History of reconstruction - Construction of history Towards a representation of the phenomenon

Build or Rebuild: yes, no, how and when? The issue is still today the subject of incredible debates involving architects, conservators and urban planners, who cannot however ignore the common opinion of those who use that architecture, and the cultural dynamics, historical facts or events, traumatic or voluntary, which determine its destruction; in other words: reconstruction cannot ignore the reasons of the destruction.

For this reason, after 20 years of research on reconstructions designed and carried out all over the world, in the exhibition “Geschichte der Rekonstruktion - Konstruktion der Geschichte” (History of reconstruction - Construction of history), held in Munich in 2010, Winfried Nerdinger, together with Markus Eisen and Hilde Strobel (the group of curators), given up describing the phenomenon of reconstruction according to the more classic chronological order, preferring a thematic order. The exhibition was in fact divided into ten sections based on causes and contexts that can be identified behind the reconstructive measures - such as political, religious, memorial or ritual. For each thematic area, dozens of selected building examples were documented with photographs, engravings, plans, films and models; moreover, along the exhibition rooms, an unfolded “photographic volume” gave the perception of the immense number of reconstruction interventions carried out (about 200 photographic examples in three series, original state - destruction - reconstruction). The examples of reconstructed buildings, from ancient times to the present, and from very different regions of the world, impressively demonstrated that reconstruction is not an isolated fact: it has been practiced at every moment of history, in every latitude, and always took place with the approval of the citizens.

As the exhibition, born following the debate that arose within the conference The principle of reconstruction (24 and 25 January 2008) at the ETH in Zurich, the large format catalogue offers a basic overview of the topic. In over 500 pages, around 150 reconstructions are elaborated in detail, divided into ten thematic areas. The catalogue is accompanied by specialist articles that provide an in-depth view of the current state of research and discussion.

“A copy is not a fraud, a facsimile is not a fake, a cast is not a crime and a reconstruction is not a lie” writes Nerdinger in the introduction to the volume in an attempt to deprive the term “reconstruction” of its moral value. Reconstruction depends on the reasons that led to destruction, which for a building is being restored and after how much time. When a lost or destroyed building is reconstructed, nothing is consequently falsified. It is always a new building which, despite its historical forms, is recognizable as a repetition by contemporaries and by subsequent generations, through adequate sources and documents. It will become a monument itself.

In her contribution Aleida Assmann addresses the theme of reconstructions starting from a criticism of the present, stating that the past has tacitly taken on a quality that was once attributed only to the future, that of an inexhaustible resource for renewal and change. She focuses on the episodes of reconstruction after the Second World War, moving from the example of the historic center of Warsaw to the Parliament of Berlin, when after bombings and symbolic demolitions, architecture had to respond to existential dramas for the community, such as the resolution of relationship with the past and attitude towards the future.

In their intervention, Fernando Vegas and Camilla Mileto introduce religious continuity as a reason for reconstruction and further construction of places of worship, through assimilation or usurpation. In the evolutionary perspective of the history of architecture, for example, Greek temples, from wooden constructions, were replaced over time with stone buildings, to then be reinvested with religious meaning, and therefore transformed for use or for shape: it happened in the case of the Cathedral of Syracuse. The following examples retrace processes and reasons for reconstructions for religious continuity, ideally introducing Niels Gutschow's contribution to the cyclical renewal of sanctuaries in the East, and in particular in Nepal, India and Japan.

Among the contributions that address the theme of reconstructions in antiquity, the one of Hubertus Günther opens up questions, dealing with architecture of  the Renaissance as a reconstruction and reinterpretation of the ancient. In it, the term “reconstruction” forcibly silences the consolidated terms of “copy” and “citation”, as well as the phenomenon of “reception of antiquity”. Eva-Maria Seng presents examples from the period between 1600 and 1800, including the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Orleans, or the Church of Sant’Apollinare in Valencia. She concludes that the concept of reconstruction can actually be applicable to explain the different building measures of reconstruction, renovation or copying. What remains clear is that for all processes it is necessary to reflect on their political implications. Further on in the text, the contribution by Uwe Altrock, Grischa Bertram and Henriette Horni addresses the topic with reference to the Central European cases of the “wave” of postmodern reconstructions. They highlight political background and cultural climate, such as the “pressure to individualize” and the “longing for home,” as the reasons for (re)constructive efforts.

At the end, starting from a reflection on the relationship between ruin and reconstruction, Uta Hassler’s contribution invites to a renewed reflection on the theoretical history of the conservation of the 20th century. Therefore, through examples of preserved ruins, such as Heidelberg Castle, or reconstructions conservative of traces of historical events and past destructions, as in the case of the Glyptothek in Munich, or the Neues Museum in Berlin, the contribution critically questions the semantics of the different concepts of reconstruction. Finally, underlining the influence of the aesthetics of the unfinished, of the fragment, it highlights how “Abstaining from reconstructing historical models is just as possible as repeating existing models; a differentiation of the “side-by-side co-existence and counter-existence of different temporal layers” remains essential (p. 188).

The exhibition catalogue, which follows the contributions, presents some of the hundreds of examples on display in the exhibition, all more or less similar or different from each other. The vast repertoire leads to a vision of the reconstructive phenomenon as a transcultural historical experiential process generated by various factors. In this way, it becomes clear the questionability of general appropriation for or against the ‘reconstruction’, and the focus shifts to the relevant time periods and decision-making processes considering the past - as original state, the destruction - political debate and cultural context, and the future - as reconstructive solution. Despite the lack of references and comparisons with failed episodes of reconstructions, which could have broadened the scope of the investigation, the value of the work also lies in the attempt to shed light on the jungle of terms and phenomena that can be collected under the keyword “reconstruction”, developing a specific thematic glossary (copy, imitation, dismantling, etc.).