Notes on the study of the Central European Forum Olomouc

Raffael Santi, Portrait of Pope Julius II, 1511-12, London, National Gallery

A week before writing these lines, one of the visual artists from Olomouc commented on the presented SEFO study roughly as follows: what could we have expected – it is an exact expression of how an architectural historian, who dedicated his entire life to research into the 19th century and whose worldview, let’s say, is significantly marked by this focus (and vice versa), presents the ideal stand for modern art. I am convinced of the correctness of this observation: therefore, I believe that any more ambitious critical or art-historical analysis of the design must begin with the person of the statutory representative of the investor, and for this reason, I am also very at a loss as to how to express my opinion. The architect – let Jan Šépka forgive me – plays a secondary role here. Anyone who has been following his work for a longer time and who can simultaneously put together the equation “Šépka brand” + architect Emil Přikryl's school + the requirements of heritage conservation (parceling, roof landscape) could not have been too surprised by the outcome. The anticipated operational or aesthetic shortcomings of the design have already been accurately named: too little space for large formats and actions usual in modern artistic expression and for large groups of visitors, architecture as a too self-sufficient “piece of art”, which can comfortably do without exhibits, “chapels” instead of the promised “forum”, a dull, poorly articulated façade, similar to, for instance, a library or light chimneys impressive in visualizations, but poorly prepared for the reality of operation, aging, the weather in Olomouc, as well as the limits of the capabilities of the executing craftsmen. These moments could have been anticipated based on experiences from the Archdiocesan Museum, and some of them could be corrected since the potential of the design is great and there is plenty of time left.
The key question is why Jan Šépka was chosen and why the design is already being defended so stubbornly and simultaneously not very convincingly, even disrespectfully towards the author himself. Or is it perhaps flattering to Jan Šépka when it is stated in the public debate that one of the reasons for his selection was a discount on the fee? Does “resonance with the famous interiors of Piranesi or John Soane” also see anyone else besides Pavel Zatloukal? Is the mere existence of the detail of the upper lighting and the communication bridge on the floor sufficient for the purposeful emphasis on such parallels, without proportional, scale, material, or color analogies? Why is SEFO compared to Libeskind's Jewish Museum, when the functions and the essential message or emotional statement of these buildings is – and must be – diametrically different? Why such a desperate effort to define oneself against an imaginary enemy, to point fingers at the culprits who obstruct the efforts to build a house “of the concentration of modern spirituality”,

Royal Palace, La Granja de San Ildefonso, 18th century, photo by M. Horáček

whether in the acute case of Olomouc (land speculator, Czech Chamber of Architects) or chronically in the tradition of promoting modernist artistic expression (decline in general taste)? Can a renowned expert and simultaneously exceptionally sensitive aesthetic not defend himself from descending to the argumentative level of those from whom he so ostentatiously distances himself? A subtle critical analysis would serve Šépka's design better than generalizing historicist analogies and poetic associations, a bipolar division of the world into “us” and “them,” and authoritative backing of his choice by his own expertise and unreflective agreement of “a number of esteemed historians and theorists of architecture”, which a layperson can scarcely interpret otherwise than as an agreement among friends and acquaintances.
The author of the study should not be absolved of responsibility, but is it the case that modernists have it set up among themselves that from the architect – Moses springs revelation while the critic/theorist – Aaron sees his task as turning the user and viewer to faith? One of the Aarons in this case is the patron – he seized this role with the vigor of Julius II, and it seems that he is equally successful, which alone invokes respect and joy in every lover of art. However, one essential difference emerges, and it is not so much that the Renaissance feudal lord had his own money, while Olomouc's Julius must beg from the administrative behemoth reallocators of leftovers from the feast of “market society.” Julius II, in fact, found Michelangelo and Raphael for his artistic commissions. When Raphael died, nature wept, writes Giorgio Vasari – and such an artistic faith required little struggle; it spread by itself. Let us ask whether behind the obstinate defense of the SEFO study lies precisely the fear that the time of Raphaels, but also the time of John Soanes, Piranesis, or – to stay in Olomouc – the time of architects of the caliber of Domenico Martinelli or Anton Arche has passed. And simultaneously the desire that this fact must be concealed from the public for as long as possible, most likely for its own good. I recently returned from a journey through the country admired by

Dome before the mihrab of the Great Mosque, Córdoba, 10th century, photo by M. Horáček

by lovers of contemporary avant-garde architecture, namely from Spain. Yes, Rogers's Barajas Airport is astonishing and functions excellently, yes, in Herzog and de Meuron's exhibition building CaixaForum the corten shell and the deconstructivist base beautifully combine with the remains of an industrial monument – but what is that compared to the gardens of La Granja, the mihrab of the Great Mosque in Córdoba, or art-deco skyscrapers on Madrid's Gran Vía? Indeed, how pitiful does Nouvel's plastic hotel Puerta América look next to the honest brutalist high-rise Torres Blancas by Francisco Sáenz de Oiza (1961-1969)?
Let us wish SEFO a successful realization that does not even need to deviate significantly from the proposed design. Let us wish all modern Juliuses II enthusiasm and success and especially that they discover their Michelangelos and Raphaels and manage to extract the maximum from their talent. Let us also wish for more arguments that will instead of defensive reactions or ambiguity encourage an open and productive rational debate.

Martin Horáček, October 21, 2009