I have spent a good part of the summer drafting the first chapter of my Hungarian Architecture book. It's not completely done (and I did promise I would get it done before left, and maybe I will. . . . ) I am posting the first section. The next sections will be Eclectic Historicism and New Possibilities for Urban Development. In many ways they are more interesting than this first section, but they're not ready to show anyone. I would love to get feedback from anybody. Sorry the format is so wonky. It's been formatted for Kindle and it's hard to cut and paste it to blogger. Also I have to edit for typos, etc. So, here goes. . .
1.
Historicism:
Hungarian Architecture 1848-1900.
In 1848, as part of
the larger European revolutionary movement, Hungary challenged its status as
part of the Habsburg Empire. In 1849, Hungarian forces were defeated. As a result, the new Habsburg emperor, Franz
Joseph, dissolved the traditional Hungarian administration and tried to absorb
Hungary into a politically homogeneous Empire. Hungarians reacted mostly with passive
resistance. Among other ways, this
resistance shows up in the architecture of the second half of the nineteenth
century. Spurning Vienna as an architectural model, Hungarians instead turned
to other western European architectural traditions.
Hungary had throughout its history borrowed
major architectural styles of western Europe, including French Gothic, Romanesque,
Italian Baroque, and Neo-Classical. In
the nineteenth century, it returned to these style--not to recreate the past,
but to use and transform older styles in order to create a new sense of
national identity.
The time was right for Hungary to establish its identity as a European nation in its own right, and not just a part of the Empire. In 1872,
Buda, Obuda, and Pest were joined to form the national capital city Budapest. A few years later, the 1876 Compromise
resulted in the Dual-Monarchy of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, personified in Franz Joseph, called
Emperor in Austria and King in Hungary.
The 1876 Compromise gave Hungary its own national government (except for
foreign affairs which it shared with Austria), a parliamentary democracy, and a liberal political and economic ideology. Additionally, it reunited Hungary with
Transylvania, a region essential to Hungary’s sense of itself as a nation. This
political stability brought about an economic boom unparalleled in Hungary’s
history, resulting in growth in infrastructure and industrial development. Concomitantly Budapest’s population grew,
going from 30,000 in 1872 to almost 1,000,000 by 1900, resulting in an
unprecedented building boom. In the
midst of all this growth and development, Hungary wanted to define itself not
simply as an adjunct to other countries, but as a nation in and of itself. Part of that desire is manifested in its
architecture.
Historicist Styles. Prior to the end of the 19th century, stylistic
purity made it possible to distinguish among “neo” styles of Hungarian buildings,
such as neo Classical, Gothic, Renaissance, or Baroque. In general, Classicism was connected with civic buildings, Gothic
with sacred buildings, and Baroque with palaces and villas. Hungarian architects turned to these
historicist styles because they believed Hungary lacked a national style of its
own. Imre Steindl (1839-1902), a
professor of architecture and later architect of the Hungarian Parliament argued
in his inagural at the Royal Joseph Technical University (later the Budapest
Technical University), argued in his inaugural speech that “there is no trace
anywhere of a national character for architectural forms applied in stone”
(qtd. in Sisa, p. 14). Thus, the
official validation of Historicism.
The greatest figure of post 1848 historicist architecture
was Miklós Ybl (1814-1891).
Ybl built many of Budapest’s most
important public monuments, including the neo Italian Renaissance Hungarian
Opera House (Fig, 1.1) and the neo-Classical St. Stephen’s Basilica (Fig. 1.2). He was also a prodigious builder (and
entrepreneur) of “palaces” for Hungary’s aristocracy. The Károlyi Palace is a beautiful example of
Italian Renaissance, Ybl’s preferred style (Figs. 1.2-3). Ybl’s work presents, for the most part, a
kind of pure historicism, in which he adopts a specific style, usually Italian
Renaissance. However, the goal of such
work is not simply to preserve the past.
Rather, Ybl’s grand buildings show Hungary’s aspirations—political,
ecclesiastical, and aristocratic—in the second half of the 19th
century: the face it wished to present to the world.
 |
Figure 1‑1.
Hungarian Opera House (1867-1891: begun by Joszef Hild and finished by J. Kauser). Miklos Ybl.
|
 |
Figure 1‑2. St.
Stephens Basilica (1851-1905). Miklos
Ybl; completed by Jozsef Kauser.
|
 |
| Figure 1‑3. Karolyi Palace(1863). Miklos Ybl. |
 |
Figure 1‑4. Detail
of the gate, Karolyi Palace (1863). Miklos Ybl.
Ybl’s most important contemporary was Friges Feszl
(11884) who was also an historicist architect.
Feszl’s work, however, was less
historically “pure,” and contained hints of the future. Feszl was trained in Germany and used the German rundbogondstil (Romanesque rounded arches that also vaguely suggested the "east"--the purported origin of Hungarian people). Feszl also collected drawings of what he called "Hungarian motifs." Feszl's most famous building, the Vigado (or Assembly Rooms, now a concert hall) features a facade that gestures towards Byzantine or vaguely "Moorish" style. And on the north side of the building are enlarged copies of “vitezkotes,
the ornamental cord of traditional Hungarian costume (Sisa, "Hungarian," 175). (Get
picture). In his evocation of Eastern styles and Hungarian folk motifs, Feszl
is considered by some as a precursor to Odon Lechner (see Chapter 2.)
Fig. 1.5. Figure 1‑5. Vigado
(1860-1865), Frigyes Feszl.
The question of the search for a national style
came to the fore in 1860-1862, during the competition for the Hungarian Academy
of Sciences when it developed into a “national polemic” (Sisa, Lechner, 13). The major theorist in this debate was Imre Henszlmann
(1813-1888), an architect and one of the first historians of architecture in
Hungary. (Feszl did not present a theoretical argument for his choices in the Vigado). Henszlmann specifically
advocated neo-Gothic as the style for public buildings. This was a hotly debated issue because, on
the one hand, many felt that Gothic was appropriate only for religious
buildings, and, on the other, many argued that the potential for a unique
Hungarian style existed and should be developed. In
response to this competition, Henszlmann gave lectures and wrote papers in
defense of neo-Gothic. His rationale was
that Gothic flourished in the Middle Ages, which was Hungary’s golden period,
and that he did not believe Hungary had a national style. Others responded, arguing that a national
style did exist, whose origins were “oriental” and best reflected in the
Byzantine (Rundbogenstil) manner. In the
end, neither side won, as Count Emil Desweffy, the chair of the committee ,
preferred Venetian Renaissance and awarded the competition to the Prussian
architect Frederich August Stuler
(1800-1865). (For a fuller discussion of
the tension between historicism and national style, see Sis, "Hungarian.)GET PIC
The tension in historical styles is evident even
in the premiere national building of the nineteenth century: the Hungarian
Parliament. The contest to design
Hungary’s Parliament was issued in 1882.
The commission was awarded to the historicist advocate and
architect Imre Steindl. Steindl offered
the following rationale for his choice, repeating Henszelmann’s argument that
the Gothic corresponded with Hungary’s golden medieval past: “While designing the Parliament, I made no
attempt to create a new style; such a monumental structure, built to survive
centuries, cannot display ephemeral details.
I rather strove to implant national and individual spirit into the
majestic style of the Middle Ages, as art always requires, in a modest and
careful manner” (qtd. in Moravansky, p. 68). There was much dissent. However, the planning committee for the new
Parliament endorsed Steindl’s rationale:
“Gothic is not a national style;
but since we have no national style, [the committee] agrees to select this
style of not German but French origin, to represent the most majestic ideals of
freedom and power” (emphasis mine; qtd. in Moravansky p. 68).
Figure 1‑6.
Hungarian Parliament (1885-1904).
Imre Steindl.
But
while the Hungarian Parliament does borrow from French Gothic, it is not
stylistically pure. The Gothic elements,
for example, suggest the quasi-religious character of the promise of parliamentary
democracy but are at odds with the building’s baroque size and arrangement of
the interior spaces (particularly the dome).
Akos Moravanszky argues that “the difficulties of adopting Gothic
structural elements and details to the baroque principles of spatial and mass
composition arise from the symbolic program” and cannot “be explained as an adaptation
of a historic model to solve a new building task.” Rather (like the new Viennese Parliament),
the Budapest Parliament “appear[s] as didactic assemblages, presenting history
as seen from a rearview mirror that condenses the view into a compact scope.” In particular, the “Gothic of the Budapest Parliament
was a clear rejection of Ringstrassenstil
and a reaffirmation of the reformist goals of Gothic revival with all its associations of joyful labor, craftsmanship,
and national virtures. But finally it
was the baroque principle of theatrical special arrangement of fragments as
parts of a new spatial identity that dominated. . . . “ (69-70). The signature
building of Hungarian Historicism thus signals not only the historicist
program, but also points to its constraints as Hungarian national goals
developed in the twentieth century. Hungary,
however, did not immediately reject
historicism. Instead it combined
historical styles to create new aesthetics and functional possibilities.
Next up: Eclectic Historicism.
|
