Izvorni znanstveni članak
Critical Reception of Viktor Kovačić's Regulation Plan for the Zagreb Kaptol from 1908 to 1945
Zlatko Jurić
; Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Odsjek za povijest umjetnosti, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Sažetak
A large number of critical reviews have been written about Viktor Kovačić’s town-planning and architectural oeuvre in the period from 1900 to 1945. All the critics have written about the regulation plan for Kaptol and its surrounding area, which had been awarded first prize at the public competition in 1908. The plan occupies a distinct place in Kovačić’s oeuvre in the town-building of Zagreb, as it well reflects the development and shifts in the critical reception of a new phenomenon such as town-building, which would after the Second World War become known as urban planning.
A. G. Matoš, A. Jiroušek and Đ. Szabo have published three disparate critical interpretations of the regulation plans that entered the competition. Matoš’s critical method was based on a rather subjective selection and interpreta-tion of facts, as among all the contestants he only mentioned Kovačić and showered him with superlatives. The text brims with judgments based on current impressions, but lacks analysis and explanation. Matoš was staunch as an official hagiographer of Kovačić’s. Jiroušek’s text was written in a far more calm and dispassionate tone, giving contemporaries an overview of the competition jury’s criteria and a critical account of all the entries. He clearly observed that a change of generations had taken place and unambiguously promoted Kovačić as the leading figure of the mature and talented 2nd academic generation of architects. Jiroušek’s attitude to Kovačić varied from moderate and measured criticism to the complete subjectivity of a panegyric. Szabo has demonstrated the most thorough understanding of the contemporary theory and practice of town-building. He clarified the difference between Kovačić and other contestants. On the one hand, there was the architect’s comprehensive study of the history and topography of the town area. In his regulation plan, Kovačić made an effort to synthetize the historical, topographical and proprietary features into a balanced artistic whole. On the other hand, there were the plans which completely ignored the actual features and entered regulation ideas that were financially untenable.
V. Lunaček i K. Strajnić recognized the supreme artistic value of Kovačić’s and Ehrlich’s town-planning oeuvres, but failed to give detailed accounts.
M. Krleža made an unexpected contribution when he wrote about the scandal that accompanied D. Ibler’s early career. In a single brilliant move he fully and irrefutably divested the venerated Kršnjavi of the little authority he had left. Using only his intuitive insight of a true literary talent, Krleža sketched the spirit of the culture of thetime and the significance of Kovačić’s regulation plan for Kaptol and its surrounding area. In the obituary for Kovačić, Lunaček concluded that he did not create novel forms of modern architecture, but rather that he had of-fered revitalized forms of revived Classicism, adjusted to the new age, new constructions and new materials. He instituted Kovačić as one of the leading representatives of the contemporary architecture and visual arts. The final assessment of his work was a positive one, but far removed from euphoria and triumphalism.
According to the opinion of E. Schön, the regulation plan for Kaptol and its surrounding area was an irrefutable proof to the fact that Kovačić was capable of providing creative solutions to the most difficult and complex tasks in the art of building. Schön wavered between Lunaček’s and Matoš’s approach, even though he was often closer to the hagiographic approach. In his account of Kovačić’s life and work, Szabo had excellently clarified the theoretical principles of town-building in Kovačić’s regulation plan. He clearly pinpointed the causes of all the misunderstandings between Kovačić and the notable cultural figures in Zagreb. Kovačić’s works did from the start embody and exhibit a permanent value. The problem was that a fair portion of the dominant figures in the town’s artistic and cultural life lacked the capacity to observe this in the beginning. It is precisely the bitterness and ill-temperance of the disputes that best demonstrates just how far ahead of the leading representatives of his time Kovačić was. It was only after his death that the public came to realize the excellence and the timeless value of his work. Schön’s folio monograph from 1927 and Szabo’s major review from 1928 represent the apogee of a long process that was initiated by Lunaček, Matoš, Strajnić and Jiroušek. They were the ones who hallmarked Kovačić’s work as the unquestionable onset and a fundamental value of modern architecture in Croatia. Lj. Babić heralded the arrival of a generation of critics, artists and architects born in the 1890ies, who did not outright appropriate neither the theoretical view, nor the artistic work of the older generation. Babić’s theoretical starting point was Krleža’s concise and concentrated assessment. For both of them, Kovačić was an eclectic with a refined taste and not a revolutionary creator of a new expression.
Ključne riječi
Viktor Kovačić; regulation plan for Kaptol; architectural criticism; first half of the 20th century; Antun Gustav Matoš; Đuro Szabo; Vladimir Lunaček; Kosta Strajnić; Miroslav Krleža; Edo Schön; Ljubo Babić
Hrčak ID:
122555
URI
Datum izdavanja:
20.12.2013.
Posjeta: 2.142 *