Josef Chochol: Monuments

Pure sculpture is the most common refuge for those who have decided to publicly manifest their particular relationship with a certain personality through material realization. We evaluate the work and actions, not personal traits or appearance. A figurative monument represents a non-utilitarian approach. A building, for example, embodies a utilitarian alternative to a monument, dedicated to the practical consequences of actions. Our opinions align better with the latter approach. There is no reason for us to cling to forms alien to our intellectual and emotional atmosphere.
Failures almost consistently accompany the realization of contemporary monuments in Prague. This creates the impression that our era is no longer capable of tackling the basic artistic tasks that must be resolved for any well-executed and situated monument. This observation pertains equally to the sculptural work itself as well as its placement. Neither seems to succeed, and sometimes both fail simultaneously. Perhaps haste, a lack of appreciation for the significance of publicly installed sculpture, carelessness on the part of those responsible during discussions, and so on, even patronage may occasionally lead to some oversight. One can admit that due to human frailty, some mistakes will occur over time. However, when failures repeat consistently and almost systematically, one must conjecture much deeper causes. This is not a lapse that occurs once in a long time; rather, there is undoubtedly a lack of creative strength, a decline in art, reduced artistic sensitivity of the modern individual, a differently directed interest in form, a fundamental deviation from the artistic tasks of this kind, and the resulting superficiality and hasty fulfillment of obligations that seem no longer too "close to heart."
In visual art, there are quite a few fetishes and many stubbornly maintained superstitions and traditions. The decline of these occurs only slowly, and is often associated with difficulties and struggles that excellently characterize the situation. The fragmentation of the era reflects in the confusion regarding artistic problems, which may have been addressed with enthusiasm and overcome yesterday, but today are no longer understood and are being distanced from. Mistakes and errors that document the era occur. Nevertheless, it is still not possible to indifferently overlook everything that is realized in this manner. Regardless of our internal relation to the subjects of these artistic phenomena and their visible results, we are determined to work towards possible corrections as much as we can, in the interest of the city, which as a living entity we cannot and will not lose sight of.
Above all, there is the Huss monument, the placement of which has never ceased to be an open question for our cultural public. Its current location in Old Town Square does not change this fact. We feel that the monument is not at all possible in its current location, and we are fully aware of the absolute necessity for a change in this location.
The intellectual and emotional content of the period when the Huss monument was created differs fundamentally from the present. Historical reminiscences have ceased to have significance as a national-political stimulus for us. Legends are now sacrificed to purely scientific insights; we try to look at things simply and critically. Politically, we are in a completely different place today than before the world war. If perhaps just fifteen years ago it was possible to support the existence of some sculpture in a public space with predominantly national or political motives, today only artistic reasons can decide this matter. And these reasons alone lead us to the necessary revision of the Huss monument's placement.
Old Town Square was consciously conceived as a clearly defined gathering space within the medieval urban settlement. It was like an uncovered hall in the heart of the fortified city, very enclosed, and access to its space was artificially restricted by the layout of the entrance streets, making it always difficult for enemies. Its fundamental meaning was a free area serving various gathering purposes. Although the original walls of Old Town Square underwent considerable changes over the centuries, the openness and unobstructed nature of the space have never been fundamentally altered. It has only been through the establishment of the sprawling Huss monument that a significant portion of what was always free space has been occupied. The original free usability of the area has greatly declined due to some modern installations, as well as the ongoing traffic. This has substantially reduced its former capacity, so that one of the most prominent squares in the country can now accommodate barely half of what it could in its untouched state.
The Huss monument forms an island surrounded on all sides by traffic, making it accessible directly from the roadway, which is also the only factor determining the distance of the view. However, the distances gained lose almost all their significance, as the live frequency constantly occupies the areas lying in the distance space, obstructing free visual access to the work and disturbing the peace necessary for contemplative observation. A little sparse green around the base cannot fulfill even the minimum role of a distancing area. The monument rests heavily on the pavement, and even its disproportionately massive base does not alleviate the unfavorable and extraordinarily harmful impression. The tragic pathos of the impressionist monument inappropriately contrasts with the ostentatiously noble calm of the surroundings, which is intended to be grandly dignified or elegantly refined. The relationship of the monument to the given environment is so dangerously strained due to mutual disparity that it is only a small step away from evoking a sense of grotesqueness. The typically non-architectural conception of the monument's mass reflects too sharply against the strict and consistently bound order of the surrounding architecture. The walls of the square are too high, and their surface is very restless and quite demanding in itself. It is impossible to integrate the monument into this environment, where Huss will always stand helplessly as a painful exclamation mark of a mistake.
This monument would gain from being relocated to one of the large parks within Prague, where it could be surrounded by a peaceful green environment, with appropriate spaces ensuring the necessary viewing distances, with proportionately sized background walls or a green interior altogether, where the sculptural work could harmoniously interact with the surrounding area purposefully conceived for the monument.
Myslbek's Prince Wenceslas on Wenceslas Square has the unquestionable advantage of a strict binding of mass and an explicitly architectural composition. It has the opportunity for easy integration with the facades of monumental architectures and fits well into the surroundings created by good buildings. It occupies almost a dominant position at the end of the square, and yet there is hardly a vantage point from which the work can be calmly observed. The monument is directly drowned in the busy street traffic. It lacks firmly defined and undisturbed distancing areas. The intense traffic completely destroys its overall effect. The city tramway particularly harms the monument, with tracks running on both sides closely along the base, and the station in immediate proximity renders any sculptural work virtually unnecessary. There is also no hope for improvement even after a potential removal of the tram line from the inner city, as it is more than certain that traffic on Wenceslas Square will rather increase than decrease. The monument is not visually connected to the building of the National Museum, although it is moved quite close to it. As a result, there is a sense of situational uncertainty. The monumental character of the monument naturally calls for a dominating situation. However, the monument itself is unable to master the space in which it is located. Only the massive building of the National Museum can dominate Wenceslas Square; if the monument were to be attached to this building, it could participate in the dominant situation created by the museum. Its current placement, however, prevents that; the monument is completely cut off from the mass of the museum. This has given the sculptural work a certain independence but taken away everything else it needs most: a connection with the square's dominance. In its current position, the monument cannot assert itself and further obstructs traffic. It is a direct example of how a monument should not be placed.
The independence of the sculpture from any background and its free positioning in space suits a central composition, which requires views from all sides. Myslbek's Wenceslas, however, is a one-way work in all its figures, a monument that is explicitly frontal, primarily expressing the front and then the sides. The rear of the monument, although detailed impeccably, does not yield as much as the previous views and is naturally of secondary significance. The need for a visual base is absolutely clear here. This monument wants to be seen from the front and the sides, while the rear wants to be shielded. It is necessary for it to be removed from the traffic bustle and attached to the dominating building of the museum, which would allow it to jointly control the square's space and simultaneously provide a backdrop. Given the current situation, a location along the axis of the museum, where the currently seldom active fountain is located, would probably be the best solution. There, a dedicated base would be built for the entire ensemble, so that it stands at least one meter above the level of the previous lower terrace of the museum. The currently placed sculptures could be moved, for example, to the park-like surroundings of the museum. The tall flagpoles of the museum could be well shifted towards the beginnings of the arrival ramps. The equestrian statue would greatly benefit from such an isolated position, presenting itself in beautiful silhouetted views from Mezibranská Street and from Hoover's Avenue near Wilson Station, and - in the consequence of the Renaissance composition of the whole, it would even contribute to the effect of the National Museum's mass towards the square. The monument dedicated to Denis in Malostranské Square lacks the clearly defined distancing it deserves. One can approach closely to the base. Views of the high-mounted figure from immediate proximity easily caricature the work. The distances for views from the opposite sidewalks are already too long and are visually interrupted by the traffic lines. The facade of the house forming the backdrop for the monument is very richly detailed, competing with the statue rather than supporting it. Visually, the monument hardly merges with the house it was placed in front of, as the mutual rivalry of both prevents it. The precise orientation of the sculptural work logically elevates only one view, the frontal. In contrast, the sides provide much more in terms of artistic value than the front. This undoubtedly influenced the manner of placement, which must have been no easy task. The explicit frontality contradicts the central situation; the monument had to be attached to some background. The fortunate views from the sides necessitated shortening the distances of lateral views and extending the frontal view distance as much as possible. To the approaching visitor from Charles Bridge, the monument appears as if hidden around the corner and suddenly surprising. This is certainly not the most pleasant impression. From the upper entrance to the square, the monument is seen from above. From the arcade on the northern side of the square, the monument does not achieve favorable views due to its somewhat elevated position. This statue, due to its special conception, would need a very specific interior specially designed for it; Malostranské Square is certainly not that interior. Much could likely be improved by the environment created by vegetation. A reasonable lowering of the base would certainly benefit the whole. The Little Side does not seem to be a sufficiently suitable quarter for the monument to a man of Denis's significance, as it is already somewhat too remote. Denis’s monument should be placed closer to the city center.
This monument reaffirms that merely finding a sufficiently large space is not enough, and that a whole range of requirements must be considered to ensure the environment of the monument harmonizes with the individuality of the sculptural work.