Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items for :

  • "Gottfried Semper" x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All

Abstract

From Vienna to Berlin, preservation of historical monuments and architectural creations of Hungarian Noegothic: Vienna was influential on Hungarian Neogothic due both to its Gothic buildings (first of all St. Stephens’) and to the cercle of Friedrich von Schmidt, organized in the form of a lodge. Imre Henszlmann has begun his art historical activities already in the 1840ties in this sense and he collaborated later with Schmidt's Hungarian pupils. Another school of Historicism was represented by the Berlin-trained Ödön Lechner, who, on the bell-tower of his parish church in Budapest/Kőbánya followed the Pfarrturm of St. Bartholomew in Frankfurt, rebuilt after the fire of 1867 by Franz Joseph Denziger. Lechner's 1893 design, considered as one of the incunables of his Secessionist style belongs thus also to solutions inspired by Gothic architecture. Part 2. Historicism in Secession discusses recent views in Hungarian art historical literature about Secessionism as an anti-historical movement. It proves, that ideas about peasant art as conserving national antiquities go back to Gottfried Semper's wide-spread theories about the origin of styles, and have so the same roots as Historicism based on European styles. E.g. Alajos Hauszmann, also a Berlin-trained architect and companion Lechner's tried to synthetize Hungarian popular ornaments with Rococo stuccoes in the interiors of the Buda Royal palace. The visual reconstructions by Ede Thoroczkai-Wigand of King Attila's wooden palace (1912) on the stained glass windows of the Palace of Culture in Marosvásárhely were also influenced by Semper's theories on tectonics as the origin of architecture.

Restricted access

Summary

The importance of the decorated artefacts of folk culture was first emphasized by positivitic theories of the mid 19thcentury. Gottfried Semper stated a straight connection between the genesis of arts and the evolution of civilisation. Due to his impact, ornaments were often considered as a medium of a peculiar „language“or „grammar“for ethnic contents, the primary forms of which were supposed to be stable and not subject to temporary changes. According to this theory, Folk art keeps this primary state of ornaments and evolution means a process towards individualisation in the sense of national styles. This theory has been influential in the raising of taste for ethnographic objects. Following the 1851 World Exhibition in London the institutions of decorative arts were created first in England and than on the continent. The Museums for Arts and Crafts collected among others models and patterns for embroidery and other arts. In the course of this process separate museums were founded for collecting popular artefacts. In the first ethnographic museums the dychotomy of urban and rural civilization was first expressed. The present essay analizes on the exemple of Hungarian decorative art the process of collecting national ornaments, beginning with the first publication by Károly Pulszky (1878) conceived in Semper's terms. The following discussion was determinated by an early influence of the theory of Alois Riegl, represented by the drawing teacher József Huszka, who elaborated an approach to Hungarian folk ornaments as a genuine prehistoric tradition not influenced by historical styles and interpreted as symbols. The artistic interpretation of the folk culture was widespread by the volumes on Hungarian Ethnography edited by Dezsõ Malonyay. In the same time, the system of Gottfried Semper also determinated the foundation of the Hungarian Museum of Applied Arts and the separation of an ethnographic collection in the Department of Antiquities of the Hungarian National Museum. Plans for an autonomous Museum of Ethnography during the 1870–1880-s were realized in 1898 as the collection of the Ethnographic Museum comprising universal ethnologic and Hugarian materials as well were located in a separate building. Since the early 20thcentury ethnographers began to interpret folk artefacts not as objects of aesthetic value but on the basis of their systematic situation in scholarly ethnography.

Restricted access

Werk: Gottfried Semper – Dresden und Europa. Die moderne Renaissance der Künste . Akten des Intern. Kolloquiums der Technischen Universität Dresden aus Anlass des 200. Geburtstags von Gottfried Semper, hrsg. v. H. Karge, München – Berlin 2007, S. 13 f

Restricted access

Freund Vilmos munkássága a Fővárosi Középítési Bizottmányban

A 175 éve született építész életművének egy máig nem kutatott fejezete

The Work by Vilmos Freund in the Metropolitan Commission of Public Architecture

An Unresearched Chapter of the Work of an Architect Born 175 Years Ago
Építés - Építészettudomány
Author: Jeney András

Freund Vilmos (1846 1920), Gottfried Semper tanítványa a dualizmus korabeli Budapest egyik igen termékeny építőművésze volt. Több mint félszáz épületet alkotott a fővárosban. Főleg olasz neoreneszánsz stílusban tervezte meg épületeit. 1900 után már szinte egyáltalán nem alkotott építészként. Építészi tapasztalata megszerzését követően, 1891 körül egyre aktívabb szakmapolitikai tevékenységbe kezdett. Tanulmányunk ismerteti a Fővárosi Középítési Bizottmány szerepét, majd Freund itt végzett munkáját mutatja be, beszédeinek nagyrészt az egykorú Fővárosi Közlönyben megjelent szó szerinti rögzítése alapján. Először a gyakor lati, technológiai ügyek terén tett felszólalásait ismertetjük. Itt többek között kiviláglik Freund útburkolatokkal kapcsolatos komoly tudása, és az, hogy figyelemmel kísérte azon útvonalak állapotát, ahol általa tervezett paloták álltak. Ezt követik a más építészek plánumaival és épületeivel kapcsolatos megszólalásai. A vele egykorú vagy nála fiatalabb alkotók műveivel kapcsolatos javaslatait, illetve véleményét ismerhetjük meg. Végül pedig a „legizgalmasabb” témát, a városrendezés terén elhangzott hozzászólásait tárgyaljuk. Meglepő, hogy néhány, városképileg igen meghatározó épület létrejöttében vagy megépült formájuknak kialakításában is szerepe volt. Például az új tőzsdepalota kezdeményezését és Szabadság térre helyezését két másik építész (Hauszmann Alajos és Quittner Zsigmond) mellett ő kezdeményezte. A piaristák Duna-korzón álló épületének megjelenésére is hatással volt. Freund az igen jelentős építészeti életművén kívül a szakmapolitikai tevékenységével is figyelemre méltót alkotott Budapesten.

Vilmos Freund (1846–1920) was a prominent Hungarian architect who lived during the period of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He was a student of Gottfried Semper. The majority of the buildings by Freund were built in Budapest. His most preferred style was the Italian Neo-Renaissance. From about 1891 he had an architectural political carrier too. After 1900 he radically reduced the number of his designing work. This study is written about his work in the Metropolitan Commission of Public Architecture (Fővárosi Középítési Bizottmány). His speeches in this commission survived until today as word-by-word recordings published in the old bulletins. The first chapter deals with his speeches in relation to practical, technological affairs for example the paving of the roads of Budapest. He reported his opinion of the designs by other architects, this is the topic of the second chapter. Finally, we can read about his speeches about the great city planning actions. It is interesting that several buildings of Budapest were constructed because he and a few of his colleges initiated them.

Open access

Bár kortárs egyházi építészetről lehetséges a XX. századi liturgikus változások fényében is beszélni, e változások okát közvetlenül a modern ember szent-élményének átalakulásában találjuk. A szent-élmény részben a hely szellemének felfogása, értelmezése és szimbolikus megjelenítése által kapcsolódik az ember földi életéhez, így a szakralitás átalakulása a genius loci ontológiai történetébe illeszkedik. A heideggeri ontológia, Christian Norberg-Schulz építészeti fenomenológiája és a kritikai regionalizmus építészeti fordulatának Kenneth Frampton által javasolt princípiumai egymással találkoznak. Közös részüknek a Martin Heidegger, Gottfried Semper és Norberg-Schulz által is felvetett építészeti négyességek (fourfold) ontológiai és építészetelméleti párhuzamaiban jelentkező tektonika fogalma ad alapot, amely egyúttal az építészet belső szakralitására is rávilágít. A hely szellemében működő immanens szent-élmény és a szent vallási-transzcendentális felfogásának találkozása csupán kevés esetben tudott megvalósulni úgy, mint Jřrn Utzon, Mario Botta vagy Peter Zumthor egyházi építészetében, akiknek értékelését illetően kivételes konszenzus alakult ki az egyes építészetteoretikusok között. Az itt bemutatásra kerülő műveik a modern szakralitás egy-egy aspektusát elevenítik meg, amelyek megértéséhez szükséges korunk spirituális indíttatású építészetét a liturgikusnál mélyebb, építészeti fundamentumokhoz visszavezetni. Új kísérletet teszünk az ontológia, a tektonika, az építészeti kritika és a megvalósult épület közötti hídverésre, amelyek e tanulmányban a szakrális építészet szellemébe konvergálnak.

Restricted access

In the 1860s a new generation of architects appeared in Hungary, or more precisely, in Pest. Unlike earlier, they were no longer trained as master builders but studied at technical universities abroad. They included Antal Szkalnitzky (1836–1878), Ferenc Schultz (1838–1873), Imre Steindl (1839–1902), Ferenc Kolbenheyer (1841–1881), Frigyes Schulek (1841–1919), Gyula Pártos (1845–1916), Ödön Lechner (1845–1914), Vilmos Freund (1846–1922), Albert Schickedanz (1846–1915) and Alajos Hauszmann (1848–1926). Some of them became the most prominent architects of the end of the century, while others fell into oblivion, owing to their untimely death. These well trained architects became the decisive actors of the great building boom and the ensuing modernization starting in the 1870s. Ferenc Kolbenheyer was born in Eperjes (today Prešov, Slovakia) on 13 February 1841 (the data in the Thieme–Becker lexicon are incorrect). His father Moritz Kolbenheyer (1810–1884) was a Lutheran minister in Eperjes from 1836 to 1846 and in Sopron from 1846 until his death. He was an eminent translator of literature. He translated some of his contemporaries including János Arany and Sándor Petőfi into German. His correspondence about this theme with Friedrich Hebbel is also important. Ferenc Kolbenheyer began his architectural studies at the Technische Hochschule Wien in 1859–61. Parallel with that, he studied philosophy at the university of Vienna in 1860–61. His studies in Vienna are documented, while his subsequent studies in Berlin and Zurich are only indirectly alluded to by contemporaries, without concrete evidence. (The personal documents of the Berlin-Charlottenburg Technische Hochschule for the years before 1868 are no longer to be found, they probably perished; in the register of the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich Kolberheyer's name is not included.)After his studies abroad he probably returned home to take part in the competition for the planning of a Casino in Sopron. Though he won the contest, it was not he who was contracted for the execution, and his plans got lost. From 1869 he was active in Pest (from 1873, when Buda and Pest were unified, in Budapest). At first he worked with his brother-in-law Károly Benkó, a master builder. Three buildings executed by the Benkó & Kolbenheyer Company are known: the Exchange building on the Danube bank (1869–72, destroyed in WWII), the headquarters of the Kassa–Oderberg Railways Company also on the Danube bank (1871, extant, corner of Széchenyi quay and Széchenyi street) and the villa at 123 Andrássy út (1872, extant). At the competition called for the planning of the central post office in 1870 they received a price and a joint plan for a villa is also known dated 1871. Another joint undertaking was the cement factory of Nyergesújfalu (Sattelneudorfer Cementfabrik Karl Benkó & Comp.) During the economic recession of 1873 the partnership went bankrupt and it was liquidated. In 1874 Ferenc Kolbenheyer was engaged by the Ministry of Religion and Education, so he became “ministerial architect”. It was probably the renown of his great professional competence and his father's good personal contacts that brought him this excellent post. The cultural minister from 1872, Ágoston Trefort plunged with great zeal into the modernization of the educational system including the foundation of several new institutions. He ensured budgetary support for his plans. The architect employed by the ministry had thus enormous possibilities and enormous tasks. During his six years as the employee of the ministry, Kolbenheyer planned a secondary school, two high schools and three clinical buildings for the medical university. It was also his assignment to design a glass-painting workshop, while his church engaged him to build a Protestant orphanage. The building of the Markó street secondary school (1874–76) is a close but more modest kin of the technical university of Zurich (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule) planned by Gottfried Semper. Historicism liked to apply a central projecting part that rises higher than the lateral wings to interrupt the monotony of long stretching buildings. Semper elevated the central pavilion of the three-storied university by planning there the ceremonial hall of a greater ceiling height. Adopting Semper's solution, Kolbenheyer also designed a higher ceremonial room, thus adding a vertical accent to the central projecting part. The building of the college of rabbinical studies (1875–77) diverted from Kolbenheyer's preferred neo-renaissance style predominating the constructions in Budapest in the period. Its style is a blend of Mauresque and Romanesque elements, which characterize the synagogues built in Central Europe in the previous years. If we subscribe to the prevalent view that Kolbenheyer's activity was tied to the neo-renaissance as filtered through Berlin, this building might also be compared with one in Berlin, Knoblauch's synagogue in Oranienburg-strasse (1859–66), although it displays undeniable connections with the Dohány street synagogue in Budapest (Ludwig Förster, 1854–58). He had a partner for planning the rabbinical institute: Vilmos Freund did the interiors because the clients thought a Jew might have a better insight into the ritual requirements. Kolbenheyer also planned the building of the School of Design (University of Fine Arts, 1875–76) with a partner. The teaching staff of the already working institution put down their claim that the architect-professor of the school, Lajos Rauscher from Stuttgart, should plan the building. Rauscher's role was probably more extensive than just formulating the plans in fine drawings, but Kolbenheyer was the technical designer of the architecture. The sgraffito adorning the Andrássy út façade of the building is Rauscher's work, as Rauscher was chiefly credited with sgraffito design, several specimens being executed in Budapest (today in Kodály körönd [rondeau]). The school with several studios had to be fitted into the line of palatial buildings being built at that time. The required light was ensured by the enlargement and density of the windows. Rauscher's sgraffiti adorn the spaces between the main façade windows. The greatest assignment as an architect was given to Kolbenheyer to build the clinical block in Üllői út. (Regrettably it was only partially realized.) The Ministry of Religion and Education purchased a site of 6000 square fathoms for the institution belonging under its authority at that time. An up-to-date institution of Hungarian medical training had to be developed on it. Under that-time principles the special clinics were to be housed in separate buildings, but Kolbenheyer's complex did not coincide perfectly with the model, Hôpital Lariboisière in Paris because on the Üllői út front the clinics of surgery and internal medicine flanking the central unit with several smaller clinics in it at the time appeared as a single though loosely connected building for the sake of the monumental impression. The composition received a special flavor from the semi-cylindrical amphitheatre-like auditoria at the corners with large windows. (During WWII and the 1956 fighting they were destroyed and never reconstructed.) The anatomical institute inside the compound has preserved its original shape with the half cylinder of the auditorium, but the third storey was extended. The surgery clinic had enormous wards illumined from two sides (1 per floor). The clinic of internal medicine has a different layout with smaller wards, though the requirement of symmetry curbed invention. Before starting the planning, the architect and the professors of the clinics went on a several weeks’ tour of the most up-to-date recently built clinics in West Europe. Among the buildings of the clinical precincts, Kolbenheyer planned the surgery clinic (1874–77), the first internal clinic (1878–80), the anatomical institute (1876–78) and the servicing institutions (1877–78). He could only work out the basic plans of the central building and the second internal clinic, which had to be completed by his successor Antal Weber. Upon the ministry's commission he designed an institute of glass-painting for glass painter Ede Kratzmann. Beside the necessary workshops and furnaces the building included an exhibition room. Probably for the high ranking clientele of the latter, the institute was planned in an elegant villa format. The Protestant orphanage ordered by the church had a plain and ordinary appearance. Kolbenheyer also entered for three competitions to plan public hospitals. His three plans all received prizes (a first, a second and a shared prize, but the plans are not known). Kolbenheyer's career spanned a mere decade. His realized buildings show him as a competent architect whose original language had not (yet?) evolved but who used the current formal solutions with a sure hand. He worked at an incredible pace; during the seven years between 1874 and 1880 he planned six large and three smaller public buildings, began planning another three and successfully entered for competitions. He was well on the way to earn a name as a specialist in hospital design. He died of a heart attack during an official trip to Buziás (Buziaş, Romania) on 11 January 1881, before his 40th birthday, leaving two little orphans behind. The elder child, then hardly two years old – Ervin Guido Kolbenheyer (1878–1962) – became a noted German writer. His historical plays were received well in his age, but his biologist world view brought him close to racism and after World War II he was sentenced to silence as the supporter of the Nazi ideology in West Germany.

Restricted access