Denkmalpflege und (Wieder-) Aufbau

Abstract

The preservation of monuments vs. (re)construction

In the history of culture violent war damage of architectural and art monuments is an important and painful subject. War damage affects not only monuments, but also the identity of people. Out of 70 towns of the German Reich with the population of over 100 000 inhabitants, only Erfurt, Halle and Regensburg survived World War II without major damage.

There existed two contradictory attitudes concerning the concept of the cities’ reconstruction. The first one – carried out in many places – advocated the reconstruction of the layout of towns and buildings. Inhabitants of the destroyed cities failed to take into account the extent of damage. Other concepts opted for the Athens Charter, which insisted on the city’s independence, its friendly character, good ventilation and lighting even at the cost of eliminating its history. The preservation of the architectural remains was not a priority in the reconstruction of towns after 1945. The tendency was to “improve” their form and functionality, sometimes renouncing their monumental substance. The damage was a pretext and an opportunity for modern construction and reconstruction.

At present, almost 70 years after the end of World War II, there appears a desire for reconstruction. This ostensible reference to history is nothing else but concealing history. The removal and reconstruction polish history up, cheat the unaware, prevent asking difficult questions. Today’s tendency to erase the present time caused by the longing for a beautiful old town is limited only to the elevation. When reconstruction is ostensibly perfect, the sense of value and originality are lost – just like the awareness that every reconstruction is only a new creation which came into being in a definite period of time.