Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

a 190 de clædiri istorice (ceea ce a eliminat, la zece ani de la încheierea nimicitorului
ræzboi, arhitectura de secol XIX ræmasæ în zonæ), ca „dar al poporului sovietic
pentru poporul polonez“, øi a fost numitæ dupæ Iosif Stalin. Structura, proiectatæ de
Lev Rudniev, poartæ pecetea unor influenfle ce pornesc de la realismul socialist øi
istoricismul polonez, trec prin Art Deco øi merg chiar pînæ la Øcoala de la Chicago.
Construcflia monstrului, care dominæ în mod absurd oraøul pînæ în zilele noastre,
a durat doar trei ani, graflie trudei istovitoare a celor 4.000 de muncitori folosifli.
Palatul, înconjurat astæzi de clædiri de birouri înalte øi moderne, aduce cu creaflia fantasmagoricæ
a unui adolescent pasionat de jocurile pe computer. Cu toate acestea,
el e în continuare perceput ca un simbol al dominafliei sovietice, astfel cæ, din
cînd în cînd, se vorbeøte despre demolarea sau „neutralizarea“ lui arhitecturalæ prin
mascarea cu ajutorul unei construcflii la scaræ încæ øi mai mare. Ideea de a ridica clædirea
WMMA chiar în fafla palatului a stîrnit aøteptærile rezidenflilor øi politicienilor locali,
care visau la o clædire capabilæ sæ concureze cu simbolul moøtenirii comuniste a oraøului.
Aceste aøteptæri, dupæ cum e normal, le-au provocat o stare de încordare inifliatorilor
proiectului, clædirea urmînd sæ „poarte“ un imens balast istoric. Zona de conflict
cea mai vizibilæ în cazul muzeului din Varøovia este, aøadar, „temperamentul“ arhitectural
atribuit clædirii. Alegerea între un caracter pasiv øi activ este echivalentæ pentru
mulfli cu a alege fie trecutul, prin înscrierea „laøæ“ a noii structuri în flesutul urban
existent, fie, dimpotrivæ, o structuræ futuristæ agresivæ a cærei prezenflæ sæ rezolve,
o datæ pentru totdeauna, dilemele ideologice pe care le presupune metamorfozarea
centrului oraøului Varøovia. Aøteptærile celor din urmæ au fost, de fapt, exprimate
explicit în regulile competifliei arhitecturale, care spuneau cæ noua clædire trebuie
„sæ reprezinte o contrapondere la Palatul Culturii øi sæ devinæ un nou simbol, recognoscibil
la nivel internaflional, al Varøoviei“. Astfel cæ în februarie 2007, cînd juriul
a anunflat rezultatele competifliei (care fusese deja anulatæ o datæ din cauza
condifliilor prea restrictive care au împiedicat multe studiouri de design de renume
internaflional sæ participe), mass-media, locuitorii oraøului øi chiar membri ai Consiliului
Muzeului au ræmas înmærmurifli sæ vadæ o clædire modestæ øi moderatæ. Autorul
ei, arhitectul elveflian Christian Kerez, autor, printre altele, al clædirii Kunstmuseum
din Vaduz, Liechtenstein, trimitea la dominaflia Palatului Culturii din fundal doar printr-un
joc discret cu diviziunile de construcflie: palatul are diviziuni verticale, muzeul
– orizontale. Întregul, în formæ de L, e o structuræ de ciment „aflatæ în levitaflie“, care
a început de îndatæ sæ fie asemuitæ unui mall. Acuzaflia prezentæ în toate articolele
din presæ, în sondajele de opinie øi în comentariile postate pe forumurile de pe internet
cu privire la acest subiect i-ar putea lua prin surprindere pe mulfli cercetætori
ai preferinflelor estetice ale polonezilor – øi anume, proiectul a fost perceput ca insuficient
de avangardist.
III. Strategii împotriva arhitecturii
Conflictul izbucnit în urma anunflului victoriei lui Kerez a luat o întorsæturæ neaøteptatæ
– Consiliul Muzeului a ales sæ ignore procedurile democratice ce avuseseræ ca
rezultat alegerea participantului cîøtigætor. Atacul cel mai dur asupra muzeului a fost
purtat de cætre persoanele care-l comandaseræ øi creaseræ: critici de artæ, istorici øi
curatori, altfel foarte respectafli de comunitatea artisticæ. Arhitectura minimalistæ, disciplinatæ
a lui Christian Kerez, s-a spus, avea un caracter „prea apropiat de cel al comunismului“.
Directorul de atunci al muzeului a demisionat în semn de protest
împotriva alegerii fæcute, la fel ca øi membrii Consiliului Muzeului, ai cærui reprezentanfli,
trebuie subliniat, s-au aflat în juriul competifliei. Dorota Jarecka, critic de artæ
la Gazeta Wyborcza, cel mai mare cotidian din Polonia, comenta sarcastic: „Kerez
a proiectat o clædire care nu scoate în evidenflæ caracterul excepflional al nimænui:
nici al locului, al flærii sau al poporului, nici al persoanelor care creeazæ acest muzeu.
remains the most characteristic, but also most controversial, feature
of Warsaw’s urban landscape. The reason for its controversial nature
is simple – it was built at the cost of the demolition of 190 historical
town houses (which ultimately eliminated, and ten years after the end
of a destructive war, the area’s remaining 19th-century architecture),
as a “gift of the Soviet people to the Polish people”, and named after
Joseph Stalin. The structure, designed by Lev Rudniev, shows inspirations
ranging from socialist realism and Polish historicism, through
Art Deco, to as far as Chicago School. The construction of the behemoth,
absurdly towering over the city to this day, took just three
years to complete, due to the backbreaking labour of the four thousand
workers employed there. The Palace, surrounded today by tall
modern office buildings, resembles a phantasmagorical creation of
a teenage computer game aficionado. Still, it remains perceived as a
symbol of Soviet domination, so time and again it is postulated that
it should be demolished or architecturally “neutralised” by covering
it with even larger-scale development.
The idea of erecting the WMMA building right in front of the Palace
aroused the expectations of local residents and politicians, dreaming
of a building able to compete with the icon of the city’s communist
legacy. Those expectations, naturally, made anxious the project’s initiators,
as the building would now have to “bear” an immense historical
ballast. The most evident conflict area involved in the Warsaw
Museum is therefore the building’s desired architectural “temperament”.
The choice between its passive or active nature is for many
equivalent to choosing either the past, by “cowardly” writing the
new structure into the extant urban tissue, or, alternatively, going
for an aggressive futurological structure whose presence would once
and for all solve the ideological dilemmas involved in the metamorphosis
of Warsaw’s downtown. The latter expectations were in fact
expressly articulated in the regulations of the architectural competition,
which said that the new building should “represent a counterpoint
for the Palace of Culture and become an internationally
recognisable new symbol of Warsaw”. So when, in February 2007,
the jury announced the results of the competition (which had already
been cancelled once due to extremely restrictive terms that prevented
many renowned international design studios from participating),
the media, the city inhabitants, and even members of the Museum’s
Board were petrified. They saw a modest and moderate building.
Its author, the Swiss architect Christian Kerez, author of, among
other things, the Kunstmuseum in Vaduz, Liechtenstein, referred to
the Palace of Culture towering in the background only via a discreet
play with constructional divisions: the Palace has vertical divisions,
the Museum – horizontal ones. The L-shaped whole is a “levitating”
concrete structure that immediately started to be cynically likened
to a shopping mall. The charge that ran through all the press reports,
opinion polls, and online-forum comments on the subject could stupefy
many a researcher of Poles’ aesthetical preferences – namely,
the project was perceived as being not avant-garde enough.
III. Strategies against Architecture
The conflict that erupted following the announcement of Kerez’s victory
took an unlikely course – the Museum’s Board opted for ignoring
the democratic procedures that had resulted in the choice of the
winning entry. The heaviest attack on the Museum was waged by
persons who had initiated and created it: art critics, historians and
curators otherwise held in high esteem by the art community.
Christian Kerez’s minimalistic, disciplined architecture, it was said,
was in its nature “too close to communism”. The then-director of the
Museum resigned in protest against its selection, as did members of
the Museum’s Board, whose representatives, it needs to be stressed,
sat on the competition jury. Dorota Jarecka, the art critic of Gazeta
Wyborcza, Poland’s largest daily newspaper, commented sarcastically:
“Kerez has designed a building that emphasises no one’s exceptionality:
neither the place’s, the country’s, or the nation’s, nor of the
persons creating this museums. It doesn’t emphasise the messianic
116