservationists, would result in the most compelling record of the nuanced existence of a community. These aspects were appropriately considered by Jokilehto in the following way:

“This approach to reviving a historical building in its artistic appearance at the cost of its historical and archaeological values was claimed to represent the ‘historical school’ in restoration. The ‘modernist school,’ instead, wanted to keep the historical integrity of the building. When additions were needed, those should be made in the style of the day, following the approach of William Morris and Camilo Boito. The problem was that many did not accept that there was such a thing as ‘modern style’.”10

These problems in restoration’s distinction between old and new have their roots dating back even earlier. Stressed mostly by Winckelmann, around the middle of the 18th century, in the analysis of objects of Greek antiquity, he promoted the development of a systematic method of studying and critical surveying for historical and artistic evaluation, marking the first signs of modern conservation principles. Winckelmann was not against restoration, but rather against falsifying artistic concepts and any modern additions that might mislead observers in respect to a work’s originality, so distinguishing the original from later additions. These principles were further developed by Bartolomeo Cavaceppi, focusing on antique sculptures; he emphasized the obligation of restorers to promote truly good knowledge of art history and mythology in order to ensure a better understanding of the originals’ attributes. To eliminate aspects of uncertainty, Cavaceppi’s preferred option would be to display sculptures unrestored. The approach of Winckelmann and Cavaceppi can be seen in the new policy of restoration in Rome and further observed in the practices common at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Later, the problems of upkeep and restoration for monuments and buildings, as well as the destruction of several sites due to industrialization (and the dominant practice of stylistic restoration led by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc), provoked widespread condemnation among conservationists, especially the likes of Dehio, Riegl, and Boito. The theoretical perspectives of these theorists served as the basis for the establishment of new laws, initiatives, and state-driven systems for the conservation of a variety of monuments and works of art in several countries.

The roots of modern thinking in the field of restoration: Dehio, Riegl, Boito“The chorus of denunciation of the Revival styles reached a climax around 1900; although, it already had a long prehistory. There were people who complained at the outset of the nineteenth century that their age, in contrast with every other period, lacked its own architectural style.”11

With the closing of the nineteenth century and the requirements of new approaches for the new age, modern ideals and a doctrinaire approach to architecture emerged, reflecting a modern concept of historicity. An example of this was the reflection of Alois Riegl uttered during the debate on the giant portal (Riesenthor) interventions at Vienna’s Stephansdom. It was a debate of great complexity between Riegl and opponents from

9 Diana R. Cordileone, Alois Riegl in Vienna 1875-1905 (Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 2014), 265.10 Jukka Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation (London: Routledge, 2012), 196.11 Wim Denslagen and Donald Gardner, Romantic Modernism (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press,

2009), 156.


the different approaches of the new modernist groups, including the Secessionists, who argued in favor of leaving the portal untouched; the pressure group of the Dombauvereins, who had revived the “restorationist” Gothic movement begun in 1882, and a faction that believed the Gothic parts of the plan should be removed in favor of the earlier Romanesque style; a recommendation thought to provide a more visually pleasing state if restored in a uniform manner. Considering Riegl’s great attention to all phases of the transformation of historical monuments,12 Cordileone13 stated that “there was no longer a normative canon of beauty. No one can now argue (as they had in 188214) for the aesthetic superiority of either the Romanesque or the Gothic features of this hybrid portal.” A certain respect was expressed through the appreciation of the whole ensemble considered as evidence of history (concerning unity of style), thus giving rise to the new, modern perspective towards architectural preservation.15 It is important to understand Riegl’s concept of value. He expressly considered the historical value of every historical monument as a collection of individual stages represented by the monument’s various conditions. His view on value relating to modern conservation supported the original appearance of a building as well as the original creation and creativeness of its artist, while taking into account the importance of the building’s functionality and practicality. This marked, in his estimation, the character of the monument as an artistic production, sealing its educational importance for any art historian attempting to define the artistic values of a given period. The conflict between values – on the one hand, the age value revealed by the changes in time, a building’s lack of integrity and tendency to lose its original form and color,16 and on the other, the use-value – speaks to the maintenance and repair of buildings to keep them safe and functional. This became more apparent as the promotion of age value began to rise near the end of the nineteenth century, by which time, many monuments retained their original forms while still having been exposed to stylistic alterations at some point.17 Since the historical value was conceived of as being largely dependent on the clear recognition of a building’s original form, the decision was often made to remove all additions and contributions from later periods and re-establish the original form – a decision strongly opposed by the supporters of age value.Riegl’s contributions would go on to be especially important for general theory and policy in historical preservation over the next several decades, and overall, the age value has become the prime value of the twentieth century. The common view of both Dehio and Riegl – that restorationists destroy monuments rather than protect them – suggested the faults of restorationists in a disapproving way, because “restoration is the methodological moment in which the work of art is appreciated in its material form and its historical and aesthetic duality, with a view to transmitting it to the future.”18 Where Dehio disagreed with Riegl was on the aim of conservation. Dehio advocated the national importance of architectural heritage, attacking Riegl’s idea that “not national-historical significance, but the ‘age value,’ or Alterswert, of buildings caught the imagination of people.”19

12 The direction of his views pointed in ‘die Neue Freie Presse’.13 Cordileone, Alois Riegl, 266.14 Meaning with Thausing.15 For more in details see Cordileone, Alois Riegl, 265.16 Described in detail in Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation.17 Ibid.18 Brandi, Teoria del restauro (Torino: Einaudi, 2010), 231, cited in Lilian Hansar, “The Lacuna, an Empty

SpaceinurbanConstruction.CesareBrandi’sRestorationTheoryintheIntegralPreservationofOldTownAreas,” in Place and Location. Studies in Environmental Aesthetics and Semiotics VI (Tallinn, 2008), 139-151.

19 Rudi J. Koshar, Germany’s Transient Pasts: Preservation and National Memory in he Twentieth Century (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press), 1998, 32-33.


One example where Dehio strongly opposed a proposed restoration involved the castle of Heidelberg in 1901, about which Jokilehto comments that it would have been “hypothetical, and create a dissonance in the whole complex […] one would lose the authentic and gain an imitation, lose the ruins which were grey from age but still living, and gain a thing, neither old nor new, ‘a dead academic abstraction’.”20 Dehio, like Riegl, was convinced of the need for architects and technicians of historical structures, since conservation along with its demands and aims belonged to the sciences (and since conservationists were charged with the treatment of historical buildings, unlike the more artistic side of architectural creation).Additionally, as Gillis states “conservationists also cherished historical authenticity and used positivist methods of research. However, for them, authenticity did not result from finding the ‘correct’ style of a lost historical epoch or completing a monument according to some ideal notion of historical form. It came from accepting the limitations of knowledge about that epoch and the buildings it generated, and thereby renouncing the attempt to restore a building to what they thought was a purely speculative and imagined authenticity.”21 Furthermore, they required a full perceptive understanding of complex matters and the historical spirit of the building only gained through rigorous education. “They favored the retention of historical additions because of their documentary value, claiming that this approach allowed a particular site to ‘speak’ of the successive historical periods it had endured.”22 Another architect who “avoided both the style-obsessed excesses of the restorers and the radicalism of those that preferred to see the disappearance of a building rather than an intervention”23 was Camilo Boito (1836-1914). He was a supporter of the restauro filologico, a concept which was developed by Paravicini and corroborated by the English conservation movement. Known as “philology,” this concept relied on a historical approach involving linguistics and the philosophy behind the comparison of monuments with documents initially created to convey messages as reflections of different periods in both their majesty as well as their imperfections.24 The texts of documents represented a derivation of history from observation and interpretation without considering falsifications.Boito put particular emphasis on the necessity of adequate administrative and normative systems for the Italian state as well as a respectful policy for the restoration and conservation of historic buildings. The established criteria for intervention that resulted is considered to be the first modern national charter adopted by the Italian administration, with this “philological restoration” based on each monument taken on as an individual case. This was, in essence, a departure from the idea to limit the monument’s authenticity to its original forms, considering all subsequent alterations and additions equally legitimate, demolishing such additions only if declared lacking in truly historical or aesthetic value or if considered to be a detrimental. In addition to requiring compulsory documentation of and inscription after the intervention, his recommendation suggested minimum restorations and clearly distinguished all new parts by using contrasting materials or simplified geometric forms.25 In prohibiting falsifications, Boito emphasized representations of the new additions in a modern style without striking contrast to the original. A proposition for the exhibition of the old fragments of monuments close by was added to the basic seven points in 1893. Altogether, “Boito conceived a historic monument as a stratification of contributions of different periods, which should all be respected.”26

20 Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation, 197.21 Rudi J. Koshar, “Building Pasts: Historic Preservation and Identity in Twentieth-Century Germany,” in

Commemorations, ed. John R. Gillis (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2010), 221.22 Ibid.23 Ascensión H. Martínez, “Conservation and Restoration in Built Heritage: A Western European

Perspective,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity, ed. Brian Graham and Peter Howard (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2008), 249.

24 Described in detail in Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation.25 Reference given to Arch of Titus.26 Jokilehto, A history of Architectural Conservation, 203.


The dawn of modern preservation: early examples of minimal interventions: Raffaele Stern, Giuseppe Valadier: Colosseum, Rome

Two different methods of intervention on Rome’s Colosseum emerged, influenced by the approaches of the members of Accademia di San Luca (founded in 1593), with the Commission of Fine Arts of the Papal States standing behind the approval of the restoration proposals. The first approach to the intervention on the Colosseum emerged when Canova was Inspector General. At this time, “restoration was not the aim, but conservation of all ancient fragments as part of the authentic historic monument,”27 influencing concepts of conservation in Rome that were, at the time, generally limited to those minimal interventions necessary to preserve a monument. The project of building the first buttress, belonging to Palazzi, Camporese, and Stern, proved to be a basis for the development of modern conservation theory in that, in order to preserve the building’s historical testimony, the intervention did not include dismantling all parts. In addition, the use of brick to distinguish the old and new as well as marble plating and an inscription fixed on the new buttress indicated, in the traditional way, the restorers’ contributions to the conservation of this ancient monument. All the aspects of modern conservation as applied in the example of the Colosseum were later adopted by Boito.“In the early nineteenth century in Rome, restoration was codified as a scientific retrieval of a precise historical image disencumbered of accretions.”28 This reveals the conversion of the restoration theory, seen later in a radically different light when, modelled upon the original, a buttress was added to the western edge of the Colosseum by Valadier and accepted by the Commission of Fine Arts, composed of Fea, Thorwaldsen, and Visconti, in 1824. Following the earlier intervention of Stern, the decision remained to imitate the ancient design with a series of arches; although constructed of brick, it facilitated the continued rebuilding of the entire Colosseum if so desired. (Fig. 1)While these projects were carried out in early nineteenth-century Rome, the differences between politics and architectural intervention are readily perceptible today. Although both Neoclassical, the approaches of Canova and Thorwaldsen came to contradictory ends regarding the fundamental premise of the treatment of historical monuments, diverging in their estimations of the respectful conservation of original materials, as well as the supposedly faithful reconstruction of missing parts in order to reconstitute the original architecture of the monuments.29

27 Ibid., 76.28 Terry Kirk, The Architecture of Modern Italy. Volume 1: The Challenge of Tradition, 1750-1900 (New York:

Princeton Architectural Press, 2005), 170.29 Ibid.

Fig. 1: Details Arch of Titus (left) and Colosseum (right)


The principles of modern conservation movements – the dawn of “didactics” Referred to as a model for the modern principles of the treatment of historic buildings, the approach applied in the restoration of the Arch of Titus is significant (since it can be considered intermediate), having been proposed by Stern (1806) and completed by Valadier (1824-1826). (Fig. 1) It could be considered as “Rome’s first scientific restoration”30 and was even expressed by Carlo Fea in his statement “one will also be able to see its true ancient form while distinguishing the ancient from the modern.”31

What distinguishes this project from the others, was that the intervention intended to conserve the authentic parts of the arch and complete the missing sections. This idea was executed by re-establishing the authentic overall depiction of the original whole, with its exact dimensions and proportions, but differentiating it with the addition of new materials. By leaving the new parts plain and without recreating the exact same decoration (the bas-relief or the fluting of the columns, for example), the intention not to mislead observers was demonstrated.

The “dogma” or else “ethical principle” of distinction between old and new: Boito, Giovannoni and Bonelli

Gustavo Giovannoni, in line with the concepts of Boito, presented an extensive approach to restoration; he considered the theory of Viollet-le-Duc as anti-scientific, generating falsifications and arbitrary decisions. To him, this represented “a cultural problem of evaluation in the rehabilitation of historic buildings for all significant periods – instead of reconstructing them in their ideal form.” (Jokilehto) Additionally, this could demonstrate a refusal (on behalf of those in Viollet-le-Duc’s camp) to admit their ignorance of the architect’s historical, perhaps period-based reasons for the transformations and the implied style, which could no longer be experienced. The usage of modern architectural forms was deemed an incompetent, presuming effort, and unavailing mainly due to the absence of an appropriate modern style. However, giving priority to the maintenance, repair, and consolidation of the monuments, in order to preserve their authenticity, the usage of modern technology should be considered prudently. If such modern additions are made, a proper inscription should be left to indicate the integration of the new with the original, rather than an unfitting detail requiring embellishment. By all means, the “scientific restoration of monuments introduced the idea of respect for, and maintenance of all phases of their history.”32 These principles were formalized later in the Charter of Athens (1931) and then prepared in the Italian charter, La Carta Italiana del Restauro (1931). This was consistent with Boito’s approach to conceal the restoration from observers by employing modern methods and technology.Renato Bonelli, another Italian architect, epitomized more recently the modern thought on restoration by creating a synthesis of the previous two approaches known as “critical restoration” (restauro critico), which led to the well-known Venice Charter. According to Bonelli, the “philological approach” left out any consideration of the artistic value, and treated the monuments only as victims of history, despite the understanding of artistic values as one of the most important tasks in restoration. Bonelli called the process of this understanding the “critical act,” admitting the original form based on the criteria of artistic values. However, this method also had a creative side in its “deliberation of the original form,” leading to the unity of the original form with that of style. On this “critical conservation” approach, Carbonara writes that it “has been recently directed in a ‘critical-conservative’ direction. Conservative, because it is prompted by the assumption that a monument demands first and foremost to be perpetuated and handed down to the future in the best possible condition; in addition, because it reflects that current critical conscience demands that more ‘things’ should be preserved than in the past. Critical, because of its explicit reference to critical theories (first voiced by such Italian critics

30 Ibid.31 Ibid.32 Argyro Loukaki, Living Ruins, Value Conflicts (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), 95.


as Roberto Pane and Renato Bonelli), and partly because it is prompted by the belief that any operation is a single event, not part of a category, not governed by fixed rules but something that must be thoroughly investigated on a case-by-case basis, without taking any dogmatic or pre-established position.”33 This is the theoretical base of the “school of critical restoration” (scuola del restauro critico), whose members were Roberto Pane (1897-1987) and Piero Gazzola (1908-1979), the architect-creators of the Venice Charter’s text.34

The Mediums of Didactics in Preservation

The theory of preservation from the early anti-restoration movements contained the primal question of the relationship between old and new. This “minimal intervention” aimed to celebrate the birth of Modernism by using new materials and forms, creating a genuine substratum in modern architecture. Giovanni Carbonara noted that the approach of high-tech architecture is autotelic, using the monument only as a “parasite” with minimal emphasis on equilibrium, which is why it can “communicate” with the original remains. This is a didactic form of communication. It is interesting to see how mimetic or assimilated the language of this stylistic reconstruction is, by copying the form of the original, yet at the same time making a distinction and operating with abstractions that communicate in various, and sometimes deceptive, ways. This usage and revision of the original form with new materials will likely remind one of postmodern architectural solutions.Apart from architecture, the other tool of the didactic method is museology. The language of the architectural approach affects the interior decoration and, thereby, the applied information systems. These two components of didactics can strengthen or weaken each other. The style of museology largely acts on the architectural style or language of the restoration. In Hungary, for entirely reconstructed monuments, an advanced presentation method is a 3D digital reconstruction model’s representation on large flat screens and the panopticon with wax figures in historical-furnished interiors. If these two methods are present together at the same time in a mimetic historicizing environment, the latter adds little to an authentic understanding of the monument. The use of new materials with ancient forms and the new techniques in newly built “ancient” interiors can create uncertainty in visitors. New digital techniques applied to exhibitions can help not only the “reading” of monumental values but also the quantity and scale of modern prostheses used in monumental interventions. These architectural allusions – seen in the above case of philological restoration – seek to provide information about ruined details or fragments with contemporary tools, where, as in philology, an incomplete text would be supplemented without being reinterpreted. The risk of “excessive philology” in preservation work, however, presents a real danger, as can be seen in the examples below. Therefore, it can be conceded that every intervention represents a phase in the monument’s life that never previously existed (whether the alteration is minimal or not), and thus can be referred to as a new layer on top of the stratigraphy of the monument.

Structural reinforcementIf visibly modern structures are used as reinforcements during restoration, they will, depending on their scale, have their own autonomous architectural appearance. The formation of this type of structure can still reference the original, once-ruined building, as can be seen in the case of buildings constructed on ruins at archaeological sites (e.g. Piazza Armerina). With the widely used reconstruction technique “anastylosis,”35 there is the possibility of making references to original forms. The original fragments, which are in this way reset to their original

33 Giovanni Carbonara, “An Italian contribution to architectural restoration,” Frontiers of Architectural Research 1 (2012), 5.

34 In the Venice Charter (1964) the word “critical” can be found in points 3, 4, 9, 13. 35 In the Venice Charter, Article 15.


positions, can make the presentation more authentic. The emphasis, however, remains on scale and relation; how the old can be dominant in comparison with the new. A good example of this modern, self-dependent architectural language of reinforcement is the so-called “quasi anastylosis” on the ruins of the Iseum of ancient Savaria (Szombathely, Hungary – Gyula Hajnóczi 1962). (Fig. 2) In this case, the ruins play the subordinate role of reinforcing the concrete structure to bring back the original scale of the building designed by the architect. The difference between this abstract modern approach and that seen in the Arch of Titus can clearly be seen. The interventions in Fig. 2 display different architectural approaches to restoration by using different architectural language; partial reconstruction and restoration differ only in the architectural approach. In the case of Visegrád castle, J. Sedlmayr used brick and concrete and more ancient forms than Hajnóczi in Szombathely. By creating the new additional parts of Visegrád castle, made by Zoltán Deák in 2000 (Fig. 5), the architect used the same materials as Sedlmayr, but with original forms and greater size. The reconstructed forms made from brick and stone in Simontornya castle (Miklós Horler 1960-1975), allow the observer to experience the conservation spirit of Valadier introduced to Hungary by the early work of I. Möller in Zsámbék (1888). These types of restoration always rely on the imagination of the visitor; consequently, the architect has a significant obligation to authentically present the original figure of the ruined monument.

Fig. 2: Examples of modern interventions: Visegrád castle, Szombathely – Iseum, Simontornya castle, Zsámbék abbey


The simultaneous display of different historical layers on façadesThis other kind of didactic restoration is found all over Europe after the Second World War but is especially typical in Hungary. The practice originates in the desire to distinguish and enhance authenticity. Here, monument values were determined by their presentation having visibly exposed stratigraphy on façades – another characteristic trait of the modern style, though this does not help in referencing the original. This didactic form is closer to art restoration and makes façades considerably more fragmented. (Fig. 3) In Hungary, this conservation solution spread in the early 1950s when, during the research and conservation of damaged façades of buildings torn by the war, many ancient, mostly medieval parts of façades, were uncovered. Those conserved and revealed façades did not receive proper recognition from visitors, and contemporary architects, insomuch as the famous conservator-architect László Gerő called them simply “leper houses.” This type of modern restoration remains to this day the most controversial. It is interesting to see them as an outside museology, but does it help the building to gain recognition? Does it enhance the building’s authenticity? In the case of full reconstruction, these questions are not so relevant.

Fig.3:Examplesofmodernprosthesisandimplantsfromthe1960-70s(Sopron,Buda,Kőszeg)


Reference to destroyed elementsA typical example of the modern manner of intervention is the “didactical reference” to ruined elements of ancient buildings. In Hungary, the usage of modern “implants” and “prostheses” was widespread from the early 1950s until the end of the 1990s in the restoration practices of the country. The decisive architect of this heyday in Hungarian monument preservation36 was János Sedlmayr (1932-2004). He conducted several restoration projects and had partly developed the scheme of modern architectural referencing to ruined medieval vaults, bay windows, and towers, which he presented in his publications.37

The use of modern forms and materials alluding to mostly medieval forms gave rise to a particular architectural language, which had its own “architectural logic.” This logic determined ways of planning as well as providing a mechanism for decision-making during the intervention – one that naturally differed from the original method of the monument builders, as every material has its own nature. With the new forms enabled by modern materials such as reinforced concrete or steel, falsification could more easily be avoided, though this naturally depended on the architects’ creativity as to how these new elements could be appropriately applied to original fragments. (Fig. 4) If the new parts were more attractive, they could distract from the monument value and, instead of helping observers understand the original work, they could obscure it. This is also a risk with minimal style interventions, as the contrast between modern forms and original ruins used in a contemporary architectural approach could be, in many instances, autotelic, with the inclusion of the original remains simply to legitimize the architect’s personal decision.

36DezsőDercsényi,Historical monuments and their protection in Hungary (Budapest: Corvina, 1984).37 János Sedlmayr, “Új módszerek és hazai példák elpusztult boltozatok érzékeltetésére”, Műemlékvédelem

XXIII (1979): 158-171; János Sedlmayr, “Utalás elpusztult homlokzati elemekre,” Műemlékvédelem XXVII (1983): 263-275; János Sedlmayr, “Elpusztult középkori erkélyek visszaállítása és bemutatása,” Műemlékvédelem XXXIV (1990): 139-153.

Fig.4:J.Sedlmayr’sworks–referencesonruinedvaults(Buda,Sopron,Visegrád)


The most referenced work of modern Hungarian interventions is the restoration of Solomon Tower in Visegrád (J. Sedlmayr 1959-1964) and its famous wireframe vault prosthesis. In other interventions, Sedlmayr had chosen this form of allusion using various forms and materials, almost always operating with a “hiatus” that relied on the visitor’s abilities to recognize the original form. In this case, the attractiveness of the new intervention is clear, while the architect still pays careful attention to scale. The verifiability of new parts was essential in this modern period of restoration. Furthermore, Sedlmayr was careful to use such new forms that would follow the logic of the new material, referencing other destroyed medieval parts such as bay windows and steeples.For better understanding didactics, the architects also utilized reconstructed elements made of original materials and forms. In the case of Visegrád castle and Simontornya castle, other modern prostheses such as partial reconstruction elements, pillars, and balusters were used not only to transmit information but also to increase the authenticity of modern intervention. The authenticity of modern intervention depends on the architect’s ability and decisions regarding the preservation and representation of monument values as well as in finding the right balance. Ultimately, this depends on authentic theoretical reconstructions based on proper research. The limits of knowledge assign the limits of proper intervention; with this in mind, the Venice Charter drew a thick line in the sand between the cognizable and the hypothetical. These modern-style didactic implants were placed in consideration of these regulations, and for this reason, are prone to being viewed with nostalgia today.

Modern Prostheses as Historical Layers?

Every site contains the fundamental question: what should be done with these iconic modern interventions, architectural prostheses, and implants in the course of new interventions today? The respect held by our predecessors did not permit them to demolish or make great alterations to original works; therefore, in today’s restorations, other options are required, another architectural language, and as a result of this, a new didactic form to distinguish today’s interventions from the previous ones. Ironically, it can be viewed as the “protection of the protection,” or should it be treated with more seriousness? In severe cases, it could be a hundred-year-long interventional process on original remains. If the preservation of modern architecture (like the safeguarding of iconic Bauhaus buildings or of famous architects’ works) is under discussion, then the protection of famous examples in the history of monument preservation practice should also be treated as a part to be preserved during the restoration.When investigating this question, the biggest and most puzzling problem was the use of dissimilar materials. In the case of the conservation of the ruined abbey of Zsámbék, the timeline can be clearly followed: initially, in 1888, István Möller used bricks for the reinforcement with minimal completion of the remains; from 1935-1939, Géza Lux used half-reconstructed reinforced concrete vaults, and in 1996 János Sedlmayr, originally planning to use sand lime bricks, because of the damage that could be caused by ice chose in the end to use whitewashed clinker bricks. This feeling of affection towards such kind of distinction is also typical today. A good example to represent this “protection of the protection” is the restoration of the royal castle in Visegrád by Deák, begun in 2000 and still ongoing with minor additions. During his work, Deák treated the former modern completions of Sedlmayr like a valuable historical layer of the monument. Although the former’s intervention was but a partial reconstruction using many architectural elements, which were made of materials homologous with those of the original structures, the considerable respect for Seldmayr’s work is obvious. The whole loggia was completed except for the vaults, the only section here reconstructed by Sedlmayr that can be seen, as the other parts have had flat slabs of reinforced concrete added. The rest of this intervention on the castle bears the marks of assimilated postmodern architecture. (Fig. 5)


The interventions in the Hungarian royal centers between 2000 and 2008 also adopted this postmodern style, already differing a priori from the modern architectural language. The same approach of new mimetic reconstructions is noticeable in the castles of Diósgyőr and Füzér, and the rebuilding of the ruined royal riding hall in the castle of Buda, where the architects follow the memory policy of today’s decision-makers instead of the ethical rules of conservation and restoration.38 Unfortunately, when full reconstruction occurs, the former modern prosthetics do not find their place, and many other historical layers of these monuments are being destroyed, as with the former modern styled works of Károly Ferenczy between 1965-1968; during the new ongoing reconstruction, this has disappeared. The modern parts of those monuments were

38 Since the Millennium, the practice of partial and full reconstructions has increased in Hungary. While the professionals of conservation objected to the spread of this practice, the intensifying political will and the pressure of tourism were both growingly supported by architects. After most of the debates in the last two decades, the stylistic reconstruction in Hungary seems to be an accepted way of conservation nowadays.

Fig.5:Newformsofdidacticsinthetwenty-firstcenturyinHungary(Visegrád,Gorsium–Esztergom,Zsámbék)


the last witnesses of the so-called critical restoration approach, and have become victims of the new mimetic reconstructions. Accordingly, we have to treat these modern interventions as a layer to be protected. The dubious results of hypothetic reconstructions, either ideologically motivated or stimulated by the tourist industry, are bound to become history as well, although, in the end, this non-scientific approach tends to annihilate the values of the monument as defined by Alois Riegl and others after him.When examining the reasons behind treating modern interventions as historic layers, it is only necessary to research the roots of modern-style interventions on historic buildings. As Viollet-le-Duc suggested, historicism did not have its own style that could be used to make the distinction between old and new, and the modern thinking of Boito at the turn of the century could not yet be accomplished with the architectural options of the time. After historicism, the modern was the first international style to essentially differ from other historical styles, primarily through the use of new forms based on new materials. It should be noted that, when applied to buildings in historic towns, the modern style did not only seek to be distinguishable, but also to reflect its surroundings. This reflection of the original is the basis of the modern conservation approach.Architects often tend to regard the interventions of previous architects with nostalgia; but are these modern prostheses to be considered inseparable parts of the monument? Have these interventions new monumental value, or, as Riegl wrote, merely “present-day value”? Even in cases of stylistic reconstruction, contemporary Hungarian architects seem to be aware of transforming the work of their great predecessors. The final answer may only be provided by the assessments of future observers.

Conclusion

In the field of monument preservation, the modern architect has an important role. The nearly two-hundred-year-old practice of “minimal intervention” has not only found a fertile ground in modern architecture but has even come to its “own style” concerning current historicism and purism. The “dogma” or else “ethical principle” of distinction between the new and the old gave birth to a new level in modern architecture, where a dialogue between the addition and the original was essential. This new dialogue was considered to be the right way of preserving authenticity and the correct approach in avoiding falsification in the practices of the nineteenth century. As modern manifestos, the new charters of the first half of the twentieth century propagated the significance of using new materials and new forms in preservation on an international level. Although, following the Second World War, a reconstruction wave passed through Europe, the ratification of modern thinking occurred in the famous Venice Charter of 1964, whose influence is still present today. Seventy-four years after World War II, a new wave of reconstruction seems to be occurring in European architecture, where these modern charters and practices must fight again with the postmodern-based rebuilding rage, powered as much by social and political events as by the pertinent professionals themselves.As discussed, the distinction between old and new became an ethical principle of preservation practices, upon which the “architectural didactics” were based. This didactic form aimed to highlight the original forms of decayed architectural parts and building scales for which thorough scientific research with contemporary architectural tools was completed, thus requiring from visitors a certain level of perception and, perhaps, imagination to recognize a building’s archetypal nature. This method had two mediums: that of architecture and that of museology, although the museology trend — thanks to the digital revolution — changed faster than the architectural approach. Consequently, an architectural intervention can leave its mark on a monument permanently as (in most cases) an irreversible effect.


The tools of architectural didactics are varied, but in general use materials and forms that differ from the original, taking into account the nature and plasticity of new materials. Many of the modern interventions from the early nineteenth century on represent particular architectural and even historical values, which we should respect in our present and future interventions on monuments. While the protection of these parts is conventional, handling them as historical layers adds a new level of depth and complexity. These modern prostheses and implants also represent an architectural moment, one which began decades or centuries ago as an individual dialogue with the original remains. However, could – or should – contemporary architecture begin a similar dialogue with these more modern elements? Would it help observers in the recognition of a monument’s originality? Is the “dogma of distinction” valid in this case as well? As can be seen above, the effort toward this end has at least been made in the Hungarian practice. The question becomes more interesting in the case of full or stylistic reconstructions, where an architect uses the same or nearly the same forms as the original, as these interventions are contemporary architectural works that do not produce forgeries. In the case of the reconstruction of a monument devastated centuries ago problems arise. If a long period passes between the initial devastation and the stylistic rebuilding, ethical as well as professional and architectural questions arise. Finally, it can be stated that the fate of these modern prostheses is in the architect’s hand, where it can be appreciated, saved, and integrated as an important – even if not necessarily – historic layer of the monument.

REFERENCE LIST:Bold, John, P. J. Larkham, and Rob Pickard. Authentic Reconstruction. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2018.Brandi, Cesare. Teoria del restauro. Torino: Einaudi, 2010.Carbonara, Giovanni. Architettura d’oggi e restauro. Milano: UTET, 2011.Carbonara, Giovanni. “An Italian contribution to architectural restoration.” Frontiers of Architectural Research

1 (2012): 2-9.Catucci, Stefano. “Senso e progetto.” In Barucci-Strappa-Venditelli-Catucci: Il progetto di architettura come

sintesi delle discipline, 49-63. Roma: KAPPA, 2008.Chitty, Gill. Managing Historic Sites and Buildings. London: Routledge, 2005.Chitty, Gill. Heritage, Conservation and Communities: Engagement, Participation and Capacity Building.

London: Routledge, n.d. Choay, Françiose. The Invention of the Historic Monument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Cordileone, Diana R., Alois Riegl in Vienna 1875-1905. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 2014.Denslagen, Wim, and Donald Gardner. Romantic Modernism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press,

2009.Dercsényi,Dezső.Historical Monuments and Their Protection in Hungary. Budapest: Corvina, 1984.ICOMOS, International Charter For The Conservation And Restoration Of Monuments And Sites (The Venice

Charter, 1964). Available at https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf, last accessed 3.05.2019.Jokilehto, Jukka. A History of Architectural Conservation. London: Routledge, 2012. Kirk, Terry. The Architecture of Modern Italy. Volume 1: The Challenge of Tradition, 1750-1900. New York:

Princeton Architectural Press, 2005.Kóródy, Anna and Zorán Vukoszávlyev. “Built on Modernism: The theoretical basis of contemporary heritage

preservation in the Spanish architectural scene.” Arquiteturarevista 13, 1 (2017): 9-20.Koshar, Rudi. J, “Building Pasts: Historic Preservation and Identity in Twentieth-Century Germany.” In Com-

memorations, edited by Gillis, John R., 215-238. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2010. Koshar, Rudy. Germany’s Transient Pasts: Preservation and National Memory in he Twentieth Century. Chap-

el Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1998.Loukaki, Argyro. Living Ruins, Value Conflicts. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008. Martínez, Ascensión H. “Conservation and Restoration in Built Heritage: A Western European Perspective.”

In The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity, edited by Brian Graham and Peter Howard, 245-266. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2008.

Page, Max, and Randall Mason. Giving Preservation A History: Histories Of historical Preservation In The United States. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Sedlmayr, János: “Új módszerek és hazai példák elpusztult boltozatok érzékeltetésére.” Műemlékvédelem XXIII (1979): 158-171.

Sedlmayr, János: “Utalás elpusztult homlokzati elemekre.” Műemlékvédelem XXVII (1983): 263-275.


Sedlmayr, János: “Elpusztult középkori erkélyek visszaállítása és bemutatása.” Műemlékvédelem XXXIV (1990): 139-153.

Stanley-Price,Nicholas,MansfieldKirbyTalley,andAlessandraMeluccoVaccaro.Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 2010.

Stubbs, John H, and Bernard M. Feilden. Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation. Hobo-ken, N.J.: Wiley, 2009.

Viollet-le-Duc, Eugène Emmanuel. Dictionnaire Raisonné de l’Architecture Française du XIe au XVIe Siècle. Paris: V. A. Morel & Cie, 1875.

Winckelman, Johann Joachim, and Alex Potts. History of The Art of Antiquity. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2006.

Zsembery, Ákos. “Authenticity and didactics: theory and practice in the preservation of our medieval monu-ments.” Periodica Polytechnica Architecture 40, 1 (2009): 37-46.

ILLUSTRATION CREDITS:Fig.1-5:Author’sphotographs.

modern monument preservation in hungary: should we

Documents