V mojem začetku je moj konec
T.S. Eliot

Zakaj se nekateri arhitekti, med drugimi tudi revija ab, vztrajno zavzemamo za ohranitev arhitekturnih del iz zgodovine? Čemu se borimo celo za dela, ki so v javnosti zaničevana, kakršna je večina arhitekture iz obdobja moderne? Ohranjanje starega je vendar v nasprotju s temeljno željo in poslanstvom arhitekta, ki je, da gradi novo!

Najbrž je v principu res, da bi ohranjal tisti (posameznik, družba, čas), ki dvomi vase. A arhitekturna kultura ni le gotovost, je tudi dvom. Dvom, da bo novo vedno boljše od starega, dvom, da je naša resnica edina zveličavna, dvom v linearni napredek, ob dvomu pa tudi pa spoznanje o omejenosti prostora, virov, časa in naših zmožnosti, da obvladamo svet, v katerem živimo.

Po gotovost se zato zatekamo v zgodovino, v kateri skušamo najti kriterije za kakovost, in kjer jih tudi zares najdemo. Kaj pa je arhitekturna kakovost? Kako, s kom, kje in kdaj se udejanja?

Arhitekturna vrednost tiči v intelektualni strukturi, ki jo je stavbi dal njen arhitekt. Stavba in arhitektura sta zato ob svojem nastanku najbolj povezani z arhitektom, s svojim intelektualnim stvariteljem, nato pa seveda z naročnikom in izvajalcem, s svojima "fizičnima in materialnima očetoma". Vsi trije nosijo odgovornost za arhitekturno kvaliteto novogradnje. Ko je stavba enkrat zgrajena, se prične njeno lastno življenje. V njem je povezana z lastnikom in uporabnikom. Ta dva odločata o njeni usodi in nosita odgovornost zanjo.

Arhitekti čutimo odgovornost do del, ki so naša baza, osnova, iz katere v intelektualnem smislu izhajamo. Ponosni smo na svojo arhitekturno dediščino in najboljša dela naše nove arhitekture nastajajo v stalnem kritičnem dialogu z njo. Da, prav ste prebrali, arhitektura birojev Sadar + Vuga arhitekti, Ofis, Bevk Perović arhitekti, ter mnogih drugih, ne bi bila tako (mednarodno) uspešna, če se ne bi napajala iz tradicije slovenske moderne arhitekture.

Arhitekturno dediščino modernizma torej imamo, a če je ne varujemo, jo lahko hitro izgubimo. In jo tudi zares izgubljamo. Vse dediščine ne moremo ohranjati na konservatorski način, to gre pri tistih redkih spomenikih, ki jih zaščiti država. Pri vseh ostalih pa morajo biti strategije drugačne. Prične se s kulturo spominjanja, spoznavanja, pa tudi ljubezni. Arhitektura bo obstala, če bo kdo primerno skrbel zanjo. To se bo zgodilo, če bo našla prave skrbnike, če bo dobila zbirateljsko avro, če bo postala objekt poželenja. Na podoben način kot oldtimerji, ki jih lastniki ljubiteljsko vzdržujejo in obnavljajo, čeprav ni nujno, da bi vzdržali objektivno primerjavo (poraba, udobje, emisije, cena ...) s sodobnimi avtomobili. Ohranjanje je stvar kulture ljubiteljev, poznavalcev in seveda razumevanja, spodbude in skrbi države. Vzdrževanje pa zahteva znanje, tehnologijo in denar. Šele z dobrim naročnikom lahko dober arhitekt skrbi za kvalitetno, sodobno, premišljeno in hkrati kreativno prenovo, ki zagotovi realno preživetje kvalitetnih arhitektur modernega obdobja.

Promocija, osveščanje, dokumentiranje, tehnike prenove in zavzemanje za ohranitev moderne arhitekture so cilji, ki jih na mednarodni ravni zastopa DOCOMOMO. Na teoretski, simbolni in praktični ravni nas uči, kako živeti z njo. Kako jo prenavljati, posodabljati, ne da bi jo ob tem izgubili. Obrača se na lastnike, uporabnike, oblast in na arhitekte.

Slabo vzdrževana, prenavljana in popravljana arhitektura je sicer bolje, kot porušena, saj ohranja vsaj potencial – da se bo iz nje kdaj v prihodnosti dalo še kaj narediti. Je pa pokvečena arhitektura prav tako boleča in moteča kot pokvečena slika ali glasba.

Cilji, ki jih je zastavil DOCOMOMO ob svoji ustanovitvi leta 1990, so za Slovenijo še vedno v celoti aktualni in še daleč smo od tega, da bi jih normalno uresničevali. Doživljamo in še bomo doživljali nerazumevanje, brezbrižnost in celo barbarsko uničevanje. Tudi med predstavljenimi deli je veliko ogroženih. Normalno delujoča iniciativa DOCOMOMO je neobhodni del normalnosti arhitekturne in spomeniškovarstvene situacije v razviti družbi. Pa smo normalni?

Miha Dešman

In my beginning is my end.
T.S. Eliot

Why do some architects, including those of us at ab magazine, strive to preserve historical works of architecture? Why is it that we fight even on behalf of those works that are despised by the public, such as most of our Modernist architecture? Preservation of the old is, after all, a contradiction to the architect’s basic wish and aim to build what is new! It is probably true that those (whether individuals, societies or periods) who doubt themselves, wish to preserve. But architectural culture lies not only in certainty but also in doubt. The doubt that the new will always supersede the old; the doubt that our truth is the only truth; the doubt in linear progression; the apprehension accompanying this doubt, through which we realise the limitations of space, sources, time and our ability to control the world we live in.

When seeking certainty, we often turn to history, in which we try to find criteria for quality, and eventually we find these. What, then, about architectural quality? How, through whom, where and when does it take place? Architectural value lies in the intellectual structure given to a building by its architect. Buildings and architecture are therefore connected most with their architect – their intellectual maker – and then, of course, with the stakeholders and the construction project manager, a building’s “physical and material” fathers. All three carry responsibility for the architectural quality of a building in construction. Once completed, a building begins to have a life of its own, in which it is connected with the proprietor and the user. These decide its fate and carry responsibility.

We architects feel a responsibility towards those works that represent our intellectual roots. We are proud of our architectural heritage, and the best new architecture is conceived through a constant critical dialogue with that heritage. This should be emphasised: the architecture of Sadar + Vuga, Ofis, Bevk Perović Architects and many others would not have been so internationally successful had it not been fuelled by the tradition of Slovenian Modernist architecture. Nevertheless, we could swiftly lose our entire Modernist heritage if we fail to preserve it. And we are indeed losing it. It is impossible to preserve all heritage through conservation – that is only possible with government-protected monuments. Other works require different strategies, beginning with a culture of remembrance, recognition and also love. Architecture will remain if someone takes care of it. And that can only happen if an architectural work finds true guardians. Preservation is a matter of the culture of devotees, connoisseurs, and of course of understanding, encouragement and care on the part of the state. Maintenance, however, requires knowledge, technology and funds. It is only through a committed stakeholder that an architect can lead a high-quality, contemporary, prudent and at the same time creative renovation, to ensure the survival of high-quality Modernist architecture.

Promotion, documentation, renovation techniques and the aim of preserving Modernist architecture are goals represented by Docomomo at an international level. These teach us, on a theoretical, symbolic and practical level, how to live with this architecture, and how to renovate and update it without losing it. This represents an appeal to owners, users, authorities and architects. Poor maintenance, renovation and repair of architecture are still preferable to demolition, as the architecture in question at least retains its potential – meaning that in the future something may still become of it. The aims set by Docomomo when founded in 1990 are still fully relevant in Slovenia, and we are far from realising those aims. Even among the works presented, many are at risk. Normal functioning of an initiative like Docomomo would be an inevitable part of a consistent approach to architecture and conservation in a developed society. But can we truly be termed normal?

Miha Dešman