Josef Wiedemann: Living Preservation PDF

THE LIVING PRESERVATION - JOSEF WIEDEMANN CHAPTER I - JOSEF WIEDEMANN: EDUCATION, TEACHING, WORK 1.1 WIEDEMANN'S EDUCATION AND HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH RESTORATION CULTURE IN GERMANY BETWEEN THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES Josef Wiedemann's academic education occurred in the 1930...

THE LIVING PRESERVATION - JOSEF WIEDEMANN CHAPTER I - JOSEF WIEDEMANN: EDUCATION, TEACHING, WORK 1.1 WIEDEMANN'S EDUCATION AND HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH RESTORATION CULTURE IN GERMANY BETWEEN THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES Josef Wiedemann's academic education occurred in the 1930s at the Technische Hochschule in Munich, during a time of significant political and cultural transformation in Germany. His career initially developed within the framework of the Nazi regime, with which he had to collaborate for work opportunities. However, this did not prevent him from cultivating an independent way of thinking. The German restoration culture, deeply rooted in the 19th century and associated with figures such as Alois Riegl and Max Dvorák, profoundly influenced his restoration approach. Wiedemann operated in a context where monument preservation was central to theoretical and practical debates involving both art historians and architects. 1.1.1 RESTORATION CULTURE IN GERMANY BETWEEN THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES The German tradition of restoration developed alongside the rediscovery of Gothic architecture as a national expression. It evolved through the theories of Alois Riegl, Max Dvorák, and Georg Dehio. These scholars promoted a critical perspective on conservation, opposing stylistic restoration in favor of preserving the authenticity of monuments. This debate established the methodological foundations Wiedemann would later apply in post-war reconstruction. 1.1.2 ARCHITECTURAL WORK AND ACTIVITY AS A FREELANCER After completing his studies, Wiedemann started his career in the studio of Roderick Fick, engaging in significant projects commissioned by the Nazi regime. However, the end of the war marked a turning point: during the post-war reconstruction, he emerged as an independent architect. He earned a strong reputation for his ability to merge tradition with modernity. His early projects included residential buildings and schools, reflecting a meticulous understanding of local contexts. 1.1.3 TEACHING AT THE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE IN MUNICH: THE CHAIR OF DENKMALPFLEGE UND SAKRALBAUTEN In 1955, Wiedemann was appointed as a professor at the Technische Hochschule in Munich, where he directed the chair of "Denkmalpflege und Sakralbauten" (Monument Preservation and Sacred Architecture). His teaching emphasized the need to reconcile respect for historical heritage with the demands of contemporary architecture. He was influenced by Italian experiences and the theoretical reflections of his mentor, Hans Döllgast. 1.2 HANS DÖLLGAST AND JOSEF WIEDEMANN: THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MASTER Wiedemann developed his methodological approach through an intense dialogue with his mentor, Hans Döllgast, a prominent figure in German restoration. 1.2.1 HANS DÖLLGAST AND A NEW WAY OF INTERVENING ON THE ANCIENT Hans Döllgast introduced an innovative approach based on the concept of "living conservation." This methodology preserved the historical traces of monuments while adapting them to contemporary needs. His vision would significantly influence Wiedemann's work, who reinterpreted these principles with originality. Alte Pinakothek, Munich, 1953 This intervention was the manifest of Döllgast ideas. The Alte Pinakothek, initially constructed in the 18th century, served as an art gallery where the king could display his collection. Designed by Leo von Klenze, one of the foremost neoclassical German architects, the building featured a simple rectangular layout with two wings. Its design emphasized a clear distinction between the southern loggia, which shielded artworks from sunlight, and the northern section, characterized by its classical symmetry. During World War II, the building sustained significant damage from bombings, leaving behind only ruins. The surrounding area was later cleared and used to collect gravel from the destruction across the city. Instead of demolishing the remains and building anew, a professor advocated for restoring the Alte Pinakothek, arguing that preserving heritage structures was more valuable and cost-effective than starting from scratch. Hans Döllgast, championed this approach and penned an article emphasizing that protecting the original structure is the first and foremost principle of heritage restoration. Döllgast began by designing a lightweight roof and a loggia supported by slender steel pillars. This structure protected both the ruins and the facade. Simultaneously, he incorporated a wall within the building to stabilize and preserve the remnants while keeping some of the original ruins visible. Döllgast revised the plan to reconstruct the central stairway, which had been lost in the bombing, and integrated it with the loggia. This ensured the building’s functionality while maintaining a respectful connection to its historic layout. The most challenging aspect was dealing with the "lacuna" or the missing portions of the building. Döllgast considered various solutions, including extending the original window design across the lower floor while constructing a contrasting solid wall above. Another concept explored was using a glass wall to bridge the gap between the old and new sections, creating a bold architectural contrast. Ultimately, Döllgast adopted a minimalist approach, drawing inspiration from the principles of the Athens Charter. He avoided ornamental additions and instead opted for a simple yet harmonious design. The gaps were filled using bricks, carefully matched in color to the original sandstone. This understated intervention preserved the geometric unity of the building while making the restoration distinguishable from the original. Döllgast’s design exemplified the "Potential Unity of the Work of Art." At first glance, the wall appears to restore the original form, but upon closer inspection, it reveals itself as a modern addition. This deliberate contrast highlights the fragmented history of the building while celebrating its preservation. In the 1980s, this stark differentiation was softened during further renovations, as public sentiment shifted to favor a more seamless blend of past and present. However, Döllgast’s work remains a powerful manifesto for continuity in architecture, demonstrating that restorations can honor both the legacy and evolution of historic structures. 1.2.2 THE RECONSTRUCTION OF ST. BONIFAZ (1956–1968/70): THE MEETING OF MASTER AND PUPIL The collaboration between Döllgast and Wiedemann on the reconstruction of the Basilica of St. Bonifaz marked a pivotal moment in both of their careers. This project exemplified their capacity to combine respect for historical ruins with the use of modern materials and techniques. It also established the methodological foundation that Wiedemann would later employ in his own architectural work. CHAPTER II - WIEDERAUFBAU FOR MUNICH 2.1 POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION: RUPTURE OR CONTINUITY? The post-war reconstruction of Munich, devastated by World War II bombings, presented a unique challenge in the European context. The city faced a fundamental question: should it preserve its ruins as historical memory or use reconstruction as an opportunity for radical transformation? This debate, oscillating between a rupture with the past and continuity, lies at the heart of Josef Wiedemann's work. The concept of Wiederaubau ("reconstruction") in Germany took on multiple meanings. On one hand, it symbolized the recovery of significant monuments to maintain national identity. On the other, it entailed creating modern spaces to address new social and urban needs. Influenced by the methodological approach of his mentor, Hans Döllgast, Wiedemann advocated a synthesis of these two goals. 2.1.1 THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND THE ACTIONS OF BAVARIAN HERITAGE OFFICES After the war, Bavarian legislation concerning the preservation of historical heritage played a critical role in defining how to intervene in the ruins. Bavarian heritage offices, tasked with overseeing reconstruction, developed guidelines aiming to balance conservation with the economic recovery requirements. However, these offices often encountered practical challenges, such as resource shortages and the pressure to quickly provide housing and infrastructure. Wiedemann interpreted these directives with sensitivity and creativity, adhering to the heritage offices' requests without compromising his vision. He was among the few architects of the time to perceive restoration not merely as a technical operation but as a cultural and symbolic process. 2.1.2 WAR DAMAGES: MUNICH'S STUNDE NULL (ZERO HOUR) Munich, like many other German cities, faced its Stunde Null (Zero Hour) at the end of World War II. Bombings had reduced much of the city to rubble, destroying not only residential buildings and infrastructure but also monuments of immense historical value. This situation demanded an immediate and complex response: how should one approach the ruins? Wiedemann saw this as an opportunity to rethink the relationship between the past and the present. He did not regard ruins as mere debris to be removed but as living witnesses of history and collective memory. In his projects, the scars of the past were not concealed but instead emphasized as integral to the new design. 2.1.3 THE PROTAGONISTS OF RECONSTRUCTION Munich's reconstruction was a collective effort, involving architects, art historians, public administrators, and citizens. Notable figures included Hans Döllgast, Sep Ruf, and Robert Vorhoelzer, as well as institutional leaders who promoted a balanced approach between tradition and innovation. Despite being one of the youngest architects in this group, Josef Wiedemann distinguished himself with his ability to engage with diverse stakeholders and propose solutions that addressed both practical and cultural needs. 2.2 JOSEF WIEDEMANN: THE "LIVING" PRESERVATION OF THE EXISTING Wiedemann's approach to reconstruction was based on the concept of "living" preservation. This methodology treated monuments not as static artifacts but as evolving entities. His interventions respected the historical integrity of buildings while adapting them to contemporary functional requirements. 2.2.1 WIEDERAUBAU: GENESIS AND MEANING The term Wiederaubau symbolized both the operational and philosophical underpinnings of Wiedemann’s work. It went beyond mere reconstruction, representing a process of rebirth in which architectural intervention became a tool to restore identity and vitality to war-torn communities. Wiedemann viewed restoration as an act of cultural responsibility, involving not just rebuilding what was lost but creating new connections between past and present. This concept was evident in his design philosophy, which emphasized the use of local materials, traditional techniques, and a clear distinction between historical and modern elements. For Wiedemann, restoration was not about imitating the past but about interpreting it respectfully and creatively. 2.2.2 WIEDEMANN AND WIEDERAUBAU: THEORY AND METHOD Wiedemann's methodology was built on a continuous dialogue between theory and practice. He integrated the theoretical principles of conservation—such as those outlined in the Athens Charter (1931) and the Italian Restoration Charter (1932)—with practical solutions tailored to the specific needs of the sites he worked on. His projects balanced meticulous attention to historical detail with innovative architectural practices. While he frequently employed modern materials like reinforced concrete, he ensured these interventions remained visibly linked to the original architecture. 2.3 CASE STUDIES IN MUNICH 2.3.3 SIEGSTOR (1956–1958) The Siegestor, designed by Friedrich von Gärtner and inspired by Rome's Arch of Constantine, was built between 1843 and 1847 as a key monument of Munich’s neoclassical era under King Ludwig I. It marked the northern end of Ludwigstrasse, symbolizing the city's cultural renaissance. Severely damaged during a 1944 air raid in World War II, it became a somber reminder of its association with Nazi ideology, especially due to its use during the 1935 commemoration of the failed 1923 Beer Hall Putsch. Debates on its reconstruction emerged post-war, with opinions divided between restoring it as an exact replica or incorporating its ruined state. Josef Wiedemann proposed a hybrid solution, preserving the scars of war while giving the monument a renewed form. He reconstructed the structure with a mix of original and new materials, distinguishing old elements from new ones to emphasize its layered history. The restored Siegestor included a steel staircase for public access and was clad in limestone to maintain aesthetic coherence. Wiedemann's approach reflected the philosophy of embracing ruins as reminders of the past, much like the castle of Heidelberg. The reconstructed monument bore an inscription summarizing its journey: "Dedicated to victory – destroyed by war – a reminder of peace." The Siegestor, transformed into a symbol of peace, transcends its original purpose, illustrating the evolution of its meaning through time and its enduring relevance to future generations. 2.3.4 GLYPTOTHEK (1961–1972) Context of the Reconstruction The Glyptothek concludes the analysis of Wiedemann's reconstruction projects for Munich's city center. The prolonged timeline for both design and construction (over a decade) indicates the extensive debate that began in 1961, the year the reconstruction was decided. This debate involved historians, professionals, and the public, with newspapers dedicating entire pages to the issue. Wiedemann’s project remains the most debated of his works and continues to resonate in contemporary discussions. Opinions diverge between those who see it as inattentive to the significance and richness of the original building and those who celebrate it as an attempt to balance memory preservation with belonging to the modern era. Historical Context The original Glyptothek was commissioned in 1816 by Prince Ludwig to Leo von Klenze, who was appointed Hofbaumeister (court architect) that same year. The King’s advisor, Martin von Wagner, raised objections to certain solutions in von Klenze’s design, which he considered unsuitable for a museum aspiring to be Germany’s largest and most prestigious repository of classical art. Wagner criticized the dense decorations, which he believed would distract from the artworks, and the lighting, which relied solely on lunette windows overlooking the courtyard, leaving the interiors dark. Despite these criticisms, von Klenze’s design prevailed due to his strong rapport with Ludwig, who pursued the vision of transforming Munich into a European cultural reference point. Von Klenze’s work perfectly encapsulated the aspirations of the future king. Wiedemann’s Reconstruction Approach Wiedemann was consulted by Hans Diepolder, the museum's director, regarding restoration efforts carried out by the Landesbauamt, which aimed to recreate the building “as it was, where it was.” Wiedemann rejected the idea of reproducing lost elements and argued for preserving existing fragments while integrating them into the reconstructed structure. He suggested cleaning the joints and applying a thin layer of plaster to unify the walls, creating a space that retained both its historical memory and architectural coherence. Design Philosophy and Outcomes Wiedemann envisioned an innovative project influenced by Hans Döllgast, moving beyond replication to create a new interpretation of the original building. His work on the Glyptothek can be described as an Innenaufbau (internal reconstruction), as the exterior had already been irreversibly altered by earlier interventions. Wiedemann’s design emphasizes the idea of a ruin: the unadorned brick surfaces and the orderliness of the treated walls evoke the grandeur of classical ruins, reminiscent of Piranesi’s engravings. The sparse inclusion of original decorative fragments encourages visitors to imagine the building's former state while appreciating its current form. Architectural Innovations Wiedemann tackled unresolved issues from von Klenze’s original design, particularly the inadequate natural lighting. He introduced vertical cuts extending from the lunette windows to the floor, framed by wall segments that suggest the original wall’s closure. This intervention is distinctly modern, with visible steel beams incorporated into the walls. Wiedemann’s choice to avoid fully mimicking the original structure results in a dynamic tension between past and present, making his solution innovative and contextually appropriate. Influences from Italian Architects Wiedemann’s work reflects inspiration from Italian architects such as Franco Albini and Carlo Scarpa. Albini’s design for the Museo del Tesoro di San Lorenzo (1956) influenced Wiedemann’s treatment of the Glyptothek’s lunette windows, with both projects showing a similar attention to detail and spatial tension. Scarpa’s restoration of Castelvecchio (1952–1964) also left a mark on Wiedemann’s approach, particularly in his use of steel for structural and display elements and his craftsmanship, which reveals a deep respect for the interplay between old and new. Impact and Legacy Wiedemann transformed the Glyptothek into a "living" building by reconfiguring its layout and emphasizing interaction between ancient and modern elements. By opening the internal courtyard, he redefined it as a central, visible space, enhancing the spatial experience and breaking away from von Klenze’s enclosed design. Wiedemann’s reconstruction prioritizes functionality and public accessibility, offering a bold reinterpretation of the museum's role within the city. In conclusion, Wiedemann’s Glyptothek embodies Ambrogio Annoni’s philosophy of post- war architectural restoration. Rather than artificially reconstructing damaged monuments, Wiedemann reimagined the structure as a harmonious and modern architectural ensemble. His approach successfully revitalized the building, restoring its significance while integrating it into the contemporary urban landscape.