ART RESEARCH SPECIAL ISSUE vol.1 ’s “Theory of Ruin Value” 35 (Kobe University) [email protected] Keiko Ishida Keiko E-mail: E-mail: s architecture should be erected with the with the erected be should architecture s his memoirs, published in 1969, Speer Speer 1969, in published his memoirs, In On Speer’s Theory of Ruin Value of Ruin Theory On Speer’s

Third ’ Third value aesthetic their retain they that consideration were the His ideal years. of thousands after even which still monument, Greek ruins of and Roman of number A times. their of glory of the us remind is theory Speer’s that out pointed have aestheticians not original, that suggesting his theory inherited the the from ruins for ancient imagination romantic picturesque or influential capriccio aesthetic is true It 18th-century Europe. ofmainly movements of the traditional a successor was Speer that I However, one. peculiar a of albeit ruin, aesthetics believe that considerablethere exist differences ruin by the inspired imagination Speer’s between I paper, this In century. 18th ofthe that and theory of Speer’s to aim out point the uniqueness of time. perceptions on his focusing by imagination 1. to occurred value ruin of his theory how described ic of the 18th century. In this text, I aim aim I text, this In century. 18th the of ic pieces y 1981) was specifically built according to the theory theory the to according built was specifically –1981) Triumph of ). Speer argued that the that the Speer argued ). 1981), the representative representative the 1981), – called “cathedral of light “cathedral called fig. 1), is presumably best-known best-known presumably is 1), fig. ). He argued that the monuments of the Third Reich should be erected erected be should Reich Third the of monuments the that He argued ). Ruinenwerttheorie . of Light Cathedral (Bundesarchiv). The architecture of Albert Speer (1905 Albert of The architecture )” ( 1 Ruinenwerttheorie by Leni Riefenstahl. However, a lesser- a However, Riefenstahl. by Leni Albert Albert (1905 Speer f Roman and Greek monuments. A number of researchers have suggested that Speer’s theory theory Speer’s that suggested have researchers of number A monuments. Greek and Roman f century painters and architects for “ruins.” and architects painters century Figure Lichtdom

of architecture for the glorification of the Nazi of Party. the Nazi glorification for the of architecture Among his Nazi Party Ground works, Rally the in so- the Nuremberg, film propagandistic the famous through the Will workswere that these monumental known fact is ruin of “theory his to according specifically built ( value” ( architect of the Third Reich, designed man Third Reich, of the architect abstract abstract Albert Speer’s “Theory of Ruin Value” of Ruin Value” Speer’s “Theory Albert of ruin value ( value of ruin the like much years, of thousands after even value aesthetic their keep they that consideration the with o ruins are there that is however, view, My ruins. for ancient imagination romantic century’s 18th the inherited the aesthet theory and Speer’s between differences considerable of taste imaginative the with it comparing by theory Speer’s of uniqueness and lineage the out point to 18th-

Albert Speer’s “Theory of Ruin Value” – 8) 6) ed

9) work.” 1808). 4) 1837), the English English the 1837), –

5) to future generations becauseto generations future — the tradition that remains for us in for remains that tradition —the insisted insisted that finally works such “are y on ruins is an imitation or descendant descendant or on ruins an is imitation y 1797), the English author of Gothic Romance, Romance, Gothic of author English 1797), the 7) exist as ruins because of the human human of the because as ruins exist for destruction. enthusiasm He [the architect] chooses the stone, which which stone, chooses the He [the architect] and to form, possibilities all him offer can down pass to material only the which is tradition by our buildings made the stone predecessors constancy. of its Moreover, a speech of Hitler’s in 1938 1938 Hitler’s in of speech a Moreover, A number of researchers unhesitatingly accept accept unhesitatingly researchers of number A I agree that Speer could not have develop not have could Speer that I agree – In his statement that the ruins of Egyptian In that and his of the ruins Egyptian statement of the evidence the certain are architecture Roman recognize certainly we can nations, of the grandeur value, of ruin theory the as in content the same almost sentences. these in used is not term the even though Hitler Speer had that and the supposition supports that at value ruin of the theory already embraced architecture” great truly “the that said Hitler time. of years to thousands up can that stand it can “claim can be it the years those trials, during and of critical the created who people the of pride Tanigawa also suggests that Speer’s theory of ruin ruin of theory Speer’s that suggests also Tanigawa Soane of John by the imagination was inspired value – (1733 Robert Hubert painter and French Moreover, heMoreover, of of thousands terms in assessed and judged years.” Speer’s statement about his theory of ruin value and and value of ruin his theory about Speer’s statement that concur they above, observed I As it. discuss theor Speer’s century. or 19th 18th of the ruins of aesthetics of the For example, Kitschen Horace Walpole mentions (1717 (1774 Friedrich David Kasper painter the German 1797), and John (1753 Soane of as precursors Speer. neoclassicism, of architect his theory without those preceding ones. ones. preceding those without theory his 937

they should should they 1) 2) statics,” about the “law of ruins,” of ruins,” “law the about However, her supposition is is her However, supposition 3) clearly recognizable. In Hitler’s Hitler’s In recognizable. clearly to rust. “This dreary sight” led him to him led sight” dreary to rust. “This While few iron bridges or halls are expected halls or bridges iron few While thousands- years, forty than more to survive still buildings Roman and Egyptian year-old past to the witnesses powerful as stand there buildings of Those great nations. often the entourage this drawing was regarded as regarded was drawing this entourage of a conceive That I could even blasphemous. Reich founded newly the for of decline period years seemed a last thousand to destined closest Hitler’s of many to outrageous ideas my accepted himself he But followers. orders He gave illuminating. and as logical his of building important the future in the that the with keeping in be erected to were Reich of ruins.” “law of this principle To illustrate my ideas, I had a romantic romantic I a had ideas, my illustrate To the what It showed prepared. drawing would Field on the Zeppelin stand reviewing neglect, of generations after look like the fallen, columns its ivy, with overgrown and here crumbling walls the but there, still outline remind us of his ruin theory. He observed: He observed: his ruin theory. of us remind not convincing, because Speer’s words in 1 words Speer’s because notconvincing,

the idea that “by using special materials and by and materials special using “by that the idea of principles certain applying him: as he passed by a building under reconstruction, reconstruction, under building he a as by passed him: after he the remained which iron debris, saw that the beenhad building blown hadup with dynamite, already begun

build structures that would resemble Roman ruins Roman ruins that would resemble build structures of He wrote: or years. hundreds thousands even after suggesting that it was in his memoirs that Speer first Speer that memoirs his in was it that suggesting theory. this developed Unfortunately, this by Unfortunately, sketch drawn has Speer not the even doubts therefore Schönberger survived. ofepisode this credibility

ART RESEARCH SPECIAL ISSUE vol.1 Albert Speer s Theory of Ruin Value” “ ’ 36 ART RESEARCH SPECIAL ISSUE vol.1 Albert Speer’s “Theory of Ruin Value” 37 - ig. th Gandy - 19 and th -eye view of view -eye the 1999, p. 231). p. 1999, 3), 3), a bird’s ig. 11) eye view of Bank England, by view drawn of eye Middleton ( – An imaginary view of the Rotunda of Bank of of the of Rotunda An imaginary view Bank 1999, p. 222). p. 1999, Bird’s

4. Robert and Soane both imagined that the the that both imagined Soane and Robert igure 3. Middleton Figure England ruins in F ( century England. century contemporary architecture they built would decay would built they architecture contemporary In future. far the in ruins become and collapse and position, he executed several dozen views of the ofthe views dozen several he executed position, in of the Louvre work that Louvre, including (f picture ruins.The by designed was of watercolor, Bank England in Joseph assistant his by drawn and Soane John of in Bank 1830. drawing, the Gandy In Michael this imaginary ruin in as an the England is illustrated Soane as Robert’s. manner same the in future of renovation to the years forty-five nearly devoted was ruin a of drawing this and England, of the Bank 1798, By labor. lengthy of his honor in produced to illustrate Gandy ordered had already Soane (f of England Bank of the ruin romantic another was which ruins, for imagination and taste certain a of Picturesque, theory by the influenced certainly 18 in especially aesthetic, dominant 4). These pictures clearly show that Soane had a had Soane that show clearly pictures 4). These (1796) (1796) ” 1765) and 1765) and – Imaginary View View of Imaginary “ Capriccio is an is an Capriccio 10) 1778). – (Dubin 2012, p. 153). p. 2012, (Dubin Imaginary View of the Grande Galerie of of the Grande the Imaginary Galerie View 2. 2. Title the ruins of the Louvre gallery in the future; in the future; gallery Louvre of the the ruins The Ruin in the Future” by Hubert RobertHubert Future”by the in Ruin The 2) is one such capriccio, in which he imagined he imagined which in capriccio, such one 2) is capriccio, such such (1691 as Pannini capriccio, Figure Figure inLouvre Ruins the Grande Galerie of the Louvre in Ruins in Louvre of the Galerie the Grande completely roof, almost gallery’s through the ground, on the seen; be can sky blue the destroyed, among are scattered, pillars of stone the fragments Apollo of statue the drawing is man young a which on Robert the At that was time, Belvedere. serving new the designing of charge in that was committee this In du Louvre. the Palais at museum national architectural fantasy in which buildings, fantasy in buildings, which architectural other architectural ruins, and archaeological fictional in are placed together elements work His famous combinations. (fig.

Piranesi (1720 Piranesi Nevertheless, I believe that more careful research research careful more that I believe Nevertheless, judgment. this for required are analysis deeper and of on two artists focus especially will I Therefore, and John Robert Hubert centuries, 19th and 18th the ruin” “future the same imagined both they for Soane, as Speer’s. 2. John Soane and des Ruines,” “Robert as known Robert, Hubert After over for years. ten in Rome painting studied paintings many painted he 1765, in Paris to returning painters Italian of influence the great under of ruins of

ert’s, ert’s, ig. It 2). ig. (f regarding regarding 14) produced by by produced is Galerie ofGalerie the Louvre 6). One depicts the great fire of fire great the depicts One 6). 5, Project for Grande the Project At first glance, the ruin picture by Soane and Soane by At glance, picture the ruin first igure 7. “appreciated less as remnants of a disappearing disappearing of a remnants as less “appreciated Dubin p. 152). 2012, F ( redevelopment of Paris. In 1781, Robert created a created 1781, InRobert of Paris. redevelopment (fig. works of pair and the in 1781, Royal Palais the of House the Opera This fire. the after remaining skeleton the other special Robert’s to reflect seems work paired and uncertainty is, that its time, of sensibility we the be whenclearer at will look That transition. the with work 7), paired 1796 (fig. in painted picture Ruins in Louvre the presented, previously in the Louvre of the Gallery completed the depicts probably was of time sense Robert’s future. near the during Paris of atmosphere the in cultivated of age an in Revolution, Great the of decades can ruins future His change. constant and upheaval be of one,” world proof than a precarious as Gandy seems to have nothing to do with do such to nothing have to seems Gandy discipline regularity and neoclassicism, feelings. In on andput focus the regarded are highly generally and eternity. stability to related being beauty However, I that of the future ruin think the Bank of as Rob of time sense the similar has England the contingency and the unpredictability of the future future of the unpredictability and the contingency the age. in his It transition. and uncertainty that is, the fragmentariness of Soane’s architecture. of Soane’s architecture. the fragmentariness in his rather lie and originality his talent Actually, be to seems which space, inner complicated e h a t Royal s (Dubin, 2012: 2012: (Dubin, Interior ofInterior the Opera to be the same same the to be

e. However, we However, e.

ed of theof Palai The sight of ancient of ancient The sight igure 6.

F House Day theafter Fire Day 63). 13) Soane’s ruins: uncertainty, uncertainty, ruins: Soane’s . The art historian Alois Riegl pointed pointed Riegl Alois historian art The . 12) Royal, Viewed from afrom Viewed Royal, - in the the in Louvre in Robert’s Robert’s in feelings such recognize We can Perhaps we can say that every representation representation every that say can we Perhaps the Palais Dubin 2012, p. 62). 2012, Dubin Figure 5. Figure Fire theat Opera House of Crossing ( strong interest in his contemporary ruins. As for a As for a ruins. in his contemporary strong interest of demolition took the often he his painting, of motif or of the disasters of result a as buildings instability, and the anticipation of some catastrophes catastrophes of some and the anticipation instability, of the conscious be to seemed They future. in the future. uncertain and unpredictable melancholic feeling because they remind us of the of us the remind they because feeling melancholic undeniable and the efforts of human ephemerality impress ruins However, decay. to are all we that fact and of time flow eternal of the feeling opposite us the time. by such produced the authority of has ruins or more less of double this temporality. outstanding overlook not the should we However, and in Robert feeling ruins like Roman and Greek monuments convey monuments Greek and Roman like ruins out that cultural heritage possesses a certain age age certain a possesses heritage cultural that out as ruins considered and (Alterswert) value monuments.” “unintentional

as Speer’s in his theory of ruin valu of ruin theory his as in Speer’s the from investigation precise more a conduct should of the inherent in perspective temporality ruins. As temporality; have ruins ambiguous have many noted, of transiency a sense us give ruins one hand, on the and permanence time, same butthe at and instability, continuity this respect, their imagination seem imagination their respect, this

ART RESEARCH SPECIAL ISSUE vol.1 Albert Speer s Theory of Ruin Value” “ ’ 38 ART RESEARCH SPECIAL ISSUE vol.1 Albert Speer’s “Theory of Ruin Value” 39 Ficacci 2000, p. 167). p. 2000, Ficacci ( (Ficacci (Ficacci 2000, p. 354). Interior of Lincoln’s Inn Fields Lincoln’s of Inn Interior

1. Title 11),us reminds of the obsessive 1 Imaginary Prisons Imaginary ig.

Antichita Romane II Romane Antichita

igure 11. Middleton 1999, p. 154). 1999,Middleton p. F ( Figure 10. Title 2. Title 1 These works by Soane demonstrate that he he that demonstrate by These works Soane igure 10. 12). F Figure igure 12. F Figure the rooms (f the rooms works in Piranesi’s artifacts of ancient accumulation (fig. which fashion the Baroque, of the descendant was a work. in Piranesi’s apparent quite remained by to the according interpretation Furthermore, he that againrecognize we could Benjamin, Walter the analyzed Benjamin artist. Baroque of kind a is of allegory usage its described and Baroque tragedy relics of the accumulation of ruin, the kind as some 8) and 8) and ig. 1837 (fig. 9). 9). (fig. 1837 – 10). The house in in house The 10). ig. 15) Interior of of Bank England Interior 1999, p. 157). p. 1999, 1999, p. 217). p. 1999, Interior of Lincoln’s Inn Fields ofInterior Lincoln’s

We will comprehend that when we glimpse at we glimpse when that We will comprehend igure 8. Middleton Middleton Figure 9. ( F (

influenced Piranesi. by influenced

the inner space of the Bank of England (f of England Bank of the space the inner Inn in London Lincoln’s at residence private Soane’s 1796 years the during Soane by built a had of England Bank the that shows picture This and arches by several formed space multilayered vaults. As for ofof space, number a his formation of an the influence out pointed have researchers (f by Piranesi prison imaginary The Piranesian. more looks Fields Inn Lincoln’s inner space of the to house is, the Bank of similarly and the rooms several with layered England, large the Moreover, millers. of some use effective of fragments of the composed his collection, ofsize in accumulated sculptures and architecture ancient ig. 1682) (f Chancellery ption of time in Speer’s ruins is ruins in Speer’s of time ption Capriccio with ruins of the Roman Forum Roman of with the ruins Capriccio

1981, p. p. 79). 1981, Façade of the Reich

3. Title 1 igure 14. Therefore, the future ruins by Speer must have have by future Speer ruins Therefore, the must be might it matters, these considered Having F (Wikimedia Commons).(Wikimedia igure 13. Schönberger F Figure (

14). The originality of Lorrain lies in his skillful skillful his in lies of Lorrain originality The 14). ancient in which the composition, of the handling would look like a kind of memorial (fig. 13). He tried tried (fig. He 13). memorial of kind a like look would of the symbol eternal the his architecture to make Reich. of the glory the in honor eternal their of anticipation an been Infuture. thatin fact, his I memoir quoted in the first dreary sightof contrasted the artificial Speer chapter, with bombs of the destruction from resulting ruins neglect. of generations after ivy with overgrown ruins a have imagined must he us that tells This episode naturally and decayed gradually ruin that of type in the placed period, being long a over changed that Therefore,suppose we can time. of flow eternal the from different quite is ruins on view his Robert in future unstable of view the melancholic pictures. ruin and Soane’s said perce that the the classical ruins of to in the that rather similar (1600– Lorrain’s Claude as such paintings indicate that his —indicate the ruin value Speer’s in I think that the future ruins by Soane Soane by ruins future the that think I 16) thousand-years-lasting Reich and intended intended and Reich thousand-years-lasting a Actually, all the monumental Actually, of architecture all the monumental As I mentioned above, ruins can possess an an possess can ruins above, I As mentioned Speer’s ruins in the future in ruins Speer’s the Third Reich was planned to be durable and and durable be to planned was Reich Third the stone that fact the in seen be can That permanent. in terms material important most the as was regarded they above. Moreover, as I mentioned durability, of a future as order to serve in be massive should the features All pyramid. an like Egyptian memorial, and simple, enormous, its architecture— of Speer’s vertical by the stressed structure ordered regularly smooth and windows; with small walls large lines; ornaments with surface minimum building the so that distorted was neoclassicism to build an enormous edifice as its historical historical its as edifice enormous an to build evidence. and Gandy can be understood well from this view of of view this from well understood be can Gandy and Soane, by bank the of ruin The allegory. Benjamin’s labyrinth, a like composition inner its exposes which allegory Baroque of the melancholy the with filled is usour of mortality. reminds which by Benjamin, contrast by the deeply more impressed is feeling This in building of the view contemporary the between front of building the decayed in and the future the back. 3. thatand of time, is, transiency sense ambivalent the that indicates above analysis The continuity. and by Robert future in the ruins of representations In by transiency. Soane rathercontrast, were inspired that be presumed can it work lies in the sense of continuity and eternity, eternity, and ofin work lies the continuity sense of a vision had Hitler, the as well Speer, as because eternal,

and debris, decayed symbols that once had some had once that symbols decayed debris, and this related then Benjamin meanings. clear that of time, a moment to of allegory fragmentation of and our transiency is, the fragility, contingency, or age. life

ART RESEARCH SPECIAL ISSUE vol.1 Albert Speer s Theory of Ruin Value” “ ’ 40 ART RESEARCH SPECIAL ISSUE vol.1 Albert Speer’s “Theory of Ruin Value” 41

ism. The “ideologue “ideologue The ism. 18) Reich Chancellery ” . ) 1981, p. p. 72). 1981, The bombarded Reich Chancellery Inner courtInner of the 1976, 27 Bildteil We now ofknow his buildings. the future 5. Title 1 igure 16. Schönberger igure 15. Petsch F ( F ( They were completely destroyed by the air raids at at raids air by the destroyed completely were They ruins became 16) II (fig. and War of World the end ruin. his eternal imagined Speer after decade a only mainly on transiency and the sense of distance of sense the and on transiency mainly and past the the between discontinuity and on based mainly is latter the present, the Furthermore, and continuity. timelessness that indicates above of theory Speer’s analysis of mixture the in lay of insanity the irrational and rationalism of dreamed earnestly Reich” Third the of of basis on the building eternal an erecting archeological and modern materialism this support also words Speer’s consciousness. “On one hand, I aam perspective: romanticist, I other, on for and the an enthusiast am both. am I technique. Figure Levinas tells tells Levinas  Emmanuel as The above discussion has led me to the the to led me has discussion above The Yet we should not overlook the difference difference the overlook not should Yet we . In fact, the space of his building is so tranquil tranquil so is building his of space the fact, In . 17) that it makes us feel as if time has stopped (fig. 15). stopped has if time us as feel makes that it

between Speer and Lorrain. Above all, it should be be should it Above all, Lorrain. and Speer between is of the direction time contrary. out pointed that with His past. view back is filled to Lorrain the looks us all for impossible for Arcadia, the lost nostalgia rupture a exists there that means This reclaim. to In the past. utopian the and time his present between to linked is time present the however, Speer, of case in for the his he tried future time consciousness, to in future a completely of the far the time manage Speer’s previously, As mentioned way. materialistic techniques. and material regarded highly theory ruin and materials” “special using that He thought should statics,” of principles “certain applying of years. thousands over to last building enable the be to was thought the future materialism, In that other In controllable. and calculable something future the to attempted make Hitler he and words, we identical with their own could Therefore, time. is ruin future Speer’s of the temporality that say in itself time for exact its meaning, in timelessness or happenings consists of a heterogeneous of series non- is which for something concern a and events to ourselves, identical ruins merge into the landscape, and his delicate delicate his and into the landscape, merge ruins often which is air, and light to perceive sensibility In his utopian Impressionism. compared to flow can peaceful eternal feel we and landscape, the of the age glorious the to us invites which of time, ancient Empire.

following conclusion. The considerable considerable The conclusion. following difference lies between the perception of time of that and ruins future 18th-century in the based former is while the Speer’s imagination; us , 1, , . . -SA3.0 1942 – BY 46. . New. Haven: Bd. I-1, Los Angeles: , Adelbert Reif Alois Riegls . Technik und 37. , London: , London: – Der Vierjahresplan , Ernst , Ernst Bacher . . Bd. 1, Wiesbaden: R. London:Royal . John Soane Architect: . 1945 I, I, London: J. Mawman, 107. – cher Ideologie und Architektur Hitlers Reden und 97– Vol. Die Neue Reichskanzlei von “Die Staatbauten des Richardson, Margaret and f einer Gesetzlichen Organisation . tis ” Technik und Macht 137. 137. “Soane’s Spaces and the Matter of GesammelteSchriften. – Baukunst und StadtplanungDritten im Speer: Hitler’s Architect Essays on the Picturesque,as compared Futures & Ruins:Futures Eighteenth-Century & Inside the Third Reich “Stein statt Eisen.” “Entwur Albert Speer:Architecture 1932 , 1973. 1973. , , München: Carl Hanser, 1976. n. wit , Luigi (ed.). Piranesi: The Complete Etchings Albert Speer, Lö Köln: Taschen, 2000. Yale University, 2015. New York: The Monacelli2013. Press, Fragmentation. MaryAnne Stevens (ed.) Master of Space and Light Academy of Arts, 1999, pp. 26 1810. 135 S. 1937, (Hrsg.), Frankfurt: Ullstein, 1981, S. Getty Research Institute, 2012. Proklamationen 1932 Reich with the Sublime and the Beautiful and on the Use of Studying for the Purpose Pictures, of Improving Real Landscape Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1991. Paris and the Art of Hubert Robert der Denkmalpflegeder in Österreich,” Schriften zur Denkmalpflege (Hrsg.), Wien: Böhlau, S. 1995. Albert Speer: Zum Zusammenhang von nationalsozialis : Gebr. Mann,1981. Tausendjährigen als vorprogrammierte Ruine?:Albert Speers Ruinenwerttheorie,” Zu Idea:Jahrbuch Hamburger der Kunsthalle Prestel, 1982, pp. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1970. Ficacci Kitchen, Martin. Krier, Léo Middleton, Robin. Riegl, Alois. Speer, Albert/ Reif, Adelbert (Hrsg.). Domarus, Max (Hrsg.). Petsch, Joachim, Price, Uvedale. Works Cited Works Benjamin, Walter. Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-1982-1130-502/CC- Dubin, Nina L. Schönberger, Angela. Schönberger, Angela. Albert.Speer, Albert.Speer, , : - ” I . ō 28. und und Los Der ky Max . gaku 60. Bd. , Fata . New. ō . – Prestel, . . Tō . London:. . London: London: . 37. 35. John Soane Soane John – – - .), Toshi no Kaib , Bd.1, Wiesbaden,, Bd.1, 156. 159. - “DieStaatbauten des Hitlers Reden und lois Riegls Schriften zur Le temps et l’autre “Soane’s Spaces and the 1945 A – Gesammelte Schriften . Futures Ruins:& Eighteenth- , “Stein statt Eisen.” Reichesvorprogrammierte als Speer: Hitler’s Architect “Entwurf einer Gesetzlichen , Vol. I, London: J. Mawman, 1810. “Rede zur Eröffnung der ersten 1, 1937, S. 135. S. 1937, 1, , , Wien: Böhlau, 1995, S. 58 , 98. . – ō, 2011, pp. 135 pp. 2011, ō, Speer, Riegl, 779. ation der Denkmalpflegein Österreich s Robin Middleton, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1991, S. 341ff. , 1982, S.106. 1982, Denkmalpflege See Emannuel Levinas, Morgana, 1979. See Walter Benjamin, Alois Ernst Bacher (Hrsg.) See Dubin 2012, 2. p. See 1 For Ozawa example, argues this double temporality of ruins.Kyoko See Ozawa, Organi Matter of Fragmentation,”Margaret Richardson and MaryAnne Stevens (eds Vierjahresplan Haven: Yale University, 2015, pp. 34 See Nina L. Dubin, Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2012, p. 18, On the of theory picturesque, the see Uvedale Price, Essays on the Picturesque,as compared with the Sublime and the Beautiful and on the Use of Studying Pictures, for the Purpose of Improving Real Landscape Arina Shob Ibid., S. Kitchen,Martin Atsushi Tanigawa. Haikyo no Bigaku century Paris andthe Art of Hubert Robert Tausendjährigen Albert Ibid., S. 137. Adorf Hitler Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1970, p. 97. Ibid., pp. 97 AngelaSchönberger, Ruinen?: Zu Speers Ruinenwerttheorie,”Albert Idea:Jahrbuch der Hamburger Kunsthalle Shūeisha-Shinsho, 2003, p. Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich Architect: MasterArchitect: of Spaceand Light Royal Academy of Arts, 1999,pp.26 1973, S. 778 S. 1973, Deutschen Architektur Domarus (Hrsg.) Kunsthandwerksausstellung Haus in München im derDeutschen Kunst 22. Januaram 1938.” Proklamationen 1932 Notes

ART RESEARCH SPECIAL ISSUE vol.1 Albert Speer s Theory of Ruin Value” “ ’ 42 ART RESEARCH SPECIAL ISSUE vol.1 Albert Speer’s “Theory of Ruin Value” 43 . Tokyo:.

Haikyo no Bigaku . . Frankfurt: Ullstein, 1981. Shūeisha-Shinsho, 2003. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Claude_ Lorrain_- _Capriccio_with_ruins_of_the_Roman_Forum_- _Google_Art_Project.jpg Macht Wikimedia Commons Tanigawa, Atsushi.