Hrr on them or Biegel's Illustrated Glossary of Terms

The Cycle Closes: History versus Architect
Contribution by Jiří Ploš
Contribution by Richard Biegel

---

In addition to many other misunderstandings, one of the conferences of the Chamber of Architects (in Karlovy Vary) demonstrated this mutual misunderstanding: it was a remarkable experience of parallel monologues from both sides, particularly presented by the architects (and sometimes even those who feel renowned - perhaps because quantity provides a false sense of confidence). However, let’s not deceive ourselves - similar crowd psychoses are undoubtedly also capable of the so-called "preservationists". The result? It was supposed to be the beginning of a dialogue; it was rather a conflict. According to the radicals from both "sides," a general opinion about the character of illusory "camps" was formed.
The first mistake was already the acceptance of such a schematic categorization. The second mistake was that the content gradually disappeared from the loudly and often used terms. As a result, it actually doesn’t matter who wins in this "war," because the conflict has long shifted beyond reality.

The concepts have somehow been distorted. For example:

MONUMENT - is a word that has an almost "mortifying" character. It is something that must be protected, revered, or demolished – but in any case, we maintain a figurative distance from it. Demagogically, a monument is perceived as a dead body that needs to be breathed new life into. This has given rise to a remarkable nonsense: to fundamentally rebuild something means to "revive," whereas merely repairing something (for example, leaving a house as a house and original doors as doors) means creating a skansen. And who else could be this mortifying factor but the
PRESERVATIONIST - whose role is reduced in this perception to someone whose cunning defense needs to be overcome in order to bring revival; in the eyes of this perceived preservationist, the
ARCHITECT has transformed into someone who intends to tarnish the monument (that is, the preservationist's advocacy). The true preservationist must therefore watch over him closely to ensure he does not do anything inappropriate.

All PRESERVATIONIST ARGUMENTS become excuses for the architect to create provocations and problems, while ARCHITECT'S ARGUMENTS or his interpretation of URBANISM are bait meant to lure the preservationist off the path of true faith.
The result is a FIGHT, in which each participant has their assigned role: the architect fighting the terrible hydra is adorned with the halo of a hero, while the preservationist may count on being a martyr as the defender of the holy fortress.
Does anyone really believe this? I would say that only radicals or the blinded from both sides do; yet they scream so loudly that they create the impression of being the spokespersons for a silent majority.
The result is not only a lack of communication but also self-satisfaction from both camps (why should I bother when I can't talk to them anyway) and thus dangerous pride.

How to get out of this vicious circle?

Let’s start with an attempt to correct the concepts. Perhaps by partially bypassing them. Let’s try instead of PRESERVATION CARE to say "The effort to recognize the qualities (artistic, historical, craft, emotional) of a certain building or complex and to name them well." Just this should, in decent society, be safeguarded – especially because only a few architects want to destroy something or overpower it by force.
PRESERVATIONIST could be, in this context, the one who recognizes these qualities, explains them, and helps to preserve or meaningfully transform them.
ARCHITECT is then the creator who enters into a dialogue with the preceding qualities, which he recognizes (also thanks to the preservationist).
Does this sound like rambling or utopia? I think not. The problem lies only in the fact that
this and that is called architecture. However, only the first is architecture; the second is a necessity to cap several thousand square meters of retail space.
The main dispute does not lie between preservationists and architects, but between architecture and its commercial derivation, which harms not only monuments but especially architecture. Because – by the way, but primarily – "monuments" are primarily architecture – they have not only form but also content…
Engaged in petty disputes, we have forgotten to think about urbanism and regulation of the whole. The only one who can make an aesthetic judgment is preservation care – not the chief architect or the building office! Preservation care thus does the (mostly unsuccessfully) dirty work, attracts the lightning of anger, and takes away a bit of the few remaining positive media points. Because: if architecture is "life" (see definition at the beginning), why defend against it?
The consequence? Truly quality architects have lost their most natural ally, which is the protectors of historical architecture (which can be from 1000 or only 30 years old). In a city like Prague, strong and confident (thus meaningful and not petty) preservation care is not only the foundation of protecting historical buildings but also the emergence of their no less quality contemporaries.

Due to the absurd divide between contemporary architecture and preservation, not only quality buildings are not created, but overdimensioned facades prevail. Not only buildings that are somewhat predestined for such large-capacity hotels are being converted,
but also houses that are irreparably destroyed through amalgamation and reconstruction.
Not only sensitive extensions and reconstructions are not being created,
but also absurd demolition reconstructions. Individual buildings are losing their body and soul.

What does this show?

The field that commercial architecture is demagogically winning against the preservationist skansen with new life slogans will not be occupied by quality buildings, but rather by commercial architecture again.
A quality preservationist and a quality architect weaken each other with attacks or simply through lack of communication, and in the current system where there are basically no rules of the game (i.e. regulations or binding rules in protected areas), the only ones benefiting from their conflict are those who basically do not care about it at all.
The declared war between architects and preservationists has the character of sawing off the branch on which both participants sit – except that they ostentatiously sit at opposite ends. Perhaps a project will come to unite them.
It’s just a matter of it not being too late.