U K Á Z K a K N I H Y Z I N T E R N E T O V É

U k á z k a k n i h y z i n t e r n e t o v é h o k n i h k u p e c t v í w w w . k o s m a s . c z , U I D : K O S 2 2 3 5 3 1 Ukázka knihy z internetového knihkupectví www.kosmas.cz ADMIRED AS WELL AS OVERLOOKED BEAUTY Contributions to Architecture of Historicism, Art Nouveau, Early Modernism and Traditionalism

Jan Galeta – Zuzana Ragulová (eds.)

Barrister & Principal Masarykova univerzita Brno 2015

U k á z k a k n i h y z i n t e r n e t o v é h o k n i h k u p e c t v í w w w . k o s m a s . c z , U I D : K O S 2 2 3 5 3 1 Ve věci autorských práv ilustrací je každý autor odpovědný za publikované ilustrace. Obecně se ale tato publikace řídí ust. § 31 zákona č. 121/2000 Sb. (autorský zákon), kde je v odst. 1, písm. c) výslovně řečeno: „Do práva autorského nezasahuje ten, kdo užije dílo při vyučování pro ilustrační účel nebo při vědeckém výzkumu, jejichž účelem není dosažení přímého nebo nepřímého hospodářského nebo obchodního prospěchu, a nepřesáhne rozsah odpovídající sledovanému účelu; vždy je však nutno uvést, je-li to možné, jméno autora, nejde-li o dílo anonymní, nebo jméno osoby, pod jejímž jménem se dílo uvádí na veřejnost, a dále název díla a pramen.“

In the matter of copyright, every author is responsible for the illustrations published. In general, this book follows § 31 of the law no. 121/2000 Coll. (Copyright Act), where in paragraph 1 c explicitly stated: “Copyright shall not be infringed by whoever uses a published work in a lecture exclusively for scientific, teaching or other instructive or educational purposes; the name of the author, unless the work is an anonymous work, or the name of the person under whose name the work is being introduced in public must, however, always be indicated; the title of the work and source must also be indicated.”

© 2015 Jan Galeta and Zuzana Ragulová (eds.) © 2015 Eva Belláková, Aurelia Bladowska, Sixtus Bolom-Kotari, Jan Galeta, Maša Hrustek-Sobočan, Jan Ivanega, Ivan Klas, Jiří Kroupa, Věra Laštovičková, Franci Lazarini, Veronika Lukešová, Anna Perz, Zuzana Ragulová, Daniel Resch, Ruth Sacks, Gaspár Salamon, Dániel Veress, Sanja Zadro, Lilla Zámbó © 2015 Barrister & Principal © 2015 Masarykova univerzita

ISBN: 978-80-7485-118-6

U k á z k a k n i h y z i n t e r n e t o v é h o k n i h k u p e c t v í w w w . k o s m a s . c z , U I D : K O S 2 2 3 5 3 1 Introduction

Introduction

The PhD candidate’s conference held by the Department of Art History Masaryk University on 3rd and 4th of October 2014 in the Museum of Applied Arts in Brno was focused on the architecture of Historicism, Art Noveau, Early Modernism and Traditionalism, in the period between 1850 and 1920, but mostly focused on the turn of the century. Maybe a slightly poetic title – Admired As well as overlooked beauty – tries to express that architectonic production of this period suffered from disrespect and is only slowly beginning to be admired again. Participants of the Conference were from the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hun- gary, Poland, Austria, Slovenia and Croatia. The gathering of researchers interested in the architecture of the second half of the 19th and beginning of 20th Century from the territory of the former Austria-Hungary and German Empire was very inspir- ing. An obvious, but not always considered fact emerged clearly – in the examined period this area (we may call it “Central Europe”) shared very similar culture, not divided by boundaries that arose after WWI and Austria-Hungary of course existed also as political whole. So, in the sphere of architecture it is not possible to limit ourselves by today’s borders, but it is necessary to think in a broader (and so period) context. This approach is difficult and requires to be familiarised with foreign bibliography and foreign conditions which is not easy, but on the other hand it may bring new points of view hidden to the local researchers. It is admirable that despite all difficulties the papers were made in this way. It was interesting how the contributions were unwittingly connected to each other and how researchers from different countries explored very similar topics and were interested in similar questions. Let us mention some of them, such as the still attractive question of so called national styles and how nationalism, nationality and political commission affected architecture. Also the question of proper style for different functions and the requirements and character of different building types were broadly discussed. Other shared topics were e.g. the relationship between Early Modernism and Historicism, approaches to city planning in the times of defortifica- tion, the phenomenon of the villa as a part of the industrial complex, attitude to the monuments of Historicism and Art Noveau in the 20th Century, or the research of the periphery – of the towns and townlets which are (contrary to capitals and cities) only rarely explored by historians of architecture, albeit its architecture forms an irreplaceable piece of the global mosaic of architectonical heritage.

U k á z k a k n i h y z i n t e r n e t o v é h o k n i h k u p e c t v í w w w . k o s m a s . c z , U I D : K O S 2 2 3 5 3 1 Like the conference, this book is also opened by a contribution from Professor Jiří Kroupa from the Art History Department of Masaryk University who introduces the architecture of the hosting city of Brno in the discussed period. And as well as the conference itself also these proceedings are divided into some sections, but in a slightly different way. The chapter called Personalities contains four papers united by strong figures, such as the preservationist and architect in the service of the noble House of Schwarzenberg in the contribution of Jan Ivanega, such as the architect Hermann Muthesius and his search for a proper form of modern house explored by Daniel Resch, such as architects Jan Kotěra and Eliel Saarinen compared by Veronika Lukešová, or the members of the entrepreneurial Sochor family and architect of their villas Josef Gočár who are in the focus of Zuzana Ragulová’s contribution. The second chapter is called Institutions and Building Types and the buildings for cultural institutions in Slovenia are discussed by Franci Lazarini, Anna Perz focused on public buildings erected in areas of former fortification in the city of Gdańsk, Dániel Veress concentrated on four Exhibition Halls in the centres of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Jan Galeta discussed the phenomenom of so called National Houses and how these buildings were treated in the 20th century. The next chapter introduces some admirable Sites and their building traditions. Ivan Klas describes the traditional rural architecture in the Zahorie region and Eva Belláková concentrates on the development of the industrial site in Valaská- -Piesok, both in Slovakia. Aurelia Bladowska explores the intense growth of the Gdańsk suburb Wrzeszcz and in a similar way Sanja Zadro explores the building development of Mostar, including question of the fascinating Moorish Revival style. Finally Maša Hrustek Sobočan explains the building activities in smaller town of Čakovec in northern Croatia. The last chapter with a mixture of themes is called Influences and is opened by the paper of Gáspár Salamon who aims at the concept of architectural education in Vienna and Budapest. Věra Laštovičková goes through theoretical writings from the 18th and early 19th century that have also influenced architectural theory in later times. Ruth Sacks clarifies the link between Belgian colonialism and Art Noveau, Lilla Zámbó explains how Art Noveau buildings in Prague and Budapest became monuments and Sixtus Bolom-Kotari thinks about protestant architecture.

Last but not least great thanks belong to Ondřej Jakubec, Rostislav Švácha, Jiří Slavík and many others, including all participants, who supported the conference or this proceeding.

Jan Galeta and Zuzana Ragulová

U k á z k a k n i h y z i n t e r n e t o v é h o k n i h k u p e c t v í w w w . k o s m a s . c z , U I D : K O S 2 2 3 5 3 1 Jiří Kroupa Personalities, institutions and styles: Brno circa 1900 Personalities, institutions and styles: Brno circa 1900

Jiří Kroupa

In the wider European context the period of architectural production around 1900 has been marked as a significant milestone in the history of architecture but at the same time it was a period of various architectural cultures which appeared side by side. Václav Richter, a founder of architectural history at Masaryk University, commented on this situation in 1966: “.... 20th century reached modern architecture by a leap in a historical “moment”. So far, the history of art has not been able to determine the chronology of this situation. [...] There is no such thing as old art without the new one (and new art without the old one)”.1 Nevertheless, to a wide range of critics it seemed like the end of non-creative, historicist architecture and as a slow beginning of new and modern future architecture. As is often the case, such a linear perspective of the development was quite simplified. It can be avoided by following building production chronology and theoretical statements of the protagonists from Richter’s point of view within a certain period of time around 1900 in different geographical areas. Since this meeting of young art historians takes place in Brno, I will naturally take the architecture of Brno in that period as an example. The subtitle of the meeting provides thematic specification: Personalities – Institutions – Sites – Influences. Therefore, I would like to try to briefly characterise the main personalities, institutions and styles in Brno at that time.

In 1896 Brno adopted a variant of redevelopment law, according to which, with a few exceptions, there should be an almost complete reconstruction of the urban interior. Redevelopment took place at the turn of the new century, practi- cally up until 1916. Today, we can hardly imagine those twenty years: an old town with its narrow streets which was being completely rebuilt. Old low buildings were torn down even though they were of great value and the Central Commission for Monument Preservation in Vienna called for their conservation but with no success. During those twenty years the city had changed not only its urban layout, but mainly the look of its buildings. However, while in the preceding period the archi-

U k á z k a k n i h y z i n t e r n e t o v é h o k n i h k u p e c t v í w w w . k o s m a s . c z , U I D : K O S 2 2 3 5 3 1 1 Germano Wanderley, House of Valentin Gerstbauer Foundation (1899–1902)

tects of Brno had been mainly from Vienna, and one of them, Heinrich von Ferstel even became an honorary citizen of the city, now the city had its own architectural institutions, builders and style direction. In Brno, there were two institutions for architectural education which played an important role: Deutsche Staats-Gewer- beschule (German State Technical School) and Deutsche Technische Hochschule (German Technical University). Both were founded almost at the same time – in 1873, and their history is full of significant students: Adolf Loos, Josef Hoffmann and Leopold Bauer started to study at the Technical School and prominent repre- sentatives of Brno’s modern architecture of Jewish origin graduated at the Techni- cal University. Moreover, Sigfried Giedion, a famous theorist of modern architecture, spent at least one year there.

Ukázka knihy z internetového knihkupectví www.kosmas.cz 2 Max Matzenauer, House of Eduard Till (1906)

No wonder there was a certain competitiveness between the two institutions. Nevertheless, they were right from the beginning embedded in the architectural theory of Gottfried Semper; Adolf Loos, for example, relied on him most of his life. In addition, one of the first professors at the Technical University, Johann Georg Schön (1838–1914), initiated the foundation of Museum of Applied Arts in Brno and became the first director (and also the author of a new museum building project). Another professor – August Prokop (1838–1915) – was renowned not only as an architect, but also as one of the first significant art historians in Moravia. When there was a need for new designers for the new construction of Brno, members of the younger generation were already at both institutions. It was at that moment when two architectural concepts were in certain dispute. The concept of Technical School was promoted by the professor and architect Germano Wan- derley (1845–1904). When he ran for the City Committee, he gave a speech about “city beautification”. In his opinion, Brno’s building construction was ata low level and uninteresting historicist architecture was being built without distinctive character. He pleaded for the decorative monumental style of late historicism, which would individualize and characterize the personality of the house owner and client. A good example of his idea was the construction of the house of Valentin Gerst- bauer Foundation on Velké náměstí (today náměstí Svobody) [1]. Wanderley on

U k á z k a k n i h y z i n t e r n e t o v é h o k n i h k u p e c t v í w w w . k o s m a s . c z , U I D : K O S 2 2 3 5 3 1 3 Max Matzenauer, House of Jana Pelikánová (1905) that occasion noted “... the foundation house will exist longer than common apartment buildings, which often change their owners [...] For centuries the facade of the foundation house should show the clients feeling for art and therefore must meet higher demands. [...] Therefore, the designer mainly tried to project the facade in a monumental style, without denying that it is still a tenement house”.2 A good idea of the representativeness direction in Brno can be found in the projects of Max Matzenauer (1875–1940). Each one of his houses is different in character: once there is almost neo-baroque facade (the house of Eduard Till, 1906) [2], and next there is a modernist one (the house of Jana Pelikánová, 1905) [3]. But mostly he projected playful and decorative art nouveau facades (the house “with

U k á z k a k n i h y z i n t e r n e t o v é h o k n i h k u p e c t v í w w w . k o s m a s . c z , U I D : K O S 2 2 3 5 3 1 the architect’s signature” at Dvořákova Street 12, 1906). [4] In measuring the quality of this and similar individualistic decorations it can be soon realized that this type of architecture is primarily a pictorial one – the architecture of facades with distinctive symbols.

II.

However, a professor and double rector of the German Technical University Fer- dinand Hrach (1862–1946) had different creative ambitions. He was also a follower of late historicism and he did not have a good reputation among the later generation of Czech modern architects and architectural historians in the ’20s and ’30s

4 Max Matzenauer, House at Dvořákova Street 12 (1906)

U k á z k a k n i h y z i n t e r n e t o v é h o k n i h k u p e c t v í w w w . k o s m a s . c z , U I D : K O S 2 2 3 5 3 1 5 Ferdinand Hrach, Second Building of the Moravian Diet (1907–1917) of the 20th Century. His design and subsequent execution of the second building of the Moravian Diet on today’s Žerotínovo náměstí with old Germanic symbols of gods, kings and queens from the years 1904–1907 was considered to be deterrent of the pompous form of late historicism in the environment of the young Czecho- slovak Republic. [5] But how is it possible that a decade later the architectural school in Brno founded by Ferdinand Hrach raised a remarkable group of Jewish and German architects who were involved (with differing intensity) in the modern implementation of the new architecture? At a time when Ferdinand Hrach designed a new building for the German Technical University (in 1908), he gave a speech Moderne Kunstbewegung und ihre Ziele (Modern Art Movement and its Goals). Apparently it was designed as a program decla- ration and therefore he tried to show his personal attitude to diverse style in the architectural work at the beginning of the new century. He did not demonstrate any examples; he avoided naming his colleagues – architects. However, he spoke so clearly that it is possible to reckon who those people and buildings were. Let’s look briefly at his argument. According to Hrach’s opinion, the time of the late 19th Century and early 20th Century was a period of radical transformation of the political, social and cultural base. Hence art and architecture largely reflected contemporary situation, it is not difficult to understand that even in the architectural engineering it is possible to find a similar desire for a similar transformation. Hrach says that in the previous century it was believed that an artwork should be mainly stylistically accurate,

U k á z k a k n i h y z i n t e r n e t o v é h o k n i h k u p e c t v í w w w . k o s m a s . c z , U I D : K O S 2 2 3 5 3 1 6 Ferdinand Hrach, German Technical University (1906–1910)

meaning that it should be classified within one of the known historical styles. Thus there were created aesthetic templates of historical styles, according to which the buildings were designed and implemented. However, this template art (Schablonen- baukunst), had been rejected by the younger generation for almost twenty years in his time. Ferdinand Hrach does not speak about his current work, but from his earlier work it is quite obvious that he himself was a part of the “template art”. At that time he was looking around and realized that the new contemporary architecture promoted a desire for usefulness, clarity and truthfulness. In the descrip- tion of this basic principle Hrach proceeded from knowledge of the theoretical opinions of Gottfried Semper, since Hrach, just like Semper himself, emphasizes architectural efficiency, which is beautiful itself, then he stresses the right choice of building materials and appropriate processing. The aim of the architect’s project must be mainly veracity and purposeful of the material:

U k á z k a k n i h y z i n t e r n e t o v é h o k n i h k u p e c t v í w w w . k o s m a s . c z , U I D : K O S 2 2 3 5 3 1 “Artistic truth in architecture consists of the truth in the determination of the works (the truth lies in the uncovered emphasizing of the purpose through the necessary), as well as the truth that is in harmony between inside and outside, between spatial layout, construction and form, and, finally, material truth, which is reflected in the choice of adequate building materials, their processing corresponding with their features and construction.”3

All of these principles are important, but they cannot completely fulfil the essence of an architectural work of art. In order not to appear as dull and austere, the work of art must be necessarily equipped by a certain aesthetic accessory. Nev- ertheless, Ferdinand Hrach immediately rejected the creation of new decorative systems as he sees in his local art nouveau decorative environment and adds that “this artistic supplement does not have to be solely ornamental or decorative, but rather it should be found in certain aesthetic factors which determine the overall appearance – such as, for example, mass building, silhouette, symmetry, and proportion. These elements of forms together with artistic supple- ments [...] create the style”.4

III.

Hrach’s evolving of Semper architectural theory was not uncommon at that time. At the same time, but from a different point of view, Adolf Loos occupied himself with a similar issue in his pro-Semper articles about the principle of clothing. Hrach, however, did not follow the path of the architects who used the original decorative elements of Art Nouveau, and he certainly did not follow the entirely different radical Loos’s purist approach. According to Hrach, the new generation refuses to study old art works. But that is a mistake because if we want new and original, we need to learn the ways and means that creates a current concept of artistic creation. In the printed version of his speech Hrach added a footnote in which he said that at the Vienna Academy the department of medieval architecture was closed down. Nevertheless, according to him, the medieval architecture was not only a decorative style, but its study was important for the knowledge of remarkable construction principles and its clear expression in architecture. Only those designers, who had seen the past just as a stylish decor and at first had worked under historical neo-styles, now switched, according to Hrach, to tasteless and ridiculous ornamental facades of apartment buildings (here it is possible to find an apparent reference to the designers of the Wagner School): “... art of a certain period is not created by one-sided implementation of external forms, [...] the aim cannot be a new style, but new art, which is the product of a complex combination of factors”.5 At this point Ferdinand Hrach puts quite an obvious theoretical program of a certain “middle course” in architectural studies before his students: his aim is not clinging to the late historicism (in the historical style or in art-nouveau way), not clearly formulated step towards a new purism and further to “New Objectivity”. The goal for him is cohesion of new, modern building culture with certain formal

Ukázka knihy z internetového knihkupectví www.kosmas.cz details derived from practical knowledge of historical architecture. Theoretically, his goal was not “purification of the truth core”, as was stressed by Otto Wagner and his school, but rather modernization of Semper’s “historicist functionalism”. It seems that the realization of the new building of the German Technical Uni- versity by Hrach and his inaugural speech can be seen as two sides of the same coin. Ferdinand Hrach obviously took advantage of such a remarkable opportu- nity. His theoretical attitude towards contemporary architectural flows could have been easily shown in his realized building. [6] Although there are a large number of various symbolic elements on the building, which should certainly emphasize the technical-scientific and national importance of higher education institutions, it is not possible to put a label of a historicist construction as an expression of artistic traditionalism. Within a few years it was apparent that Hrach had been gradually heading towards lowering the significance of decorative forms in his later career. Immediately after the building’s completion the German Technical University started to consider the construction of another complex of school buildings. This plan was approved in 1916 and the new construction project was assigned. Ferdi- nand Hrach reportedly submitted the project in the same year; however, after the foundation of Czechoslovakia the already approved project was financially sus- pended and later entirely dismissed. Ferdinand Hrach then published his projects, but not sooner than in 1924, on one of the plans there is the date 1921. Hrach’s project was unexecuted and remained only in the architectural drawing. This failure might be the possible reason which led Hrach to stop his own design activity and why he became more focused on monument preservation and especially on pedagogical work at architecture school. But whether we consider the older or younger published date of the project there is quite obvious decline from decorative traditionalism which was of a considerable importance at the German Technical Univer- sity in the ’20s of the 20th Century. There were further developed similar systems of mass structured, non-decorative design of the facades. After all, with a similar structuring through the plasticity of the architectural elements is visible in Brno in the interwar period.

IV.

That is how we can briefly introduce the situation in Brno around 1900 –as a specific structure of various architectural tendencies. The new generation of Czech architects, admiring modern architecture in France, in the Netherlands and in the New Frankfurt of Ernst May was refusing this tradition after the estab- lishment of independent Czechoslovakia. According to them, there was a totally new era of architectural design. However, from our time perspective, it does not appear that there was such a fundamental difference between the final stage of late historicism in Brno and the beginning of a new architecture. Architecture in Brno, in particular that from the ’20s is relatively close to the theoretical expression

U k á z k a k n i h y z i n t e r n e t o v é h o k n i h k u p e c t v í w w w . k o s m a s . c z , U I D : K O S 2 2 3 5 3 1