romantic modernism Is it possible for conservationists to approve of the recon- struction of old façades when virtually everything behind them is modern? Should they continue to protect the front façade, when the rest of the historic building has vanished? Is it socially responsible to spend government money on reconstructing a historic building that has been completely destroyed? Can one do such a thing fifty years on? According to reigning ideas in the world of conservation, the answer to all these questions is ‘no’. It is felt that build- Romantic ing a stage set is dishonest, and rebuilding something that no longer exists is labelled a lie against history. Where does this predilection for honesty originate? And why do people prefer modern architecture to the reconstruction of what Modernism has been lost? Perhaps we are witnessing the legacy of Func- tionalism here, a movement that denounced the building of pseudo-architecture. Functionalism originated in Romanti- cism, when architects turned their backs on academic for- Nostalgia in the World malism and strove to invent a new, rational form of building. This romantic hunger for honesty was adopted by the con- wim denslagen of Conservation servationists, giving rise to a new respect for the authentic art work and a rejection of historicist restorations. Among conservationists too, distaste arose for the cultivation of a wim denslagen harmonious urban image, because an urban image that is maintained artificially ‘old’ was seen as a form of fraud. Wim Denslagen (1946) is architectural historian and pro- fessor in the history and theory of conservation at Utrecht University. Actually he is also working for the ministry of Culture in the Netherlands on the history of landscape per- ceptions. He published among others Architectural Resto- ration in Western Europe: Controversy and Continuity (1994), Architectural Imitations (in 2005 with Niels Gutschow) and Memories of Architecture. Architectural Heritage and Historio- graphy in the Distant Past (2009). 9 789089 641038 www.aup.nl Amsterdam University Press Amsterdam University Press Romantic Modernism Romantic Modernism Nostalgia in the World of Conservation Wim Denslagen Translated by Donald Gardner Amsterdam University Press The book has been written under the authority of the Department of Cultural Heritage in the Netherlands (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed). The translation has been made possible with a grant from the Prins Bernhard Cultuurfonds. Cover design: Geert de Koning, Ten Post Lay out: ProGrafici, Goes isbn 978 90 8964 103 8 e-isbn 978 90 4850 870 9 nur 648 / 955 © W. Denslagen / Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2009 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book. Contents Introduction 7 Sentimentality and the City 9 The Rectangular Sickness 43 Romantic Modernists 75 Self-seeking Romantics 107 Bad-mannered Buildings 121 The Revival Styles and Time Regained 155 Nostalgia and Imitation 167 Notes 223 Bibliography 231 Index 255 5 Introduction Starting a collection of vintage cars, antique furniture, historical monu- ments or old towns may be a sentimental or nostalgic activity, but such activities are very widespread and one presumes that they do not do very much harm. The phenomenon is generally tolerated, as long as it is con- ducted in closed institutions, such as museums. In the public domain, how- ever, there is much less acceptance of the phenomenon. Generally speak- ing, it requires much more effort to preserve a historical town intact than it does to conserve a period room in a museum. This is understandable to an extent, because historical cities sometimes have to be altered to make way for modern amenities, for example by laying tram tracks, building a car park or a new hotel. It would of course have been much better to spare the few surviving historical city centres and to install the modern facilities required as far away as possible in the suburbs, because one can build as one wants there, unimpeded by historical monuments. In general, however, this is not what has occurred. From the beginning of the twentieth century, historical cities have been expected to keep pace with modern times. Busi- nesses, banks and department stores preferred to keep their premises in the older quarters, and residential areas are mainly found on the outskirts of cities. Only when it became inevitable, when there was no longer room to expand, did businesses depart from the inner city with a heavy heart, leav- ing many scars in the urban tissue in its wake. To mention one recent ex- ample, between 2000 and 2002, Amsterdam lost 6,000 jobs due to business enterprises leaving the city. According to one Dutch newspaper, ‘A good third of those leaving stated as their most compelling reason the limited possibilities for expansion.’1 In retrospect, one can mourn the fact that our historic cities have not been better preserved, but it is simply not possible to prevent every change from taking place. Even if all the residents of a city and all the businesses, not to mention the local government, might want it, it is virtually impos- sible to maintain a historical city as an open air museum; something some- times has to give, and then all one can do is to resign oneself to the inevita- ble. This is true not only of the city centre, but also of historic interiors. A house full of period rooms is a wonderful thing to own of course, but there are not that many home-owners, male or female, who would renounce the 7 conveniences one enjoys in a modern kitchen. In order not to clash with the rest of such a house, modern kitchens are furnished with old-fashioned cupboard doors in profiled oak, so that the modern equipment is kept out of sight as much as possible. Something similar also occurs in many old cities, with historical façades proving to be little more than stage sets mask- ing modern office interiors. This is not entirely honest, and the question is whether city governments and their conservation departments should be involved with these sorts of half-truths. Should a governmental body be allowed to provide grants to restore old façades when virtually everything behind them is modern, with the exception perhaps of a few old beams, a rickety wooden staircase and, if you are lucky, a ceiling in the entrance hall with stucco ornamentation from around 1870? In the world of conserva- tionists, doubts are growing about the value of preserving historical façades as pieces of scenery. Does a historical cityscape based on an architectural charade have any value? Most architects and conservationists are inclined to think not. Where does this trend towards honesty and openness to the idea of in- tegrating new architecture in historical surroundings come from? Perhaps it is a legacy of functionalism, in architecture, because the rules of func- tionalism held it to be morally reprehensible to erect any fake architecture.2 It may be that functionalism, as part of the Modern Movement, had its origins in Romanticism, when architects turned their backs on academic formalism and strove to devise a new, rational form of building. Nine- teenth-century rationalism may well have laid the foundations for a dislike of architecture that mainly aims to please the eye. And it is probably the case that functionalism has left its mark on the world of conservation. The Romantic aim of achieving sincerity in art is translated by conservationists into a renewed respect for the authentic work of art and a revulsion against historicizing restorations. Conservation thus became an ally of functional- ism, with its dislike of false display. Hence a certain dislike emerged in the world of conservationists of the cultivation of a harmonious cityscape, because such an image is artificial, and thus false. A conservationist policy that aims for the restoration of a harmonious cityscape, then, is ignoring the course of history and that, too, is reprehensible, because it means that reality is sacrificed to a myth. Is this thesis correct, however? 8 romantic modernism Sentimentality and the City Museumification In an article of 1992 about the history of conservation in Holland, Kees van der Ploeg expressed his concern about the sentimentalizing of the city – his term for historicizing trappings of old cities. Historical inner cities, he ar- gued, were being ‘museumified’ by the conservationists, and he did not see this development as positive. The image of the historical city, he wrote, is in danger of becoming ‘a sugary-sweet backdrop’ that ‘bears hardly any real relation to normal urban activities’. He concluded that ‘no answer has yet been found, including by the conservationists’, for this problem.1 Conservationists have failed in this regard, and something will need to be done about this unsatisfactory situation. To come up with an answer, however, one must first understand what is actually involved in the prob- lem. Kees van der Ploeg and many others like him are exasperated by the fact that historical city centres look increasingly like open air museums; they are reduced to tourist attractions. This development is considered deplorable, because the artificially historicized image of the city does not relate at all to modern life. Previously, the historical cityscape would be regarded as an authentic and living heritage from the past, but nowadays the historical city seems to be artificially put on ice. Conservation, the crit- ics say, has taken a wrong turn by supporting this process of freezing the historical and, to an extent, historicized, urban scene.