Izvorni znanstveni članak
https://doi.org/10.17018/portal.2014.7
Results of the Conservation Research of Villa Bunić-Kaboga in Rijeka Dubrovačka
Nada Grujić
Sažetak
The villa was constructed in two phases that match the periods prior to and after the 1667 earthquake. During the first phase, which defined the architectural typology, the exterior and the principal layout of the building, the villa belonged to the Bunić family, while in the second phase it was owned by the Kaboga family. The villa, as it was executed in the first phase, is considered to be a prime example of the Dubrovnik villa architecture and an exceptional monument of the Gothic-Renaissance style. Its construction is dated to the first decades of the 16th century, based on style characteristics of the portico and its column capitals, the loggia and the chapel that was commissioned in 1538 from Petar Andrijić. All recent insights into the first phase of the villa resulted from the 2008 and 2009 research and are published in the Journal of the Institute of Art History 38 (2014), while this article focuses on the findings from the second phase of construction, which were the basis for the proposed conservation guidelines.
Portions of the villa that originated in the 18th and 19th century, in the time of the Kaboga family, are far inferior to the architectural concept achieved in the time of the Bunić family. Moreover, certain interventions have undermined its former excellence. For example, the construction of a staircase projection to the rear of the building altered the relation between the great hall and the back garden, and a change in the overall layout of the villa ensemble emerged from adding a new boathouse in front of the westernmost arch of the portico. In the rooms of the 1st floor, new flooring was laid and wooden beams were replaced with coved plaster ceilings. The renovation of the interior that introduced characteristics of the Baroque style was radical in terms of the walls. All the previous plaster was hacked off, so that all the layers of paint and the wall painting investigated in the conservation research were determined to have originated during or after the 18th century. The research was therefore focused on investigating the interior in order to determine the relation between the two phases and the possibilities for their presentation.
The major intervention in the second phase was the construction of a new staircase; the vertical communication became more complex and visually connected to the ground-floor entrance hall. The dynamic concept of the staircase is revealed particularly in its first section, which consists of three separately-vaulted sequences, suggesting spatial depth. Parallel flights of stairs are located in a tall room topped by the plastered ceiling. Both the stairs and
the landings are paved with light- and dark-grey marble slabs that give it a representative character. The connection of the atrium and the staircase is accentuated with the almost identical painting of the walls: elements of architecture (decorations, capital portions of the pilasters and the arches, panel mouldings) that are elsewhere executed sculpturally are here painted. The division of the wall surface, the vaults and the ceiling is executed in painted architectural decoration. The oldest three painted layers are done in this way. In both the entrance hall and the staircase, the second layer – pink with brown decorations – is proposed for conservation, as it was revealed to be the finest and best preserved. The fourth landing that ends the staircase had particular importance in the layout of the 1st floor: therefrom one entered into the great hall, exited to the garden or climbed to the attic. The wall painting of the western, the only painted wall of the landing, stretched from the gray-colour parapet to the frame of the panel mouldings that continue over to the wooden door frame, which suggests they once stretched across the doors that were, however, removed in the renovation. The staircase of Villa Bunić-Kaboga contributed nothing to the prior architectural concept, and without the wall painting, the space would be even further devalued.
The great hall – with its 16th-century scale, Gothic windows on the façade wall, Renaissance door-frames and the late 18th-century wall painting – reflects the changing styles of the villa. It is suggested that the penultimate painted layer should be presented, i.e. that the plaster on all the walls up to the parapet zone should be preserved and conserved (the imitation of marble plates in wine-red, framed with grey bands), and that the wall painting on top of the parapet should be reconstructed according to the findings. Over the light-blue paint on the walls, decorations were executed in darker blue; thicker and thinner vertical and horizontal lines compose frames, whose upper corners are filled with tendril motifs. The wall painting imitates panels that would in a more sumptuous variety be executed in relief or even gilded ornaments. However, the transparency suggested by the sky-blue colour is unmistakably reminiscent of the times when the great hall of the Villa Bunić, opened with numerous windows, generated the same impression. Lines drawn in darker blue are reminiscent of supporting structures with tendrils, which are frequent in garden pavilions. Although the guidelines were accepted by the Conservation Department in Dubrovnik in October of the same year, opposition to the proposal lasted until the spring of 2012.
The painting in the lateral rooms of the 1st floor also has the horizontal division of wall surfaces and ceiling coves that optically lowers the rooms: marbleization is found in the parapet zones. In the front lateral rooms of the 1st floor, the findings were revealed to be deserving of at least a partial presentation. The guidelines were therefore formulated in such a way: regardless of whether they originated at the same time and the fact that they were more a reflection of the commissioner’s taste than the high style criteria, it was necessary, given the architecture of the villa itself and its designated users – conservators – to display the authentic space and its furnishings. For example, in the northeastern side room, the oldest layer was proposed for presentation, but was unfortunately not executed: it depicted a marbleized parapet against a light-grey and pale-pink background with dark-grey sinews, while the wall on top of it was painted light-grey and pale-pink. On the eastern wall, in one of the paint layers, a fine pencil and monochrome wash drawing was discovered: on top of two fluted pilasters and barely visible traces of a moulded architrave, a lion is depicted holding with its paw an open book with an inscription: INIVSTI PVNIENTVR ET SEMEN IMPIORVM PERIBIT. According to documented measures it can be induced that in the 18th-century interior renovation, the drawing in fact traced the painted fireplace hood from the 16th century. As proposed in the conservation guidelines, the drawing was strapped, but was not returned during the final conservation efforts. In addition, the northeastern room of the 1st floor had in its western wall a fireplace, whose relatively small dimensions and the spolia cornice indicated that its format was subsequently altered. Due to the lack of information, it was not proposed for reconstruction. It was, however, renovated, i.e. its opening was framed with moulded jambs whose plasticity mismatches the cornice. Furthermore, the guidelines underlined that in all the back lateral rooms, regardless of the quality of the painting, the zones of the parapet, the wall and the coves should be distinguished. This would be a way to optically lower the small-sized rooms, which were in the Baroque period given high ceilings with no beams. Not considering and not applying this type of wall division would result in a distorted impression of the Baroque space, which is unfortunately what had taken place.
The loggia, opened with two arches on the north and the south side, was found with some 19th-century woodwork, which was removed according to the proposed guidelines. The floor slabs needed to be replicated in the most similar material, the same colour and size of the slabs and the way they were laid, in order for the loggia to be distinguished from open surfaces of the terrace and the garden. However, this suggestion was disregarded. The large water basin that was discovered in the eastern wall with no beams was presented in a highly stylized and wrongly interpreted manner.
The terrace in front of the façade and the chapel, as well as the one on top of the boathouse, was in the second phase paved with stone slabs. Investigations initially determined the height of an earlier paving, which was 4.5 cm lower, later to reveal the original paving in bricks (25 x 12.5 cm), laid in a fishbone pattern and matching the time of origin of the façade. The subsequent finding was, unfortunately, overlooked in the conservation. Indeed, this is not the only example of how in this villa renovation the taste of the sponsor was given priority over the authenticity of the findings.
Other than the two historical phases, some 19th- and 20th-century construction efforts affected the condition the conservators encountered in the 2008 research. According to the cadastral plan from 1832/1877 and its written portion from 1841, aside from the cultivated downs, there was also a facility building and a small garden at the presumed original location of the 16th-century boathouse. At the turn of the century, the last owners caused injuries to the arches and the capitals as they embedded some woodwork into the loggia. In addition, damage was done to the stone frames of the Gothic windows in the 1st floor: metal wedges were driven into window jambs, columns, capitals and arches. Single-arched windows lost their three-foil outline and the three-arched window was given two side openings in place of the central one. The conservation report suggested that a special renovation project be established for the three-arched window, in order to investigate the possibility of returning the opening to its original form. However, this was disregarded, whether there was a reason or not for doing so.
Ključne riječi
Rijeka Dubrovačka; Villa Bunić-Kaboga; 16th century; 18th century; architecture; wall painting; conservation research
Hrčak ID:
133050
URI
Datum izdavanja:
22.12.2014.
Posjeta: 2.639 *