Zprávy památkové péče 2017, 77(6):633-641

Historical environment and contemporary architecture: Version 2017

Martin Horáček

Fakulta architektury VUT v Brně

The essay discusses the terms "historical environment" and "contemporary architecture" in the debate on the optimal form of new construction accentuating conservation criteria. In addition to the demand for a handbook methodology, the motivation to review theoretical thinking of the problem is led by factors with a more general scope and importance: the increase in the population of the planet which necessarily leads to increased pressure on the exploitation of existing structures; the drastic loss of historical structures due to war conflicts, ideological purism and simple vandalism; the radical redefinition of formerly cohesive building aggregates by new "contrasting" features; a shift in the priorities of the expert debate in favor of overall protection and the preservation of "intangible" heritage; a shift of part of the general interest from the real world to the virtual one.
The boundaries between the "historical environment" and its theoretically assumed opposite do not actually exist; in the same way, it is not possible to exhaustively define the set of activities deserving special "heritage" care. A holistic view in the debate thus complicates conservation measures in practice - an intermediary balance would be assisted by a return of aesthetic value among the basic constitutive elements of "heritage values" on one hand, and by a greater emphasis on the present-day value of interesting structures and activities on the other, than on documentary values. Written and oral "history" is a shared story which you can believe, but don't have to. "Heritage properties" may be the proof of this story; nevertheless, this is not a given fact in itself, but simply because this context is presented to us and we adhere to the relevant interpretation. According to Alois Riegl (1903), particular histories should be replaced by a universal monument cult, based on an intense perception and recognition of "age-value". Human psychology, however, does not confirm Riegl's premise: "age", in the case of artifacts or collective activities, is merely a story; we perceived it much more in our own bodies or in creatures close to us - and we usually try to minimize its effects and mask its attributes. As humans, we live in a permanent present moment; the "historical environment" into which we were born is a contemporary environment for us and no other. This is the paradox of the universality of the historical environment. "Documents of history" that we encounter during our movement through this environment do not represent, for the overwhelming majority of us, "history documents", but rather an alternative in the present. It has been proven that the image of the past, if it does not concern us personally, is difficult to construct and is burdened with a relatively large degree of subjectivity. At the same time, the "differentness of the momentary reality" can be mentally grasped relatively easily and, above all, can be shared with a high level of understanding. The "historical environment," as defined by a selective inventory of monuments and enclosed in (heritage) reservations and open-air museums as dreamed by modernists, was authoritarian and should have confirmed historical determinism: behold here what "progress" has overcome. The natural environment, which is both historical and contemporary, and is located everywhere without borders, is a landscape of possibilities, a landscape of freedom. A land whose value lies in demonstrating how things were before, but even more in that it frees mankind from the dictates of present-day pressures, fashions, and ideologies. More for some, less for others, differently for everyone.
How should something be built in such a land -scape? Efforts to define a specific "contemporary" architectural language of new forms have proven to be weak. The "contemporary stamp," as requested in the 1964 Venetian Charter, was never positively defined. Moreover, at the latest in the 1990's, architecture began to lose its innovative tendencies; what is still being upgraded is technology, not an architectural language with universal ambition, complexity, and plasticity. "Contemporary architecture" has been, overall, practically the same for about thirty years, something that last happened in Europe probably in the 14th century.
If architecture cannot find an anchor in time, then it should - as a spatial art - logically search for one in space. The space we inhabit is not an abstract concept or a "green field", but a space modeled by nature and generations of people before us, a "historical environment". The theory of so-called adaptive design recommends, for new forms, a language linking universal morphogenetic rules with regional characteristics. An extraordinary example of such an informed intervention into the "historic environment" is the rebuilding of the French city of Reims after the First World War, wisely linking the principles of conservation, reconstruction, selection, and adaptation of heritage to a new artistic attitude as well as to social and economic benefits.

Keywords: historical environment, contemporary architecture, universal monument cult, heritage value, adaptive design

Published: December 1, 2017  Show citation