‘Scientific Reconstruction’ or ‘New Oldbuild’? The Dilemmas of Restoration in Post-Soviet St. Petersburg
This article addresses the history of attitudes to reconstruction among professional restorers and interested public in Russia. It argues that, in the second half of the twentieth century, an ingrained tendency to disparage reconstruction went alongside an extensive history of highly interventionist...
Salvato in:
| Pubblicato in: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/res, |
|---|---|
| Autore principale: | |
| Natura: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Lingua: | Anglais |
| Pubblicazione: |
Revue des études slaves
2018
|
| Accesso online: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Riassunto: | This article addresses the history of attitudes to reconstruction among professional restorers and interested public in Russia. It argues that, in the second half of the twentieth century, an ingrained tendency to disparage reconstruction went alongside an extensive history of highly interventionist projects that, for example, aimed to return a building to its supposed appearance at the so-called ‘optimal date’ (sometimes, but not always, the date when it was completed by the original architect). During the post-war years, this process acquired an ideological overlay because of its association with the drive to put right war damage, and particularly that caused by the invading German forces. ‘Liberation’ of buildings from ‘laters layers’ was accepted policy. This ‘moderated historicism’ was in notable contrast to the treatment of war-damaged historic buildings in some other European countries, for instance Britain (e.g. Coventry Cathedral), though the extensive replanning of entire urban areas in order to reduce density and clear away slums was found in the Soviet Union as well. Remodelling continued to be the professional standard until at least the 1970s, but by the early 1980s, with increasing impact of the Charter of Venice on Soviet practice, it was no longer automatically accepted as best practice. The conflicts continued into the postSoviet period too, with the word ‘reconstruction’ applied both to pastiche newbuild (attacked by some for its flimsiness in historical terms) and to carefully-researched work by professional restorers. The article concludes with material on some particularly controversial recent rekonstruktsii, such as the House of Leningrad Trade department store and the Eliseev Delicatessen. |
|---|