inapoi________inapoi la cuprins_______ inainte

 

 

Dimensiunea valorii patrimoniului arhitectural: materiale, tehnologie, construcţie, formă, funcţionalitate şi mediu

 

 

Rasa Bertasiute*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percepţia asupra patrimoniului este schimbătoare şi subiectivă, chiar atunci când este vorba despre specialişti. Pentru a-l conserva şi proteja peste timp, patrimoniul trebuie evaluat şi apreciat în funcţie de elemente ale acestuia pe care toţi specialiştii (arhitecţi, artizani, constructori, cercetă­tori…) le consideră valori. Pentru a evalua moştenirea culturală, ea trebuie în primul rând cunoscută, fie senzitiv - subiectiv, fie pragmatic, făcând apel la pregătirea individuală. În lipsa acestor modalităţi de cunoaştere este necesară identificarea unor aspecte comune descriptibile, cuantificabile şi evaluabile, iar acest lucru se poate realiza, în primul rând, prin investigare.

 

Investigarea

Scopul dezvoltării este diversitatea; dar cum putem recunoaşte această diversitate pozitivă (în cadrul căreia există, desigur regularitate) şi cum putem, în cazul arhitecturii de pildă, identifica anumite trăsături originale? În timp arhitectura clădirilor a acumulat informaţie venită din varii direcţii[1] iar pentru a distinge singularităţile cea mai simplă cale de investigare este cea a comparării aspectelor generale dar şi detaliilor, reducând obiectul la elemente comune tuturor creaţiilor arhitecturale: material, tehnologie, construcţie, formă, funcţie, mediu, respectiv ziduri, ferestre, uşi, terase, acoperişuri. Orice obiect arhitectural poate fi comparat, investigat, evaluat sau identificat în funcţie de aceste aspecte[2], care interacţionează şi sunt interdependente: atât mediul (clima, peisajul) cât şi funcţia (imobil pentru locuit sau nu) determină forma, materialul de construcţie şi tehnologia[3]. 

 

Dacă vom compara acoperişurile unor case din Lituania, vom observa diferenţe, transformări şi interacţiuni ale diferitor tradiţii, în funcţie de tipul clădirii, de mediu şi de progresul tehnic (căpriori, bârne, stâlpi)[4]. Evaluarea unui obiect arhitectural în funcţie de toate aspectele îi relevă structura logică: modificarea unui singur element generează automat alte schimbări; de aceea, în diversitate există o anumită regularitate. 

În timpul Epocii Fierului, în nord-estul Europei, a avut loc o revoluţie în arhitectură: răspândirea construcţiilor din bârne, în acest sens existând premise pozitive sub toate aspectele:

a) material: existenţa unor mari cantităţi de lemn moale, indicat pentru realizarea bârnelor;

b) tehnologic: descoperirea toporului din fier a însemnat progres ­tehnologic;

c) formal: mare cerere de clădiri mici pentru o singură familie;

d) funcţional: micile căsuţe din bârne erau cele mai potrivite pentru o ­familie;

e) geografic-climatic: lemnul era bun izolator termic şi era rezistent la intemperii.

În ciuda aceleiaşi cereri, casele din bârne erau diferite în alte ţări. De ce? Dacă analizăm materialele, funcţionalitatea sau mediul, vom observa ca aceste diferenţe sunt perfect justificate: calitatea pinului , molidului sau bradului (înălţime, grosime, densitate) diferă de la o regiune la alta, poate de aceea vechile clădiri erau mai mari în regiunile nordice decât în cele sudice (în alte regiuni lemnul moale era chiar absent, casele din bârne făcând loc altor tipuri de construcţii); condiţiile climatice şi calitatea solului influenţau, de asemenea, dimensiunea şi funcţionalitatea construcţiilor. În general evoluţia regională a arhitecturii unei clădiri poate fi definită în funcţie de tipul materialului de construcţie şi de mediu, acestea fiind, de regulă, specifice regiunii respective şi deci, stabile[5]. Modificările apărute în tehnologie, construcţie, formă şi chiar funcţionalitate pot fi inspirate fie de spiritul locului, fie de tendinţe în moda altor regiuni (uneori iraţionale şi nu foarte coerente[6]), construcţiile având însă o trăsătura regională comună conferită de aspectele stabile (material, mediu).

În paralel cu diferenţele despre care am vorbit, se poate observa şi un fenomen contrar, adică asemănări în arhitectura clădirilor din zone şi perioade diferite, datorate unor circumstanţe asemănătoare: acelaşi material, acelaşi nivel de dezvoltare a societăţii respective, aceeaşi climă sau peisaj. Uneori este greu de identificat dacă anumite elemente ale arhitecturii vernaculare au origine locală sau exterioară, ele evoluând în regiuni diferite şi din origini diferite, în aceeaşi direcţie[7].

Toate elementele/aspectele despre care am vorbit sunt în dezvoltare şi în interacţiune; între ele există un echilibru dinamic subtil care generează diversitatea şi constituie esenţa arhitecturii tradiţionale.  

 

Cooperarea

Pentru a putea studia evoluţia şi interacţiunea acestor elemente este necesară implicarea/cooperarea mai multor domenii (lingvistică, istorie, arheologie, chimie, artizanat, etc.)[8] şi instituţii (muzee, universităţi, laboratoare de cercetare, antreprenori)[9] din diferite ţări şi regiuni. Astfel se pot studia, sub toate aspectele, singularităţile unei culturi şi similarităţile ei cu alte culturi, existând posibilitatea evaluării şi protejării patrimoniului.

 

Restaurarea şi construirea de noi clădiri

Stabilirea şi menţinerea autenticităţii sunt probleme asupra cărora există divergenţe de opinie. Unii sunt de părere că autenticitatea unei construcţii este distrusă la mutarea acesteia într-un muzeu; sunt însă situaţii când menţinerea construcţiei in situ păstrează doar autenticitatea mediului, iar mutarea într-un muzeu salvează tehnologia, materialul şi forma construcţiei respective – elemente foarte importante în conservare.

Discursul suedezului Bjorn Olofsson în legătură cu înlocuirea roţii unei vechi maşini de treierat cu o nouă roată a generat discuţii referitoare la autenticitate: prin introducerea unui element nou se pierde sau nu din valoarea obiectului? Consider că s-a realizat doar o schimbare de valori, fără nici o pierdere: s-a câştigat autenticitatea funcţionalităţii unui întreg dispozitiv în detrimentul autenticităţii materialului unei componente.  

Conceptul sustenabilităţii culturale se bazează pe ideea identităţii şi continuităţii culturale; astfel noile construcţii se supun aceluiaşi model al schimbării sau dimensiunii valorii. Să luăm în discuţie exemplul a trei construcţii contemporane care au aceeaşi funcţionalitate (sunt restaurante/pub-uri) şi sunt realizate din acelaşi material (lemnul), dar diferă prin tehnologie, formă şi locaţie.

Primul restaurant (din oraşul Kaunas) copiază arhitectura rusească, părând ciudat din perspectiva arhitecturii tradiţionale. Faţada celui de-al doilea restaurant este practic faţada unei case din secolul XVIII, fiind în discordanţă cu locaţia – marginea autostrăzii Kaunas-Vilnius. Materialul preluat de la vechea casă vine să echilibreze discordanţa formă istorică – mediu, făcând construcţia acceptabilă.

Cel de-al treilea restaurant (situat lângă şoseaua Vilnius-Prienai) nu copiază nimic. Tehnologia, construcţia şi forma sunt în spiritul tradiţiei arhitecturale locale; este un exemplu de construcţie nouă ce poate fi apreciată pozitiv.

 

Concluzii

Secolul 21 face apel la păstrarea identităţii şi diversităţii culturale care, în arhitectură, se bazează pe continuitatea unui caracter specific (unic) al construcţiilor. Patrimoniul arhitectural trebuie înţeles ca sursă a dezvoltării actuale şi ulterioare, iar păstrarea lui necesită interdisciplinaritate, cercetare şi experienţă practică. Doar prin cooperare, schimb de idei şi experienţă ne putem distinge unicitatea şi putem îmbogăţi cultura europeană în marea ei diversitate.        

 

 

 

previous________ back to contents _________ next

 

 

 

previous________ back to contents _________ next

 

 

 

 

Value dimension of architectural heritage: material, technology, construction, function, form, environment  

 

 

Rasa Bertasiute

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perception of heritage is changeable and subjective. Even we specialists, architects, craftsmen, constructors, researchers, experts have different view upon the heritage. But if we want to preserve it for the future it is necessary to evaluate/appreciate it, it means to find and agree about valuable things common for all of us.

Cognition of heritage one possible on double way: sensual and pragmatic. The first is based on our relation with the object and this estimation is subjective. The second depends on our personal knowledge about the patrimony. But if we lose/miss knowledge and sensual relation with the object we cannot qualify it as valuable. That just have happened and new objective is to find other way to recognize and appreciate heritage as valuable.

Is it possible to find common valuable heritage? Are there some aspects understandable for all of us, describable or quantifiable in any way?

To recognize and evaluate object first of all one need to restore knowledge and that is field of investigation.

 

Investigation

Most valuable thing and the main aim of sustainable development is diversity. How to recognize this positive diversity (with certain regularity) and to find some distinctive original features of our architecture?

Buildings having accumulated multisided information can be investigated/evaluated in many aspects[10]. To distinguish singularities we can only comparing an object with analogues. It is impossible to compare overall buildings, but we can easy compare some parts/details of it. Thus the object should be reduced to ­elements common to all architecture. Such are:

– material,

– technology,

– construction,

– form,

– function,

– environment.

 They are common to whole architecture: castles, churches, dwelling houses, also for details of these buildings such as foundation, walls, windows, doors, porches, roofs and other. The same value dimension one can point/apply for buildings in different countries the same is good for old/ancient houses as for present architecture. So these aspects are common. They include material datum same as intangible information that is also very important for architectural investigation[11]. Thus every architectural object can be compared, investigated, evaluated or identify on these ­aspects[12]. 

Figure 1. Scheme of architectural dimensions

Figure 2. Spread of roof construction in Lithuania (the end of 19th – beginning of 20th  century)

Figure 3. Restaurant  in Kaunas city

Figure 4.  Tavern/restaurant near the highway Kaunas –  Vilnius

Figure 5.  Tavern/restaurant near the road Vilnius – Prienai
What is most important of these dimensions?

Architecture is developing in a frame of technical potential and functional demand/requirement. It is always tough connection between all these sides of object. Environment with specific climate and landscape determine function, form as well as construction[13] . Function (subject to dwelling or out house) determines form, construction, technology and material. Dependence and interaction among these parts of object is mutual/reversible. The dimensions are closing coherent and bound up with each other.

Commonly we educe some typical traits of one element of building for particular region, period on one aspect[14].

Here is example how comparing roof constructions in Lithuania one can observe some differences, transformation and interaction of different traditions. To find their origins or to detect direction of their spreading we can invoke other dimensions that help us to estimate/define general tendencies of traditional architecture5 .

Diversity of roof constructions in Eastern Lithuania is connected with functional type of building, environment and technical progress[15].

Evaluating object from/on all the aspects we notice one logical structure. Changes of one dimension/element automatically raise other changes. That is why diversity has some regularity.

Demand of new functional type of building together with technical progress made a revolution in architecture during the Iron Age in North East Europe - log/block construction was spreading. To get answer why exactly this region and this period were most beneficial for log construction we have to evaluate it on the next/subsequent aspects:

a) material - there were plenty of softwood - proper building material for log houses,

b) technology - iron axe gave the main impulse and rapid progress in technology,

c) form - there was a demand of small building for separate family,

d) function - small log houses were most suitable for one family,

e) environment - log construction accorded with climate conditions, was warm and resistant to weather conditions.

So the situation was beneficial for log houses on all the aspects.

Despite the same demand log houses were different in our countries. Why? If to measure all the components we will notice some differences in material, environment and function. Quality of pine-tree and spruce/fir differ in every region (different growth, thickness, density). Maybe that is why ancient buildings were bigger in northern countries than in southern regions. The size of buildings was also under the influence of environment, first of all weather conditions: rainfall, cold/freeze, winds, landscape. Soil quality determined character of farming, thus different function, size, form of houses. In other regions where was lack of softwood other constructions were prevailed.

Some changes are local derivation/origin, others have impact/influence from aside. Material and environment are most fixed or stable thus regional development of building is always definite on these aspects[16]. Changes of technology, construction, form, function can be inspired by local demand or mode/fashion from aside. These changes not always were logical and coherent under the influence of stylistic architecture or fashion. They sometime became irrational trying to get needful forms[17]. Despite the influence from aside an architecture (including both - stylistic and vernacular) obtained peculiar traits. The houses were transformed in an individual way through local material and environment.

In parallel with differences we can notice the same architecture in different regions also in different periods. It could appear/upstart independently being under the same circumstances: same material, level of development, climate and landscape. Sometimes it is hardly to deduce if some details, features of vernacular architecture have local origin or are influenced from outside. Sometimes we can watch both developments at one time at the same place[18].

All these aspects/elements are in the progress, changes and interaction. An interaction between cultures designs new architecture very specific for region. The balance and harmony between all the aspects is very subtle, individual and that is the reason of diversity and essence of traditional architecture. Our aim is to find out these values on all aspects. The result/effect depends on integrated investigations, it means – cooperation in this field.

 

Cooperation

Here are mentioned only architectural dimension. There are other aspects in parallel supporting for architectural studies: linguistic, historical, archaeological, chemical, physical and other. Linguistic aspect very often helps to separate layers, cultural territories and interfaces exploring genesis of the object[19].

It is worth to work together with archaeologists, historians and linguists to know evolution of building. It is necessary with artisans who know material, technology and construction from other point of view, more than architect or somebody else[20]. Thus to estimate a quality of architecture one need cooperation or dialog between many different institutions: museums, universities, research laboratories, entrepreneurs and other[21] . 

It is very important cooperation with (the same or different) specialists from other regions and countries. There is a good occasion to examine similarities and singularities of our culture on all aspects. But to reach final agreement about value dimension one need both, cooperation on professional and regional level. These six dimensions are possible and workable for protection of heritage as quite well, restoration and new building.

 

Restoration and new building

Very often we argue about authenticity. We are accused demolishing/destroying authenticity if we move/transfer some house to the museum. Let‘s look on this problem on all aspects and take into account all circumstances. The best is to preserve all the features of authenticity it means to preserve an object “in situ”. But very often there are no chance to save it because nobody use it. Then there are two possibilities: leaving “in situ” we can save/preserve only authentic environment, transferring to the museum we lose environment but save material, technology, construction and form (and that is bigger value on the total amount).

Bjorn Olofsson talked in the discourse about restoration of threshing barn (Sweden) and that raised some doubts about authenticity. The restorers have changed remains of threshing wheel to a new one. Let‘s try to estimate this situation. Threshing barn has lost this function through this decayed wheel before the restoration. The wheel was one rooted part/component of threshing barn. The wheel itself had remains of authentic material, technology, construction, form and environment. After the restoration the wheel have lost authentic material but regained function to whole object (threshing barn). What is better: function or material? Sure it was right solution to change one value to another and to regain equal (or even more) authenticity of function.

The concept of cultural sustainability is based on the idea of cultural identity and continuity. So new building obeys the same consistent pattern of chan­­ges or value dimension. Here are three examples of new pub/inn buil­dings.

All these contemporary/mo­dern houses have the same function also the same building mate­rial (wood), but differ in techno­logy, construction, form and environment. Restaurant in Kaunas (Fig. 3) is inorganic/strange for traditional architecture (it copy Russian architecture in form, construction, technology) in all the aspect and cannot be estimated as good example. Other two (Fig. 4, Fig. 5) are built in traditional environment (near the road). Form or facade of tavern/restaurant near the highway (Fig. 4) is transferred from estate house of 18th century. That contradict the environment: estate living houses always were built in natural ambience, remoted from the roads. Old building material used in this tavern/restaurant (taken from the old outhouses) counterweight/offset the imbalance (historical form with environment) and make it well acceptable. The third example does not copy/replicate anything. Technology, construction and form continue/keep up local building tradition so tavern, as example of new building could be estimated pretty well.

 

Conclusions

The 21st century requires conserving cultural identity and diversity that in architecture is based on continuity of a unique character of building. Architectural heritage should be understood as resources for present and prospective/further development.  The preservation of those cultural resources require/claim to cooperate our endeavour/striving for an interdisciplinary overview of the actual research and practical experiences. Only cooperating our knowledge and sharing the ideas and experience we can perceive our oneness/distinction and to enrich European culture by its diversity. 

 

 

previous________ back to contents _________ next

 


* Rasa Bertasiute este arhitect şef la Muzeul Etnografic din Vilnius, Lituania.

 

[1] G.Andersson, P.Sjömar, Wooden workshop in log construction: basis for a methodology, Strasbourg. 2002, pp. 39-48.

[2] Până acum arhitectura regională a fost în mare parte analizată din punct de vedere al structurii, clasificării şi caracteristicilor generale. De regulă, o casă era considerată foarte valoroasă dacă avea acoperiş de stuf sau paie sau o decoraţie bogată. Astfel, unele dintre casele protejate de lege nu sunt chiar atât de valoroase deoarece nu au fost luate în considerare toate aspectele; acum este evident faptul că evaluarea externă este insuficientă.

[3] Fiecare regiune are materiale de construcţie specifice, existând diferenţe atât între tipurile de materiale (conifere, foioase) cât şi diferenţe calitative ale aceluiaşi tip de material (lemnul de pin sau molid în Suedia, Lituania sau Polonia). 

[4] R. Bertasiute, The ethnic originalities of roof and wall constructions in rural building, Liaudies kultura, Vilnius, 2003, Nr. 3, pp. 17-25

[5] în Lituania este de neconceput să construieşti o casă fără fundaţie sau cu un acoperiş plat, pe când în alte ţări este un lucru firesc. În Gothland există case construite în secolele XVII-XVIII direct pe sol, fără fundaţie, iar în unele ţări din sud multe case au acoperişul plat.

[6] Unele elemente stilistice ale caselor din lemn sunt de fapt preluări din arhitectura de zid, pierzându-şi logica: cornişa barocă, ferestrele circulare, pragul superior al uşii arcuit, etc.

[7] Construcţia în cadre era cunoscută în Lituania de vest, ca influenţă din alte ţări din jurul mării Baltice, încă din secolul XIV, fiind foarte populară în secolele XIX-XX. În ­estul Lituaniei acest tip de construcţie a fost folosit cu precădere din secolul XIX, evoluând din vechiul tip de construcţie pe stâlpi, fără nici o influenţă exterioară. Astfel, observăm că acelaşi tip de construcţie are, în diferite regiuni, o geneză diferită.

[8] În Lituania există şase cuvinte diferite pentru termenul de locuinţă. Din punct de vedere lingvistic sunt asincrone; unele sunt cuvinte străine. Surprinzător este faptul că locuinţele au o construcţie, chiar o formă diferită. În acelaşi timp, aceste structuri sunt similare celor desemnate de acelaşi termen în regiuni adiacente; prin compararea construcţiilor din punct de vedere arhitectural şi lingvistic ajungem la următoarea concluzie: construcţiilor şi formelor arhitecturale arhaice le corespund termeni arhaici.

[9] În perioada sovietică rezultatele obţinute în domeniul restaurării au fost slabe datorită neluării în calcul a tuturor aspectelor legate de valoare. Multă informaţie s-a pierdut deoarece o clădire era privită doar din punct de vedere formal. S-au utilizat materiale noi (grinzi, cofraje) fără a ţine însă seama de dimensiunile originale, neacordându-se atenţie vechii tehnologii, uneltelor  sau chiar construcţiei. Uneori s-a păstrat doar o formă golită de orice valoare reală.

 

 

[10] G. Andersson, P.  Sjömar, “ Wooden workshop in log construction: basis for a methodology”, Living wooden culture throughout Europe, Strasbourg. 2002, pp. 39-48.

[11] Up to now mostly the development of planning structure, classification and general characteristics of regional architecture has been analysed. Usually the house got the best valuation if it had thatch/straw roof or rich decoration. Thus some of listed/protected by law houses are not very valuable because not all the aspects have been taken into account. Now it is evident that externally estimation is not enough.

[12] Every region has specific building materials. Except differences between building material in different regions (conifer, leafy trees) there are qualitative differences between the same material, for example pine or spruce wood in Sweden, Lithuania or Poland.

[13]  There are three main sections for building investigation: chronological, typological and regional.

[14] R. Bertasiute, “The ethnic originalities of roof and wall constructions in rural building”, Liaudies kultura. Vilnius, 2003, Nr. 3, pp. 17-25.

[15] Living houses have rafter roof, granaries – log roof, threshing barns – hanging rafter or pole roof construction.

[16] It is unreasonable to use flat roof or to build house without foundation in Lithuania, but that is quite rational in other countries. There are houses in Gothland built in 17th – 18th ages straight on the ground without any foundation. There are houses with flat roofs across southern countries.

[17] Some elements in the stylistic wooden houses were transferred from stone architecture and lost it logic. That is baroque cornice, circular/round windows, arched lintels and other decorative details.

[18] Frame construction in western Lithuania was known from 14th century and was very popular in 19th – 20th centuries. It was influenced from other countries around Baltic Sea. In eastern Lithuania this construction was applied mostly from 19th century. It has been developed from more ancient pole construction without any influence from aside. Both them, on western and eastern Lithuania, were the same construction though with different genesis.

[19] There are six different words for living house in Lithuania. From linguistic point of view they are asynchronous. Some of them are foreign words. Surprising is that the houses have different construction also different forms. At the same time these structures are very similar to others with the same term/name in adjacent regions. In comparison architectural and linguistic facts we get the same conclusion:  archaic constructions and forms accord/correspond archaic linguistic terms. If, trying to invoke additional historians and archaeologists from abroad we may get suitable right answer to our question about developing of living houses.

[20] Craftsmen take care about material, technology and construction, architect mostly about form, owner about planning it means function of house, ordinary observer about environment.

[21] In soviet period it was not taken into account all the aspects of value and we have bad results in restoration field. Only form of building was regarded thus much information was lost. There has been used new standard material (the boards, beams) that did not repeat authentic measurements. There was no attention to ancient technology, tools, sometimes-even construction. It was left only shape but not really valuable object.