sng_2016-05-12_high-single-crop_k3

Recommendations

Info

not as an MP but as “the former dean of the Academy of Performing Arts [sic!, Academy of Fine Arts and Design, AFAD in Bratislava]”: “... The first discussion, which was held in the SNG, showed that the gallery management supported the preservation of the current state, based on the fictitious idea that a reconstruction will cost less and a new building will cost more. Some of the present designers, art historians and architects also declared that in their opinion the building should be preserved. The arguments used to support this opinion were, however, very vague. Statements such as those saying that a new gallery would ‘surely’ be more expensive, that the disassembly of the existing construction will be an insuperably problem, that it is ‘iconoclastic’ having no place in the beginning of the 21 st century, that the only reason for the removal of the existing object is the fact that it is a symbol of socialism, that it is actually good architecture, an example of an ‘alternative modern style’ or that it is already almost a cultural monument, are unconvincing and unacceptable for me. (...) I personally would prefer to disassemble the existing bridging. I am sure that the persons in charge must find the courage for such solutions. I have myself protected many pieces of modern architecture from demolition or inappropriate interventions. But it has always been in the case of good architecture. In this case I am convinced that this is bad architecture. The Slovak National Gallery building should be, as such, a piece of art. Take some examples – Guggenheim in New York, MOMA [sic!, MOCA] in Los Angeles, Sainsbury Wing in London, Hirshorn [Hirshhorn] in Washington, examples of new galleries and museums in Bonne, Frankfurt, Stockholm, Helsinki etc. There is no doubt Slovakia and Bratislava have the architectural potential to be able to cope with this problem with dignity, to enrich Bratislava and represent Slovakia, its architecture and culture.” 44 The opinion of another discussion participant with executive political power, this time in municipal politics, the Old City Mayor Andrej Ďurkovský was similarly consistent: 110
“Bratislava, unfortunately, has inherited several buildings from the period of socialistic planning that are subject to justified criticism from the point of view of their effect on city urban planning as well as from the point of view of their particular architectural expression. Some of them are even very technical works (e.g. Nový most bridge) but their negative effect on the organism of the city is indisputable. / However, I have no right to be a judge of the past. Moreover, architecture is not an exact discipline; it is much closer to art and provokes aesthetic feelings that can vary and differ among individuals. / It is one of the reasons why I will limit my comments on the controversial extension of the Slovak National Gallery to an observation that is currently most important for me as a municipal politician: the extension building is non-functional. We would all incur very <strong>high</strong> expenses if we tried to reconstruct it so that it could fully serve its purpose. I definitely support the possibility of tearing down and replacing it with something that the majority of the Bratislava and Slovak public can identify with. In the meantime, the Ministry of Culture should address the problem of where to put the artworks that have been to date been housed in the extension building.” 45 The head of the Department of Monuments Protection at the Monuments Board in Bratislava architect Viera Dvořáková stated the viewpoint of the Board: “In the 1970s the extension solved the urgent lack of space in the Slovak National Gallery. Its appropriateness or inappropriateness in relation to its value as a cultural monument should have been assessed during the period of its design and preparation. / Because from the point of view of general cultural heritage protection, the status quo, i.e. the bridging, is a part of it regardless of the era, the ideology with which the building is connected. We would like to point out that tearing down the building will require an answer to the question: what happens next? Given the negative past experiences it is necessary to consider things thoroughly and BEFOREHAND. We do not think that there 44 Ibidem. 45 Ibidem. 111
Page 1 and 2:
CARE (SORGE ) FOR ARCHITECTURE mari
Page 3:
15. Mostra Internazionale di Archit
Page 7 and 8:
01. Statement p. 6 marián zervan 0
Page 9 and 10:
Architecture must never lose its pr
Page 11 and 12:
The SNG building/area has long been
Page 14 and 15:
02. ON THE SLOVAK NATIONAL GALLERY
Page 16 and 17:
investor : Povereníctvo pre škols
Page 18 and 19:
Building(s) and spatial relationshi
Page 20 and 21:
the arcaded palace with a “cour d
Page 22 and 23:
give the quarter a new scale and ex
Page 24 and 25:
founded earlier. Therefore construc
Page 26 and 27:
in 1968) in 1966-1967 with the gall
Page 28 and 29:
with its central square, to a field
Page 30 and 31:
thing that had been outlived in the
Page 32 and 33:
The commission discussed these expe
Page 34 and 35:
In late 1969, i.e. after Czechoslov
Page 36 and 37:
The ceiling is of waved metal plate
Page 38 and 39:
The architect’s second alternativ
Page 40 and 41:
unbuilt stages III and IV. The (fut
Page 42 and 43:
“Doch gerade durch diese brachial
Page 44 and 45:
associated project of reconstructio
Page 46 and 47:
[1] [2]
Page 48 and 49:
[4] [5] [4-5] Vladimír Dedeček, S
Page 50 and 51:
[9] [10] [9-16] Vladimír Dedeček,
Page 52 and 53:
[18] [19] [18-23] Vladimír Dedeče
Page 54 and 55:
[26] [27] [26-29] Built edifices of
Page 56 and 57:
03a. TEXTUAL INTERPRETATION OF COMP
Page 58 and 59:
The Slovak National Gallery area si
Page 60 and 61:
was that either to allow for or to
Page 62 and 63: The administrative building’s ter
Page 64 and 65: Indeed the amphitheatre clusters ev
Page 66 and 67: locked it in places (the Water Barr
Page 68 and 69: 03b. ARCHITECTURAL INTERPRETATION O
Page 70 and 71: [d—02] Built SNG edifices {red} i
Page 72 and 73: [d—04] Paths of movement {red lin
Page 74 and 75: [d—06] Clusters of SNG “agoras
Page 76 and 77: [d—08] SNG interior “amphitheat
Page 78 and 79: C A B [d—10] Two introductory pro
Page 80 and 81: [d—12] Superimposition of 1 st an
Page 82 and 83: [d—14] Relationships of module fi
Page 84 and 85: [d—16] 1 st subterranean level wi
Page 86 and 87: [d—18] 2 nd level of administrati
Page 88 and 89: [d—20] 4 th level with paths of m
Page 90 and 91: [d—22] 6 th level with paths of m
Page 92 and 93: [d—24] Facade rasters {according
Page 94 and 95: [d—26] Built edifices of SNG area
Page 96 and 97: 04. CHRONOLOGY monika mitášová,
Page 98 and 99: 1961 the director of the SNG Dr. Ka
Page 100 and 101: 1969 a new initial project for the
Page 102 and 103: pressing. The architectural works t
Page 104 and 105: for Cultural and Educational Buildi
Page 106 and 107: 1987 journal Výtvarný život publ
Page 108 and 109: south Danube wing (closed due to it
Page 110 and 111: and demolished this square. (...) I
Page 114 and 115: [is] a need to build any more so ca
Page 116 and 117: in Bratislava was announced. The ju
Page 118 and 119: down and changed the character of c
Page 120 and 121: totalitarian style haunting Europea
Page 122 and 123: Illah van Oijen prepared the first
Page 124 and 125: Arts Council to appreciate the valu
Page 126 and 127: Selected works of Vladimír Dedeče
Page 128 and 129: on 14 th March, the Týždeň magaz
Page 130 and 131: 05. PROJECT DESCRIPTION marián zer
Page 132 and 133: This project The Care for Architect
Page 134 and 135: The entrance wall in-between contai
Page 137 and 138: Metal exhibition model variants in
Page 139: Metal exhibition model (1:17,78) of
Page 143: 140 | 141
Page 146: This publication was made possible
show all

sng_2016-05-12_high-single-crop_k3

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?