Is it possible for conservationists to approve of the reconstruction of old façades when virtually everything behind them is modern? Should they continue to protect the front façade, when the rest of the historic building has vanished? Is it socially responsible to spend government money on reconstructing a historic building that has been completely destroyed? Can one do such a thing fifty years on?. According to reigning ideas in the world of conservation, the answer to all these questions is'no'. It is felt that building a stage set is dishonest, and rebuilding something that no longer exis.

Romantisch modernisme

Denslagen, W. F; Gardner, Donald, 1938- vertaler

Wim Denslagen; translated by Donald Gardner

W F Denslagen; Donald Gardner

Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2009

Netherlands, Netherlands

Amsterdam, cop. 2009

PT, 2011

Includes bibliographical references (p. 231-254) and index.
Text in English, translated from Dutch.

Is it possible for conservationists to approve of the reconstruction of old façades when virtually everything behind them is modern? Should they continue to protect the front façade, when the rest of the historic building has vanished? Is it socially responsible to spend government money on reconstructing a historic building that has been completely destroyed? Can one do such a thing fifty years on? According to reigning ideas in the world of conservation, the answer to all these questions is 'no'. It is felt that building a stage set is dishonest, and rebuilding something that no longer exists is labelled a lie against history. Where does this predilection for honesty originate? And why do people prefer modern architecture to the reconstruction of what has been lost? Perhaps we are witnessing the legacy of Functionalism here, a movement that denounced the building of pseudo-architecture. Functionalism originated in Romanticism, when architects turned their backs on academic formalism and strove to invent a new, rational form of building. This romantic hunger for honesty was adopted by the conservationists, giving rise to a new respect for the authentic art work and a rejection of historicist restorations. Among conservationists too, distaste arose for the cultivation of a harmonious urban image, because an urban image that is maintained artificially 'old' was seen as a form of fraud. Mag de monumentenzorg steun verlenen aan de reconstructie van de oude geveltjes wanneer daarachter vrijwel alles modern is? Moet de monumentenzorg alleen nog de voorgevel willen beschermen, als de rest van het monument is verdwenen? Volgens de gangbare opvattingen in de wereld van de monumentenzorg past op al dit soort vragen een negatief antwoord. Men vindt decorbouw oneerlijk, en iets herbouwen wat er niet meer is, noemt men een leugen tegen de geschiedenis. De vraag is waar deze hang naar oprechtheid vandaan komt. Misschien zien we hier de erfenis van het functionalisme dat bouwen van schijnarchitectuur verbood. Het functionalisme ontstond uit de Romantiek, toen architecten zich afkeerden van het academisch formalisme en een nieuwe rationele bouwkunst wilden uitvinden. Dit romantische streven naar oprechtheid werd in de monumentenzorg overgenomen. Wim Denslagen stelt dat de huidige monumentenzorg op bovengenoemde vragen ten onrechte een ontkennend antwoord geeft

Is it possible for conservationists to approve of the reconstruction of old façades when virtually everything behind them is modern? Should they continue to protect the front façade, when the rest of the historic building has vanished? Is it socially responsible to spend government money on reconstructing a historic building that has been completely destroyed? Can one do such a thing fifty years on? According to reigning ideas in the world of conservation, the answer to all these questions is 'no'. It is felt that building a stage set is dishonest, and rebuilding something that no longer exists is labelled a lie against history. Where does this predilection for honesty originate? And why do people prefer modern architecture to the reconstruction of what has been lost? Perhaps we are witnessing the legacy of Functionalism here, a movement that denounced the building of pseudo-architecture. Functionalism originated in Romanticism, when architects turned their backs on academic formalism and strove to invent a new, rational form of building. This romantic hunger for honesty was adopted by the conservationists, giving rise to a new respect for the authentic art work and a rejection of historicist restorations. Among conservationists too, distaste arose for the cultivation of a harmonious urban image, because an urban image that is maintained artificially 'old' was seen as a form of fraud -- Website OAPEN Library

In the world of architectural conservation, there is little tolerance for reconstructing or even protecting historic facades when everything behind is modern, and even less for reconstructing a building that has been completely destroyed. These offenses are considered lies against history. In this thoughtful, revealing work, conservation expert Wim Denslagen traces this predilection for honesty to the legacy of Functionalism, a Romantic-era movement that denounced the building of pseudo-architecture in favor of a new, rational form of building. With detailed analyses of headline-making restoration projects from Bruges to Berlin, Denslagen shows that the adoption of these romantic values by conservationists gave rise to a new wave of modern additions and transformations.

Wim Denslagen ; Transl. [from The Dutch] By Donald Gardner. Uitg. In Opdracht Van De Rijksdienst Voor Het Cultureel Erfgoed. Met Index, Lit. Opg. Vert. Van: Romantisch Modernisme. - Amsterdam : Sun, 2004

261 p. : 24 cm
Uitg. in opdracht van de Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed
Met index, lit. opg
Vert. van: Romantisch modernisme. - Amsterdam : SUN, 2004

2024-07-01