sng_2016-05-12_high-single-crop_k3

Recommendations

Info

founded earlier. Therefore construction of a new gallery building brought with it the advantage of allowing formulation of a new architectural undertaking. 15 The need was defined for a localization of art depository, restoration, study/research and exhibition spaces that would also provide sufficiently variable indoor and outdoor galleries, of a nature that refurbished buildings originally serving as residential and service wings in palaces, monasteries or barracks could not offer. For instance, the investor responsible for the new Slovak National Archive sought architecture in the spirit of the contemporary building of Matica slovenská in Martin (by Dušan Kuzma – Anton Cimmermann, competition project 1961–1962, realization 1963–1975) rather than complicated connection to or renovation of the capital’s various historical structures. Years of preparations led to the government’s proposal, through the Slovak parliament’s schools and culture commission on 28 December 1962, to build on the historical Water Barracks, directing the responsible minister Vasil Bil’ak to begin preparations and include the construction in the budget. Based on this the SNG’s director, Dr. Karol Vaculík, called for an initial proposal (comparison study) to build Vladimír Dedeček’s southern, Danube-oriented wing onto the barracks. In 1962 Dedeček submitted a first alternative for the wing, as a Le Corbusier-esque functionalist building on pilotis with open parterre and a flat roof. Here the exhibition floors were not lined up, but rather shifted in two directions, such that natural light from above illuminated them / see architectural interpretation, p. 76, pict. B /. The architects’ association Sväz slovenských architektov (SSA), drawing on Bratislava’s urban planning guidelines, extended Vaculík’s program to include building an entire city block; in 1963 they compiled a study for the gallery’s addition and renovation (THURZO 1978, p. 4). Four groups were invited to propose: one under Jaroslav Fragner of Prague’s Academy of Fine Arts architecture school; under Eugen Kramár of Stavoprojekt Košice; under Martin Beňuška and Štefánia Rosincová of both 22
Bratislava’s chief architect’s office and Stavoprojekt Bratislava; and finally X. ateliér vysokoškolských a kultúrnych stavieb under Vladimír Dedeček of Stavoprojekt Bratislava. The selection of comparative studies consulted with the association differed from the standard architectural competition in that the SSA association’s commission was able to consult the studies with the four groups when they created them, then compare them continuously and ultimately announce a winner. Thus there was in fact a two-round consultative selection process ending in a vote. Vladimír Dedeček’s study was chosen: there was a first alternative for the site (with a second alternative for the southern wing adjacent the Danube on pilotis), expanded to include completion of a city block with an outdoor terraced sculptured gallery to the north, toward the historic core. The SSA commission was chaired by Štefan Svetko, then the director of Bratislava’s chief architect’s office; the other members were Alojz Dařiček, Ján Steller, L’ubomír Titl and Milan Škorupa. 16 In the sense of this “consultative selection by voting”, the architect Dedeček’s introduction to the project’s text distinctively noted: “This study’s working method is discussion. The discussion’s individual phases and arguments are present in the visual material...” (DEDEČEK 1963, p. 1). This formulation, and archive documents on the commission’s work, make clear that the consultations yielded a first concept for the area, considered fitting by both commission and investor for preparing the investment plan and an initial project. Vladimír Dedeček consulted the subsequent investment plan (approved in 1965) and initial project (approved 15 An oft-cited text by Dr. Martin Kusý stressed as much: KUSÝ, Martin – GRÁCOVÁ, Genovéva. Slovenská národná galéria. Slovensko, 1, 1977, vol. 3, pp. 4–5. 16 See the SSA minutes Zápisnica z 1. konzultácie posudzovacieho sboru so spracovatel’mi študijnej úlohy na doriešenie SNG v Bratislave, konanej dň a 17. septembra 1963 na sekretariáte SSA v Bratislave. Typewritten, p. 2. In: Fond Karol Vaculík. Archív výtvarného umenia SNG. See also Záverečný protokol from the assessment of studies, dated 16 December 1963, 3-4 and 6 January 1964, at the SSA secretariat. Typewritten, p. 9. In: Fond Karol Vaculík, Archív výtvarného umenia SNG. 23
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 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 112 and 113:
not as an MP but as “the former d
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?