DOI issue:
Nr. 1
DOI article:Scarrocchia, Sandro: Dvořák and the trend in monument care
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31179#0048
a cultural powerd The fact remains that this prohle
highlighted by Dvořák will be in accord with Cesare
Brandih theory of monuments which was published
in the years in which Neumann was writingh
2. The New Paradigm of Monument Care and
the Comparison between Dvořák and Riegl
Is Dvorak thinkable without Riegl, not m a
general comparison regarding the history of art,
but on a spécifie level of its operativeness, in other
words, with regard to monument care? The answer
is no: without the real and proper foundation of
the discipline carried out by Riegl with his theory
of the relative values of the monument and with his
practice of the authority of care, the whole range
of Dvofâk's vast reftections, as well as the relevance
that he attributed to the spiritual, ethical, pedagogical
and formative dimension of monument care would
simply not hâve corne into beingf It was necessary to
recognise the conftict between the m/A and the
a conftict that also effects the /fhAnD/
and restoration as its legitimate heir, as recognised by
Alois Riegl, because by reinstating the m/A at
the heim of monument care as Dvořák did, a positive
sense of criticism is acquired as far as the practice
of the restoration of renovation is concerned that
goes beyond the simple re-establishment of the
interrupted historical continuity. It was necessary to
extend the not just to artistic works
and not just to intentional works, as the founder did,
in order for the prosecutor to extend the récognition
of this value to the context, to the surroundings,
to the higher environmental unity expressed by the
concept of Obviously, between the two
^ SCARROCCHIA, S.: Le concept modern de monument et la
valeur de l'ancien. Pour une anthropologie de la conservation
du patrimoine. In: Rřtw<? A Dtp 3, 2004, No. 145, pp. 19-28,
now in SCARROCCHIA, S.: 0/A<? A ArA ATArA MAL RAg/
Mp? ř yW? A' prctygoArA A/A Milano 2006.
' SCARROCCHIA, S.: 11 culto moderno dei monumenti di
Rtegl hno all'apparizione délia Teoria di Brandi. In: H? třenk
A/ A Rzig/ <? Bw/?A. M#/ A/ ČAwqwc
(4AArA, 72 — 72 2002?- Ed- M. AN-
DALORO. Firenze 2006, pp. 35-50.
'' See now my afterword: La teoria dei valori conüiggenti dei
great hgures of pres er ver s there is continuity and
caesura, both of which are equally important.
As can be learnt from his lessons of 1906 and
1910, Dvořák criticises Riegl's scale of values, basical-
ly in order to return the performance of monument
care under the aegis of artistic appraisaih However,
it is not a judgement with just one interprétation,
as much aristocratie as esoteric, but it is based on
the récognition of the relativity, in other words the
plurality (of the points of view) and modifications
(not the static nature of the position of the subject)
of the judgements, therefore, on the basis of Riegl.
It rejects the âge value, as an organicist and natural -
istic principle of the life of monuments, to replace it
with a visual value (artistic, pure visibilist of aesthetic
order) which, in point of fact, revises Riegks
Ap exalting its cultural and spiritual content, as well
as the other concept that belongs equally to Riegl of
that is to say the sentimental relationship
and the emotional fact of the vision. The récogni-
tion of the need to safeguard the patrimony is taken
for granted, dehning it as a historical phase of the
beginnings of the discipline, and Dvořák bases the
ytz/kq that must give impetus to the ac-
tion, on the tzA/VA MAhi?. The formative, didactic and
pedagogical function of monument care dépends on
this, as well as its action ftanking ^r/and
Herein lies a fundamental différence
compared with Riegks lesson which is important
for developments of the discipline. Both recognise
contemporaneity as the driving force behind monu-
ment care, according to the principle developed by
Hegel by which a monument on its own is not yet
a monument, but for Riegl it coincides with the âge
value as it is the quintessence of the conftict between
monumenti di Alois Riegl. In: RIEGL, A.: 77rwAr/M A?
Milano 2011, pp. 75-104.
^ Well summarised by BENTMANN, R.: Der Kampf um die
Erinnerung. Ideologische und methodische Konzepte des
modernen Denkmalkultus. In: HtvAtA BAArAr LAG-
1976, Nos. 2-3, pp. 213-246.
^ See DVOŘÁK, M.: Denkmalpflege Vorlesungen (1906,1910).
In: DVOŘÁK, M.: JAn/A?
ÖAArc MizrnvAA. Wien — Köln — Weimar 2011,
11. Teil, A. 1. and 2. See also DVOŘÁK, M.: Denkmalkultus
und Kunstentwicklung (1910). In: Ibidem, I. Teil, Theorie 3.
46
highlighted by Dvořák will be in accord with Cesare
Brandih theory of monuments which was published
in the years in which Neumann was writingh
2. The New Paradigm of Monument Care and
the Comparison between Dvořák and Riegl
Is Dvorak thinkable without Riegl, not m a
general comparison regarding the history of art,
but on a spécifie level of its operativeness, in other
words, with regard to monument care? The answer
is no: without the real and proper foundation of
the discipline carried out by Riegl with his theory
of the relative values of the monument and with his
practice of the authority of care, the whole range
of Dvofâk's vast reftections, as well as the relevance
that he attributed to the spiritual, ethical, pedagogical
and formative dimension of monument care would
simply not hâve corne into beingf It was necessary to
recognise the conftict between the m/A and the
a conftict that also effects the /fhAnD/
and restoration as its legitimate heir, as recognised by
Alois Riegl, because by reinstating the m/A at
the heim of monument care as Dvořák did, a positive
sense of criticism is acquired as far as the practice
of the restoration of renovation is concerned that
goes beyond the simple re-establishment of the
interrupted historical continuity. It was necessary to
extend the not just to artistic works
and not just to intentional works, as the founder did,
in order for the prosecutor to extend the récognition
of this value to the context, to the surroundings,
to the higher environmental unity expressed by the
concept of Obviously, between the two
^ SCARROCCHIA, S.: Le concept modern de monument et la
valeur de l'ancien. Pour une anthropologie de la conservation
du patrimoine. In: Rřtw<? A Dtp 3, 2004, No. 145, pp. 19-28,
now in SCARROCCHIA, S.: 0/A<? A ArA ATArA MAL RAg/
Mp? ř yW? A' prctygoArA A/A Milano 2006.
' SCARROCCHIA, S.: 11 culto moderno dei monumenti di
Rtegl hno all'apparizione délia Teoria di Brandi. In: H? třenk
A/ A Rzig/ <? Bw/?A. M#/ A/ ČAwqwc
(4AArA, 72 — 72 2002?- Ed- M. AN-
DALORO. Firenze 2006, pp. 35-50.
'' See now my afterword: La teoria dei valori conüiggenti dei
great hgures of pres er ver s there is continuity and
caesura, both of which are equally important.
As can be learnt from his lessons of 1906 and
1910, Dvořák criticises Riegl's scale of values, basical-
ly in order to return the performance of monument
care under the aegis of artistic appraisaih However,
it is not a judgement with just one interprétation,
as much aristocratie as esoteric, but it is based on
the récognition of the relativity, in other words the
plurality (of the points of view) and modifications
(not the static nature of the position of the subject)
of the judgements, therefore, on the basis of Riegl.
It rejects the âge value, as an organicist and natural -
istic principle of the life of monuments, to replace it
with a visual value (artistic, pure visibilist of aesthetic
order) which, in point of fact, revises Riegks
Ap exalting its cultural and spiritual content, as well
as the other concept that belongs equally to Riegl of
that is to say the sentimental relationship
and the emotional fact of the vision. The récogni-
tion of the need to safeguard the patrimony is taken
for granted, dehning it as a historical phase of the
beginnings of the discipline, and Dvořák bases the
ytz/kq that must give impetus to the ac-
tion, on the tzA/VA MAhi?. The formative, didactic and
pedagogical function of monument care dépends on
this, as well as its action ftanking ^r/and
Herein lies a fundamental différence
compared with Riegks lesson which is important
for developments of the discipline. Both recognise
contemporaneity as the driving force behind monu-
ment care, according to the principle developed by
Hegel by which a monument on its own is not yet
a monument, but for Riegl it coincides with the âge
value as it is the quintessence of the conftict between
monumenti di Alois Riegl. In: RIEGL, A.: 77rwAr/M A?
Milano 2011, pp. 75-104.
^ Well summarised by BENTMANN, R.: Der Kampf um die
Erinnerung. Ideologische und methodische Konzepte des
modernen Denkmalkultus. In: HtvAtA BAArAr LAG-
1976, Nos. 2-3, pp. 213-246.
^ See DVOŘÁK, M.: Denkmalpflege Vorlesungen (1906,1910).
In: DVOŘÁK, M.: JAn/A?
ÖAArc MizrnvAA. Wien — Köln — Weimar 2011,
11. Teil, A. 1. and 2. See also DVOŘÁK, M.: Denkmalkultus
und Kunstentwicklung (1910). In: Ibidem, I. Teil, Theorie 3.
46