Authentic Ruins or Authentic Reconstructions?
by
Ákos Zsembery
&
Maja Toshikj
Keywords
authenticity
Hungary
reconstruction
restoration
ruins
Renato Bonelli, one of the fathers of “critical restoration,” clearly indicates that architectural restoration is a typically modern concept that consciously changes the appearance of a monument and aims to recreate the original appearance rather than restore it. In such interventions, which are not based on formal reconstruction, authenticity is based on an emphatic distinction between the original remains and the new addition, so that modern interpretative additions also create “contemporary” ruins, recreating the destroyed elements with modern “protheses.” But with the reevaluation of modern architecture, these didactic restorations are threatened. The dismantling of modern buildings after the Second World War and the reconstruction of historicized buildings that once stood in their place or the hypothetical reconstruction of medieval ruins are an increasingly common phenomenon in Central and Eastern Europe, carried out for the sake of tourism or “historical justice.” The completion of the ruins generally created a juxtaposition between the old and the new, while the rebuilding is subject to serious ethical questions similar to the case of demolition.
In this article, the most current questions about the afterlife of ruins are presented mainly through examples of the reconstruction of ruins in Hungary. We highlight the false conclusions that lead from conservation to reconstruction in the name of sustainability. We explore the conflict of principles between the logic of distinction and the logic of total reconstruction. We examine the potential options for post-traumatic post-conflict ruin management in the light of new international recommendations. Using examples of hypothetical reconstructions, we will demonstrate the relationship between digital possibilities and the question of authenticity.
Chicago citation style