sng_2016-05-12_high-single-crop_k3

Recommendations

Info

unbuilt stages III and IV. The (future) SNG renovation and addition was regarded as a <strong>single</strong> whole. He even regarded the facade facing as provisional, and stressed the stone cover design of the facing wing and the administrative building: “The colouring of the temporary metal outside cladding is problematic... The final facade treatment – a stone facing with a cultivated structure and colouring anticipated – will favourably round out the architectural aspect of the SNG complex. It will unify and underline the rich architectural plasticity, with maximum effectuation of monumentality.” (LIŠČÁK 1981, pp. 4–5.) Another reviewer was the new gallery director Štefan Mruškovič (serving 1975–1990; Dr. Karol Vaculík was not allowed to remain in his position even for the opening of the structure he had worked so vitally to bring about). In his mid-1970s review, this successor to Vaculík recounted critical voices from among gallery visitors and employees: criticism ranging from how the historical barracks building was supplemented, through the construction’s architectural resolution and the bridging’s outdoor appearance, even to the atrium’s plinth, the incongruity of the building’s indoor entry spaces (small), and the inconvenience (undersized) of the stairways, along with the construction’s technical shortcomings. Similarly to Liščák, Mruškovič noted that this was just a fragment of the whole solution, a recapitulation phase in Dedeček’s design; he did not note the contributions of individuals to decision-making (he nowhere mentioned Dr. Vaculík) or the changes forced onto the project. Finally he concluded: “Our experience has shown that the opinions and impressions of everyday SNG visitors often differ quite diametrically. The critical voices that at first absolutely rejected the addition’s solution and its surfacing are no longer so strong, now that the SNG has been built and opened..., although much of the public still has not accepted the building’s most basic construction and architecture... But there are also some who praise the uniqueness of the building’s modernity and construction...” As the incoming director, he valued the ability to install artworks in the “free” halls, and in a cascaded space with diffuse lighting (MRUŠKOVIČ 1981, pp. 6–7). 38
In 1982, in an article summarizing the state of Slovakia’s architecture, Dr. Martin Kusý publically addressed the discussion on the SNG: “The stump of the Slovak National Gallery in Bratislava that was realized on the riverbank was, without regard to how much was known of the overall aim, quite sharply condemned. Few would then allow that the solution of the exhibition spaces was optimal, with excellent technical parameters and a smooth connection to the old building, which is entirely visible from the riverbank. The artistic comprehension that irritates the public is focused on the large coloured surfaces that modulate to the scale and vital pulsing betokened by the neighbouring bridge and the heavy traffic. Most importantly, it is still to be completed.” (KUSÝ 1982 /?/, p.?) The same year, Tibor Zalčík and Matúš Dulla included the building in the book Slovenská architektúra 1976–1980, in the “Massiveness of form and shape” chapter, with more recent reviews and historiography on the gallery, mainly in connection with the discussion on the monumental in modern and/or socialistic architecture. In 2001, Imro Vaško attempted to emancipate the SNG site from locally ensconced classifications, citing Breuer’s Whitney Museum in New York and putting the SNG in its own class of “sculpturalism”: “The aggressive expression in both of these architectures is no accident, it corresponds to the sculptural tendencies of the sixties. There is no question of the period’s brutality here, as both buildings work with, there is no recognition of the construction materials of [Le] Corbusier and [Paul] Rudolph’s handling of architectural concrete.” 28 Foreign architects and reviewers joined the discussion on the character of the SNG bridging only in the new century and millennium. The Austrian reviewer M. Hötzl – as cited in the thesis by Tatiana Krasňanská – refers to the coarse, raw ( brachial) quality of the bridging as left-over from the modern: 28 VAŠKO, Imro. Paralely. New Ends alebo Čo nového v New Yorských chrámoch umenia... a na Slovensku (Boom galerijného Disneylandu). Projekt. Revue slovenskej architektúry, 43, 2001, vol. 2, p. 25. 39
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 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?