DOI Heft:
Nr. 1
DOI Artikel:Scarrocchia, Sandro: Dvořák and the trend in monument care
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31179#0065
Sedlmayr, instead, recognises the "additive princi-
ple" in paragraph 6, but he moves it, from the point
of view of town planning, to the development of
the city; in other words, with Frei Otto he recognises
the need for Contemporary architecture and the
potential for it to increase urban value, but it has to
move outside,away from thehistoricalcentre: "... OV
AAz A
qf A ^
Starting from a denunciation of the incapacity of the
Nw&f to represent a new historical stratifica-
tion, Sedlmayr concludes by ascribing his criticism of
modern architecture to the Feld of monument care,
outlining in fact, a theory of anti-historical conserva-
tion. As we know, something very similar happened
to his master with the en bloc condemnation of the
in other words of many of the works
to safeguard monuments carried out by Schmidt,
for example, which in the space of a Century have
acquired monumental value. This is the result of the
suspension of Riegl's postuláte of the relativity of
values that, consequently, brings together Dvořák
and Sedlmayr. It is not just by chance that the latter
did not dedicate any attention to in
his introduction to the collection of Rieghs writings
in 1929 and even less did he mention the lesson of
the founder of monument care as an autonomous
discipline in his Salzburg manifesto.
On the other hand, Sedlmayr's condemnation of
the BAwr B%;w/? cannot be linked back in any way to
Dvořák's lesson, because it forms a whole with the
condemnation of research into
which will be developed by Emil Kaufmann starting
from the re-evaluation of the architecture of the
enlightenment and of the révolution, developing in
this way the positions of their common master in
favour of the classical tendency of the Modern.
However, what does appear signihcant in order
to trace back the development of the Austrian cuk
305-332; the special double issue Viaggio nell'Italia dei res-
tauti. Dalla didattica ai cantieti: 1964 — 2006. In: h47M%/A,
2007, Nos. 50-51; and DEZZI BARDESCHI, M.: Roberto
Pane: la vita délia città e il respiro delle cose. In: TířM/Aq
2010, No. 60, pp. 106-114.
SEDLMAYR 1965 (see in note 52), p. 30.
ture of monument care is the fact that via Sedlmayr,
Dvořák's thoughts came into contact with the Italian
considérations of Roberto Pane which converge in
the Charter of Venice. As far as Sedlmayr is con-
cerned, he will remain outside the indications of the
Charter which require a comparison between the
culture of restoration and the culture of architecture
during the planning phase and within the historical
fabric. In his manifesto for the defence of Salz-
burg, he underlines that contemporary architecture
is "ITrAAA?rAÍ/Aď, the loss of the centre and of
continuity. The centre remains bound to the "Bh?AA-
in other words to the formation
of an architecture of symbolic and moral values
that are unitary and irreproducible, but above ail,
unattainableV How little this pessimism, which was
grasped by Italian monument care in the 1970s in
spite of the terms of the Charter of Venice and was
unknown to the masters Riegl and Dvořák, was of
avail to the culture of conservation is demonstrated
by the fact that the conservation of historical fabrics
is still in many cases hxed on the practise of recon-
struction and by a conservation of the modem that
is unable to go beyond the "pioneering" phase.
Therefore, to appreciate the radical nature and
actuality of Dvofâk's position, at least two distinc-
tions must be made.
Firstly, until now his proposai has been linked to
those positions of "integral conservation" which have
favoured an expulsion of modem architecture from
the historical centre. In fact, the criteria put forward
by Sedlmayr in defence of the historical nucléus of
Salzburg in the early 1960s are codihed by the detailed
Plan for the historical centre of Bologna in the early
1970s which is considered to be a model and arche-
type of a long sériés of plans involving the historical
nuclei of many Italian cities, including that of Palermo
in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This vulgátě led to
the Prince of Wales' "/WomAwn* ' It is cer-
^ SEDLMAYR, H.: IArAA Ar LA AAř^AR7//?A Ai /R
LTV 20. 7AA%%AAi Ar Ar ZA. Salzburg 1948 (2"^ ed.);
SEDLMAYR, H.: DLE^i^A/?g ArA^AArAř. Zürich 1950.
Both texts were conceived in the mid 1930s.
^ DEZZI BARDESCHI, M.: Fine secolo: l'internazionale dei
gamberi. In: 1995, No. 11, pp. 2-3; CRUCIANI
FABOZZI, G.: K AZyL AAAAžyhwř.' fřiAz^ro ř A<yA
ngTWiňv In: Ibidem, pp. 28-42.
63
ple" in paragraph 6, but he moves it, from the point
of view of town planning, to the development of
the city; in other words, with Frei Otto he recognises
the need for Contemporary architecture and the
potential for it to increase urban value, but it has to
move outside,away from thehistoricalcentre: "... OV
AAz A
qf A ^
Starting from a denunciation of the incapacity of the
Nw&f to represent a new historical stratifica-
tion, Sedlmayr concludes by ascribing his criticism of
modern architecture to the Feld of monument care,
outlining in fact, a theory of anti-historical conserva-
tion. As we know, something very similar happened
to his master with the en bloc condemnation of the
in other words of many of the works
to safeguard monuments carried out by Schmidt,
for example, which in the space of a Century have
acquired monumental value. This is the result of the
suspension of Riegl's postuláte of the relativity of
values that, consequently, brings together Dvořák
and Sedlmayr. It is not just by chance that the latter
did not dedicate any attention to in
his introduction to the collection of Rieghs writings
in 1929 and even less did he mention the lesson of
the founder of monument care as an autonomous
discipline in his Salzburg manifesto.
On the other hand, Sedlmayr's condemnation of
the BAwr B%;w/? cannot be linked back in any way to
Dvořák's lesson, because it forms a whole with the
condemnation of research into
which will be developed by Emil Kaufmann starting
from the re-evaluation of the architecture of the
enlightenment and of the révolution, developing in
this way the positions of their common master in
favour of the classical tendency of the Modern.
However, what does appear signihcant in order
to trace back the development of the Austrian cuk
305-332; the special double issue Viaggio nell'Italia dei res-
tauti. Dalla didattica ai cantieti: 1964 — 2006. In: h47M%/A,
2007, Nos. 50-51; and DEZZI BARDESCHI, M.: Roberto
Pane: la vita délia città e il respiro delle cose. In: TířM/Aq
2010, No. 60, pp. 106-114.
SEDLMAYR 1965 (see in note 52), p. 30.
ture of monument care is the fact that via Sedlmayr,
Dvořák's thoughts came into contact with the Italian
considérations of Roberto Pane which converge in
the Charter of Venice. As far as Sedlmayr is con-
cerned, he will remain outside the indications of the
Charter which require a comparison between the
culture of restoration and the culture of architecture
during the planning phase and within the historical
fabric. In his manifesto for the defence of Salz-
burg, he underlines that contemporary architecture
is "ITrAAA?rAÍ/Aď, the loss of the centre and of
continuity. The centre remains bound to the "Bh?AA-
in other words to the formation
of an architecture of symbolic and moral values
that are unitary and irreproducible, but above ail,
unattainableV How little this pessimism, which was
grasped by Italian monument care in the 1970s in
spite of the terms of the Charter of Venice and was
unknown to the masters Riegl and Dvořák, was of
avail to the culture of conservation is demonstrated
by the fact that the conservation of historical fabrics
is still in many cases hxed on the practise of recon-
struction and by a conservation of the modem that
is unable to go beyond the "pioneering" phase.
Therefore, to appreciate the radical nature and
actuality of Dvofâk's position, at least two distinc-
tions must be made.
Firstly, until now his proposai has been linked to
those positions of "integral conservation" which have
favoured an expulsion of modem architecture from
the historical centre. In fact, the criteria put forward
by Sedlmayr in defence of the historical nucléus of
Salzburg in the early 1960s are codihed by the detailed
Plan for the historical centre of Bologna in the early
1970s which is considered to be a model and arche-
type of a long sériés of plans involving the historical
nuclei of many Italian cities, including that of Palermo
in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This vulgátě led to
the Prince of Wales' "/WomAwn* ' It is cer-
^ SEDLMAYR, H.: IArAA Ar LA AAř^AR7//?A Ai /R
LTV 20. 7AA%%AAi Ar Ar ZA. Salzburg 1948 (2"^ ed.);
SEDLMAYR, H.: DLE^i^A/?g ArA^AArAř. Zürich 1950.
Both texts were conceived in the mid 1930s.
^ DEZZI BARDESCHI, M.: Fine secolo: l'internazionale dei
gamberi. In: 1995, No. 11, pp. 2-3; CRUCIANI
FABOZZI, G.: K AZyL AAAAžyhwř.' fřiAz^ro ř A<yA
ngTWiňv In: Ibidem, pp. 28-42.
63