Development Phases and Intervention Concepts of the Imperial and Royal Central Commission in Case-Studies from Croatian Lands

Carsko kraljevsko Središnje povjerenstvo bilo je preteča današnjega austrijskog Saveznog zavoda za spomenike (Bundesdenkmalamt) u vrijeme kada su hrvatski krajevi bili dijelom Austro-Ugarske Monarhije. Šezdeset i osam godina djelovanja povjerenstva obilježile su mijene poimanja umjetnosti, teorije i metodologije zaštite kulturne baštine te raslojavanje povijesnih disciplina i formiranje njihovih metodologija. Na pojedinačnim se kulturnim dobrima iz hrvatskih zemalja mogu pratiti mijene konzervatorskih doktrina i metodologije Središnjeg povjerenstva. Ona su stoga vrlo rano bila uključena u europski kult spomenika.The administrative history of the Imperial and Royal Central Commission, the predecessor of the Bundesdenkmalamt active in the period in which Croatia formed a part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, can be divided as follows: the first period from its foundation in 1850 until the statute of 1873; the second period from 1873 until the appointment of Alois Riegl as Commission member in 1903; the third period from 1903 until the 1911 statute; and the fourth period lasting until the dissolution of the Monarchy in 1918. However, the periodization of the theoretical concepts and methods is somewhat different, since administrative changes came as a result of new ideas, theories and methods. Due to inexperience and lack of funds, interventions of the first period (1853–1873) were limited to consolidation, preventive protection and conservation (Split Cathedral, 1854), and rarely included restoration (Ransberg’s project for the Šibenik Cathedral, 1854). In the second period of historicist technicist artistic theory (1873–1903), the intervention-related decisions were made by artists, while interventions were marked by archaeological and aesthetic approach. An eloquent example of the collision of these two approaches is represented by two projects for the matroneum of the Zadar Cathedral. G. Smirich’s project of 1886 took in consideration the in situ findings, while E. Förster’s 1898 project drew on historicist abstract norm of Romanesque architecture. Interventions conducted in the course of the 1890s started to distinguish authentic sections and additions, a tendency evident in the introduction of a red dividing line between original and reconstructed parts of the mosaic in the triumphal arch of the Euphrasian Basilica (1892–1894). The third period (1903–1911) was marked by the intensification of the conservation concept of cultural heritage protection and its eventual prevalence. Interventions conducted in the course of the 1890s started to distinguish authentic sections and additions, a tendency evident in the introduction of a red dividing line between original and reconstructed parts of the mosaic in the triumphal arch of the Euphrasian Basilica (1892–1894). The implementation of the idea of preserving age value as conceived by Alois Riegl caused disagreements with members of the Commission raised in the spirit of stylistic restoration. Two Split’s monuments marked the prevalence of new concepts: the preservation of the old Episcopal Palace and the 1908 restoration of the doors of Andrija Buvina according to the guidelines of Max Dvořák. In the fourth period (1911–1918) priority was given to coalescing the aims of cultural heritage protection and the Germanophone movement of the so-called “homeland protection” (Heimatschutz) directed at protecting the object of cultural heritage, but also its surroundings, environment and scenery. Using his crown prince authority as the protector of the Commission, Archduke Franz Ferdinand participated in the efforts of preventing the construction of a hotel in the city of Rab at the ridge of the peninsula (1911–1912); he also influenced the decision to change the construction site and redesign the tobacco monopoly building in Trogir with the idea of its adjustment to local building traditions and more harmonious blending with the existing environment (1910–1912). Historical conservation-restoration interventions on examples of Croatian cultural heritage testify to their early inclusion in the Central European cult of monuments

Aktualnost stotinu godina starog djela

Recenzija, prikaz knjige "Katekizam zaštite spomenika" Maxa Dvoraka

Prenamjena dvoraca kao pokretač gospodarskog razvoja

Prikaz skupa: Suvremeno korištenje i kreativno upravljanje dvorcima, kurijama i ljetnikovcima - međunarodni znanstveno-stručni skup, Arhitektonski fakultet, Zagreb, 10.11.2005

Dijalozi s baštinom 2013: prepoznavanje vrijednosti

Sažetak treće godišnje konferencije "Dijalozi s baštinom", Rijeka, 17. travnja 2013

Konzervatorsko djelovanje u zaštićenim urbanističkim cjelinama

Prikaz skupa: Dijalozi s baštinom 2017, znanstveno-stručni skup povodom Dana svjetske baštine, Rijeka, Filozofski fakultet, 20. i 21. travnja 2017

A Contribution to the Sudy of Historicist Interventions on the Divona Palace in Dubrovnik 1882-1892

Dubrovačka Divona (Sponza), podignuta između 1516. i 1522. godine prema modelu Paskoja Miličevića, jedan je od kamena međaša domaće povijesti umjetnosti. Rodonačelni je primjer mješovitoga gotičko-renesansnog stila, i važno kulturno dobro u čijoj se interpretaciji razvijao i proces postkolonijalnog nacionaliziranja umjetničke baštine. U radu se iznose arhivski podatci o intervencijama na Divoni između 1888. i 1892. godine, čiji su protagonisti bili namjesnički inžinir Richard Hänisch, okružni inžinir Leonardo Benvenuti, konzervator Središnjega povjerenstva Giuseppe Gelcich te član Središnjega povjerenstva Alois Hauser.The Dubrovnik Palace of Divona (Sponza) was erected between 1516 and 1522, based on the model by Paskoje Miličević. Nikola and Josip Andrijić also took part in the construction. It is the foremost example of the mixed Gothic-Renaissance style, but also a significant cultural good, whose interpretation has epitomized the process of the postcolonial nationalizing of artistic heritage. The paper brings out archival records regarding the interventions on the Divona between 1888 and 1892, whose protagonists were a local deputy inžinir (constructor) Richard Hänisch, a county inžinirLeonardo Benvenuti, a conservator of the Central Commission Giuseppe Gelcich and a member of the Central Commission Alois Hauser. The Divona Palace was in the 19th century a public building, housing among other offices, the government, customs and financial authorities. Owing to this fact, interventions on its architecture were under the author-ity of the Viennese Imperial Royal Central Commission, while the interior was under the Financial Directorate. The county inžinir Leonardo Benvenuti drew up in 1888 and executed from 1890 to 1892 -according to the appraisal of deputy inžinirRichard Hänisch and the member of the Central Commission Alois Hauser, and mediated and monitored by the conservator Giuseppe Gelchich - a restoration project for the loggia, the main and the courtyard façade of the Divona Palace. It is presumed that the stone carving was done by stone carver N. Pasini, as he was among those who had taken a tour of the Divona with R. Hänisch in late September 1886, prior to putting the project together. A valuable record of the historicist intervention is the panel with the inscription “RESTAVRATVM / A•D•MDCCCLXXXX” which testifies to the influence of Camillo Boito’s ideas. The historicist interventions on the façades mostly entailed the use of stone fillers to replace or fill in the original stone elements, the replication of architectural decoration after an analogy to the elements of the building itself and/or a replacement with new ones. However, the photographs of the Divona following the historicist intervention reveal that the window tracery on the eastern side of the loggia terrace has been carved completely anew. The brand new elements on the main façade were the pine cones of the single-arch windows tracery, executed after Alois Hauser’s appraisal from 6th September 1891. Ljubo Karaman later used these as a starting point for dating the first floor to the middle of the 15th century. This detail about the Dubrovnik Divona points out the importance of appreciating the history of conservation, when engaging in a stylistic interpretation of a building. It is indicative that no records of the adaptation of the Divona interior have been preserved in the Central Commission’s archives. The records regarding the responsibility for such an intervention should therefore, in case they are preserved, be traced down to the District Office’s archives, the Construction Department of the Dalmatian Commission or the Financial Directorate in Zadar, under whose administration was the Dubrovnik financial authority

Riječka zbirka crteža Pietra Nobilea kao vrijedan izvor istraživanja

Recenzija, prikaz knjige "Istra iz putnih mapa Pietra Nobilea" Marijana Bradanovića

Novo internacionaliziranje dalmatinske baštine

Prikaz knjige Discovering Dalmatia. Dalmatia in Travelogues, Images and Photograph

The Alois Riegl report concerning Diocletian ’s Palace of 1903

U članku se donosi prijevod i komentar Izvješća Aloisa Riegla o Dioklecijanovoj palači u Splitu iz 1903. godine. Riegl kao konzervator bečkoga Središnjeg povjerenstva daje svoje viđenje problema vezanih uz očuvanje objekata unutar Palače. U stajalištima izloženim u Izvješću i zastupanim na zasjedanju Povjerenstva Dioklecijanove palače 1904. u Splitu težište je stavio na očuvanje zgrade biskupije, nasuprot htijenjima Bulića, Niemanna i predstavnika lokalne zajednice. U Izvješću je, pišući o zgradi stare splitske biskupije, primijenio teorijski sustav raznolikih vrijednosti kulturne baštine, izložen u djelu Moderni kult spomenika, objavljenom 1903. godine.The paper contains a translation of and commentary on the text of Alois Riegl Report on an analysis carried out at the order of the presidency of the K. und. K. central commission for the sake of preserving the interests of the medieval and modern monuments within the one-time Diocletian’s Place in Split, placing it in the context of the time it was written. Riegl was the chief conservator of the 2nd division of the central commission for the study and maintenance of artistic and historical monuments; he gave his opinion of the problems related to the preservation of the structures within the palace of Diocletian. He came to Split to examine the results of the first session of the Diocletian’s Palace Commission of 1903. The basic problem was concerned with the issue of either keeping or removing several structures in the centre of the complex that interfered with the view onto the well preserved ancient buildings (Mausoleum, Temple of Jupiter and the propugnaculum of the Western Gate). The focus of Riegl’s viewpoints laid out in the report and then presented at the session of the commission from October 17 to October 19, 1904, in Split was oriented towards the preservation of the diocesan building, as against the wishes of Bulić, Georg Niemann, Wilhelm Kubitschek and representatives of the local community. In his report, Riegl employed the value system of the cultural heritage developed in the work Modern Cult of Monuments, published in that same year, 1903. At the session of the palace commission in 1904 about the question of the preservation of the diocesan building there was a clash between adherents of archaeological and of ancient values, that is, a confrontation of visions professions, generations, value systems and views of the principle of monumental conservation. Adherents of the archaeological viewpoint (F. Bulić, G. Niemann, W. Kubitschek, the local community and provisinally O. Benndorf) thought that the palace was so important that it would justify depopulating the area around the palace and demolishing later buildings. This would allow the creation of an archaeological area and systematic research. In a milder version of the first option (Benndorf, 1903) a study of individual buildings and remains of the Palace was offered during the demolition of buildings or their rebuilding, in this case, the demolition of the diocesan building. Adherents of the milder, conservatorial conception (Riegl above all and partially Benndorf too) offered the idea of the coexistence of Roman period, medieval and modern buildings, with respect for their historical and artistic, ancient and ambiental values. Aware that absolute conservation was impossible, Riegl was ready for a compromise; in the case of the diocesan building (Bishop’s Palace), he allowed the possibility of removing the smaller southwestern wing. Weighing of the arguments and making the decision concerning the future of the Bishop’s Palace building were left to the Ministry of Religion and Teaching. Forced to choose between the two options, the state chosen the second, based on the preservation of the status quo with the necessary smaller interventions to individual buildings. In the office of chief conservator of the second division of the central commission, Riegl put forward a new understanding of the value of the heritage, and personally urged the expansion of the idea of altruistic motivation for the protection of monuments, through a clear conservatorial viewpoint that he promoted within the Viennese school of art history and the Austrian conservation community. In contrast to the discriminating attitude of the classicists and the stylistic restoration of the 19th century by archaeologists and architects-restorers, at the beginning of the 20th century the view adopted by Riegl, as art historian and champion of the conservation approach, was one of a pluralism of values within the palace complex. From this point of view the report was supposed to help to change attitudes to the study and preservation of the remnants of the palace, that is, to its comprehension as a stratified historical assemblage

Cultural Promotion of Dalmatia; The 1909 Proposals by Conservators Max Dvorák and Joseph W. Kubitschek

Glavni konzervatori C. kr. Središnjega povjerenstva za proučavanje i održavanje umjetničkih i povijesnih spomenika Joseph Wilhelm Kubitschek i Max Dvorák predložili su u ožujku 1909. mjere za kulturno podizanje Dalmacije u sklopu tada neaktivne Vladine akcije za gospodarsko podizanje Dalmacije. Direktni poticaj za kasnije, većinom ostvarene prijedloge, bili su novinski članci nastali nakon boravka Hermanna Bahra u Dalmaciji u veljači 1909.In March 1909, the main conservators of the K. u K. Central Committee for the Research and Maintenance of Artistic and Historical Monuments, Joseph Wilhelm Kubitschek and Max Dvorák made proposals for cultural development of Dalmatia as part of the then inactive Government’s Campaign for Economic Boost of Dalmatia. A direct impulse came from newspaper articles written after Hermann Bahr’s stay in Dalmatia in February 1909