Ars: časopis Ústavu Dejín Umenia Slovenskej Akadémie Vied (44.2011)

of the twentieth-century on thisď' The text-mani-
festo of this trend is Dvorâk's Conference of 1912
entitled Dfť in other words the last
Renaissance, which détachés itself from Wagneťs
Functionalism, which is still judged to be historicist
as far as the works are concerned. The pioneers of
the new trend are Karl Friedrich Schinkel, Alfred
Messel and Ludwig Hoffmann [Figs. ß-5]. Others
co-head the trend such as Joseph Maria Olbrich,
Hermann Billing, Martin Dülfer and there are also
some questionable présences such as Bruno Schmitz,
who was strongly criticised by Marcello Piacentini
as the bearer of a coarse idea of monumental^
However, Loos is the exponent par excellence, as
speciňed by Hans Tietze, who considers the house
in Michaelerplatz which is extremely new as far as
temperament is concerned and the formal adhér-
ence to function, although it responds equally to the
requirements of the architecture of the city, of its
tradition and the peculiarity of the site, therefore, the
argumentation would be incompréhensible without
Dvorâk's authority and beyond the judgement pian
imposed by the sameT
Loos and Kokoschka represent the lamps light-
ing the way to Dvorâk's theory of conservation. A
synthesis of such power divided between art and,
more particularly, painting, of architecture in all the
critical and civil dimensions endowed on it by the
master Viennese builder and the culture of monu-
ment care can only be considered extraordmary.
Hans H. Aurenhammer has reconstructed, from a
historical artistic point of view, an impeccable syl-
loge of the relationships between the three person-

^ Along the lineš of Dvořák, Loos adopts the typeface of a
latě sixteenth-century Viennese printing house to publish his
magazine D<2iM%Ar<?. "TA of 7 7A? řopr^A/tř fppAť,
<wr ďrAstr řoAzy /o rrM/ř ,wAr% fpyAA' — LOOS, A.:
Was man druckt. In: DďiHLArř, 15. 10. 1903, p. 4 (repr. in
MA/f Loot o i/ i%oM%gř/a Ed. M. CACCIARI. Milano 1981,
p. 83).
' "... /AyA%^%i /o /A Bď/A o/ Lfpy^ of 7P73 — řA
z^or^ of Brzzzzo — zr^i rřtř/zpt zzzzrřAď twziAWřt
Ař wot/ AVAr/ K Aď/zř AA/řr<?^^ (Ar;%MA<r
wowwozz/A^rrAArArř.^" — PIACENTINI, M.: L'Esposizione
ďarchitettura a Lipsia. In: Mzzzz^no ^hrrfzEzYzzr?. Milano 1914,
pp. 9-20 (repr. in PIACENTINI, M.: MrrA7řzYz/w w<?Ar^. Ed.
M. PISANI. Venezia 1996, pp. 84-89).


2. MAf LoovM^onh/Afo/zorof M^xDwALpryřA/PP/. Rpro;
TRODLTTLTTT 7774 poo A %ořo 4A).

alities, highlighting, not for the hrst time, but here
in a truly relevant way, the bond that is established
between the requirements of Modernism and the
culture of monument care, a militant and critical
commitment and conservative tendencyT Nothing
remains but to attempt to develop the originality of
this approach from the point of view of monument
care in order to outline the historical importance
is YIET27K H.: Der Kampf um Alt-Wien. III. Wiener Neubau-
ten. In: Rzzzzi^irAAřAfřp^frAA Ai C^/Zi/AiALvAz? MAAAi
Ar L L Zo/ztrA-Ko/zwAizoT? pi'r EpfrirAzzg ErAAzyg Ar
RAA- AVoEiofozz DozzCwAo, 4, 1910, Beiblatt für Denk-
malpdege, pp. 33-62. In addition to Loos' new building in
Michaelreplatz, Tietze also draws attention to a villa by Josef
Hoffmann in Steinfeldgasse on Hohe Warte.
" AURENHAMMER 1998 (see in note 13); AURENHAM-
MER, H. H.: Max Dvořák, Tintoretto und die Moderne:
Kunstgeschichte "vom Standpunkt unserer Kunstentwick-
lung" betrachtet. In: HAAřr JArAA y%r K/%i/gřidAA<?, 49,
1996, pp. 9-39, 289-294; AURENHAMMER, H. H.: Max
Dvořák und die moderne Architektur. Bemerkungen zum
Vortrag .Die letzte Renaissance' (1912). In: ILAwr
ArLzz%ipřiiAkAř, 50, 1997, pp. 23-39.

49