Power to the People? an Inquiry Into the Multiplicity of Societal Values of Post-’65, Structuralistic Architecture
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
POWER TO THE PEOPLE? AN INQUIRY INTO THE MULTIPLICITY OF SOCIETAL VALUES OF POST-’65, STRUCTURALISTIC ARCHITECTURE 1 Bram de Jong Graduate School of Humanities, Master Heritage and Memory Studies 2016-2018. Petra Brouwer Hanneke Ronnes Cover: Fragment of ‘Year 1905’ by Stanislaw Notariusz, 1930, Wikimedia Commons. “Evenmin kan men iemand, die door aanleg en persoonlijkheid daarvoor niet gevoelig is, dwingen een middeleeuwse kerk, een oud stadje, mooi te vinden. Maar zoals velen, wanneer ze er toe gebracht worden hun drempelvrees te overwinnen, in het zien van beeldende kunst of het beluisteren van een concert een onvermoede verrijking van hun leven vinden, zo zullen er eveneens velen zijn – ik geloof nog steeds in de meerderheid – die, een- en andermaal attent gemaakt op de hen omringende historische schoonheid, hierin nieuwe persoonlijke genieting ontdekken. ‘How strange that is! I never thought of that before’. Wat sluimert kan gewekt worden, en wie onbewust, ontvankelijk is, heeft recht op een wekker.” – J.A.C. Tillema. Schetsen uit de geschiedenis van de monumentenzorg in Nederland, 1975, 617. 2 CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................................................................. 4 Preservation practice .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Post-1965 Architecture ....................................................................................................................................... 4 The expert view ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 Theoretical framework ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Historical and philosophical framework .............................................................................................................. 8 Schroeder and value theory ............................................................................................................................ 9 Aloïs Riegl, age-, historical-, and use-value .................................................................................................... 10 Randall Mason ............................................................................................................................................... 11 Case studies .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Agora De Meerpaal in Dronten .......................................................................................................................... 16 Liminal Agora De Meerpaal ........................................................................................................................... 16 The flow of the debate .................................................................................................................................. 17 Concluding ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 Multifunctional centre ‘t Karregat in Eindhoven .............................................................................................. 25 Liminal ’t Karregat ......................................................................................................................................... 25 The flow of the debate .................................................................................................................................. 26 Concluding ..................................................................................................................................................... 30 Music Centre Vredenburg ................................................................................................................................. 32 Liminal Vredenburg ....................................................................................................................................... 32 The flow of the debate .................................................................................................................................. 33 Concluding ..................................................................................................................................................... 41 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................. 43 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................................... 47 Literature........................................................................................................................................................... 47 Primary sources ................................................................................................................................................. 48 Meerpaal ....................................................................................................................................................... 48 ‘t Karregat ..................................................................................................................................................... 49 Vredenburg ................................................................................................................................................... 49 3 INTRODUCTION common in the Netherlands since the beginning of the 20th century. During an internship at heritage organisation Heemschut I was asked to write a policy advice on Monument care in the Netherlands was organised how to treat Dutch architecture from after 1965. nationally for the first time in 1899 with the This set of architecture did not yet appeal to their foundation of the Nederlandse Oudheidkundige members in general, or at least it appealed less to Bond (Dutch Archaeological Association – later it 2 them than older structures. To me the policy would receive the predicate Koninklijk (‘Royal’). advice was not satisfying on an academic level as I The association focused on better legislature for managed to locate the problematic of the monuments as well as the preservation of them appreciation of post-’65 architecture, but not why through better restoration. Next to the built this was so. It became the reason to start this environment, nature in the Netherlands would research, as an inquiry into societal values of post- receive a lobby group as well in 1905, called the ’65 architecture. Consequently the question of Vereniging tot het Behoud van Natuurmonumenten ‘how does society evaluate these structures’ (‘Association for the Preservation of Natural appeared. It became clear that there are many Monuments’) that initially bought areas with reasons and ways for people to do this which valuable nature. During the beginning of the 19th brought up the main inquiry of this research: ‘How century additional organizations were founded can value claims within public debate on post- that challenged the decay of the valuable natural Reconstruction architecture be implemented as a and cultural environment such as Heemschut societal component in value assessments?’ (1911), that took on a role as heritage platform, and Vereniging Hendrick de Keijser (Association PRESERVATION PRACTICE Hendrick de Keyser, 1918) that had a more hands- on approach when it came to built heritage. The past we preserve for ourselves and future generations when we fabricate heritage.1 To forge The differing approaches towards safeguarding the history so that it strengthens a dominant narrative, past, of these monument organisations, signal that or so that it influences memory, is a common each considers different values. For the KNOB practice. Crucial to fabricating a dominant past is restoration is an aim and thus the question of how to monumentalise objects since they can be used far restoration can go in terms of originality. for this purpose. The practice of ‘monumentalising’ Heemschut tries to act as a platform for other is an important tool for the heritageisation of the organisations and stresses education as well as past. With monumentalising I mean ‘the act of campaigning for heritage; they focus more on the making a building or a complex a monument’. A political side of heritage. Hendrick de Keyser saw building that has become a monument is the financial opportunity of maintaining older safeguarded from harm and thus preserved for the architecture (and as of recent newer as well). future (given it is taken care of by the owner and These organisations and their members are in monitored well enough). Furthermore it has gained essence driven by the following questions: why are a judicial status due to a high ranking on the basis these building valuable and how does this value of cultural, historical, architectural and contextual come into being? values. Its ‘monumentality’ – the quality of being a monument – that was already set in stone has now POST-1965 ARCHITECTURE been recorded