Search results

1

Problemy ochrony zabytków w Etiopii

100%

Gąsiorowski E.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1987

|

issue 4

295-298

EN

The foundations of the Ethiopian protection of monuments was laid by the Emperor's proclamation no 229 of 1966, on the strength of which all monuments from before 1850, irrespective of who was the owner, were recognized as the state property. Still, proclamation does not say anything about the Emperor. Nor lists it museums, libraries, archives. (Six months later the instructions were given to establish the autonomous Board of Ethiopian Monuments that was to control „research, care, protection and studies” on the monuments of the country). After 1974 new authorities continued cooperation with UNESCO, the outcome of which was a plan for "the protection and presentation of selected historic objects and works of architecture” and 1978 UNESCO resolution initiating an international solidarity campaign, drawing of a programme of a professional technical base and conservation of chosen historic complexes (i.a. Aksumu, Condar, Lalibela, Ulaschory in the region of the Fana lake and the town of Harrar). By the time a new law on the protection of cultural property is passed, the 1966 Emperor’s Proclamation, not applied in practice, remains in force. The new law has to create both an optimum legal base for the protection of monuments as well as the conditions for their use. During the consultation of UNESCO (in which the author of the present report has also taken part) attention has been paid to the need to define the kind and age of objects covered by protection and their classification as well as the creation of the conditions that would enable the operation of conservation services. The problem of the protection of monuments in Ethiopia is completely incomparable with the problems encountered in European states. The size of the country and, first and foremost, dispersion and inaccessibility of structures, political tensions and permanent war unrest, natural calamities and a traditional mistrust of believers who defend the access to churches and hide objects of religious cult before the strangers and authorities determine the conditions in which conservation services are to work. These are great difficulties, worsened still by the lack of professional services and merely partial knowledge of objects in possession. Everything here is in an embryo stage and available means — meagre. Therefore, even the best law will not solve the problem. And these are the tasks for a few decades. It is necessary to build up both the entire administrative — executional apparatus as well as scientific and technical facilities.

2

Wieża jako problem konserwatorski

100%

Gąsiorowski E.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1990

|

issue 1

3-12

EN

The article discusses the restoration of historical objects as regards the problem of reconstruction of a tow e r and its finial. The problem stems from the conflict between theory and practice in historical object restoration. This conflict exists between the generally maintained principle of preserving a historical art object in its current, authentic shape and the effort towards its supplementation whenever the compactness and integrality of the artistic impression has been distorted. Even though the problem is timeless, the issue became particularly significant during the period of reconstruction after the last war. Tw o questions were considered: which reconstructions are not only tolerated today, but also accepted and considered ap p ro priate and needed, and have our views altered recently. In the iight of these questions a series of architectonic plans were examined, these being from the 19th and 2 0 th cent, from Italy (V en ic e ), Denmark and the northern regions of Germany and Poland. The subject was divided into chapters on the role of the tow e r as an element of the building's structure, its meaning in the interior of a tow n or city, in its outline and landscape. The role of towers is not insignificant, as they occupy an eminent position in the effect of architectonic forms on account of their vertical line and domination over the surroundings. Their loss from the town landscape of which they had been an element is therefore keenly felt by the observer and evokes a desire for recomposition. Aesthetic motivations for reconstruction are accompanied by emotional aspects, often deepened by patriotic feelings, as was the case in Poland after the war. Some of the reconstructions discussed in the article were generally a c cepted, others — such as the reconstruction of the campanile at St M a rk ’s Square in Venice and plans for recreating the church domes in Copenhagen (carried out in the beginning of the 20th cent.) — were heatedly discussed. In one case opponents of reconstruction were victorious (Copenhagen). There was, h ow e ver, a general desire to reconstruct towers and their finials also on the part of the restoration authorities — after the last war (e.g. the churches in Lubeck and the tow n hall in Gdańsk). The reason, apart from the earlier-mentioned motives for recomposition — was the fresh memory of the former appearance of the destroyed objects (whereas the distance of time makes one get used to the altered form) and a greater tendency than before to think in the categories of values of architectonic complexes. The last seems to be also the reason why reconstructions once considered very controversial, are evaluated favourably today.

3

Ruina jako miejsce pamięci i pomnik

100%

Gąsiorowski E.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1987

|

issue 3

163-175

EN

Ruins — a monument as a witness of tragic events, a monument in honour of the dead, recall and commemorate the experience of the 2nd World War. The idea to preserve a destroyed building as a monument was first realized in England (Southampton - 1946, Coventry - 1947), then in France (Oradur-sur-Glane - 1947) and finally in Japan (H iroshima — 1945). War ruins, which assumed the form of a monument, have become a symbol and protest against war. Some of them symbolize the cruelty of the total war (e.g. Hiroshima), a tragic fate of the people (Radogoszcz in Poland, Oradour in France), struggle for freedom (Pawiak in Warsaw). Other monuments proclaim the idea of reconciliation (Coventry) and expiation (synagogues in the FRG). Initially it was planned to recostruct some of the destroyed structures, but then it was decided to preserve them as ruins — monuments. About two-thirds of such ruins originate from valuable historic monuments. A variety of interesting solutions has been applied to compose ruins — monuments, ranging from an exact preservation of the rescued parts of the building to their inclusion into large architectonic compositions. Examples of such solutions in some of the countries inflicted with the tragedy of the 2nd World War (England, FRG, Poland, France, Japan) have been discussed in this article.

4

Odbudowa włoskich zespołów staromiejskich po zniszczeniach II wojny światowej

100%

Gąsiorowski E.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1987

|

issue 4

243-253

EN

During the 2nd World War Italian towns suffered big losses. Soon after the end of the war their reconstruction was taken up. The reconstruction was completed in 5 years (although even today one can find in Genoa ruins that were either put in order or left untouched). To reconstruct Italian old town complexes various solutions were adopted ranging from a renewal of individual buildings and filling up the missing elements in street runs, a new arrangment of the area adjoining structures of monumental architecture, reconstruction of large parts of the town to the plans covering the entire old town. In the light of today's theory of monuments conservation, the quality of realized undertakings is not uniform. This is the result of the lack of a general concept and clear criterions of the evaluation of a historic value of the old town and of the fact that the problem was presented to local constructional authorities which had not always been prepared and competent enough to solve them. Still, it must be admitted that in cases that were considered to be of exceptional importance, Instituto Nazionale di Urbanistica set a contest on a countrywide scale (e.g. for Florence, Livorno, Naples, Palermo). There are also examples of direct initiatives and decisions of central conservation authorities (e.g. Palestina). Unfortunately, one has to say that official monuments protection has excluded itself from co-deciding on the form of old towns covered by reconstruction and therefore it bears partial responsibility for what has happened. In practice, Sopraindenze di Monumenti was exclusively engaged with the restoration of chosen monuments, for which they gave univocal guidelines — here, reconstruction was totally accepted as a method of restoration. This negative approach of the services of monuments protection towards town-planning problems found its justification in the statements made by the then leading theoreticians who in fact treated reconstruction of old buildings and view of the town as forgery and irrational scenery and aimed at modern solutions. Because of that old building substance was deprived of not only protection but even its demolition was legally accepted. It can be noted with satisfaction that despite the possibility of freedom and a challenge to a spontaneous expression of modern ideals of the art in the majority of cases the architects used to choose compromising solutions which referred to the character of historic buildings. The essential extremely negative effect upon the reconstruction of the town was exerted by a high speculation with land and buildings, which could be seen in bigger towns. During their implementation correctly designed plans were under such a strong pressure of those factors that they were often left uncontrolled ;(e.g. Florence). In extreme cases the entire historic parts of towns were pulled down and the destruction done often exceeded war damage. After demolition, new buildings were raised, which entirely dominated historic neighbourhood (e.g. Naples, Milan). If one wanted to sum up the reconstruction of Italian historic towns destroyed during the 2nd World War, then one should unfortunately have to define it, despite some interesting solutions, as a wasted chance.

5

List do Redakcji

75%

Gąsiorowski E.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1989

|

issue 3-4

315

Refine search results

5 Ochrona Zabytków

5 Gąsiorowski E.

1 1990

1 1989

3 1987

Problemy ochrony zabytków w Etiopii

Wieża jako problem konserwatorski

Ruina jako miejsce pamięci i pomnik

Odbudowa włoskich zespołów staromiejskich po zniszczeniach II wojny światowej

List do Redakcji