And you would be added onto Michelangelo?

[Тихая Сапа]

The experts - the ancient monuments and on whether we can finish building a Michelangelo

Posted on 07/28/2011 19:32
Andrei Shary
The mayor of Florence Matteo Renzi offered to complete the unfinished Michelangelo church of San Lorenzo and oblitsevat marble facade of the building in accordance with the concept of the great Italian sculptor and architect.

Michelangelo began work on the restoration of an ancient temple in 1515 after winning a design competition, announced by Pope Leo X, but the pope died, and the new head of the Catholic Church changed the decision of his predecessor. The facade of the church of sandstone and was unlined. Tells about the Roman journalist Alex Boukalov.

- The church of San Lorenzo - this is one of the oldest churches in Florence. It was built in 393 year. It was reconstructed several times - in the XI and XV centuries. And in the XVI century the son of Lorenzo de 'Medici, Giovanni, who became Pope Leo X commissioned Michelangelo to attach to the Church of the tomb of the Medici. The Basilica was built, but not lined, and hope for the continuation of Michelangelo's work on the facade of these died, together with the customer in 1521. It is believed that the project was approved by the marble facade of Leo X, during his brief visit to Florence, but it did not have time to implement. And now the mayor of Florence offers to complete the project by Michelangelo in 2015 and this marble oblitsevat unpresentable quite as it seems, a facade. That's the problem occurred suddenly in front of Florence. And it even would be subject to city referendum.

- Italy is known for his careful attitude to the monuments of history. Public discussion about this proposal is lord Renzi?

- The majority opposed the idea. It's a constant struggle of good with a better, different viewpoints, in Rome, for example, has long rejected the idea of ​​restoring the Coliseum or coat it, but once the great Flavian Amphitheatre was lined with marble. Incidentally, none other than Michelangelo himself did not hesitate to take out a marble, for example, for the construction of St. Peter. But, say, the Arena di Verona, the other a Roman circus, podrestavrirovali, repair, and it looks like new, there are theatrical performances, in particular, opera. Which of these two points of view will join Florence to be seen.

Читать дальше... 

- In Italy, such questions settled by the local authorities? Will be sufficient to solve the city authorities, some of Florence City Council or City Council, supported by the opinion of the citizens?

- Typically, such decisions are the responsibility of local authorities. If we are talking about some object, which is considered a world treasure by UNESCO list, then there is probably need some kind of international commission or review.

- If such a project decided to organize in Russia today, or if there is something built by Michelangelo, you are likely to split opinion and the public, any "Arhnadzor" would act to preserve authentic historic appearance of the building. Italy is familiar with this kind of protest?

- Civil society itself is lively and active. Protests, rallies, they arrange for any reason, and even more so in this noble. Once in Italy is about two-thirds of works of art, which generally are available to mankind. So here is all not just social control, but also occur battles, including at the parliamentary level.

- Benedict XVI who will ask his point of view?

- This is a very painful subject - the relationship between church and state in the issue of protection of monuments and treasures. The church, on the one hand, is the mistress of objects Catholic Church in general and Christian sites. On the other hand, it interacts with the state, there are special laws that regulate this interaction. I think that the Pope would not participate in this discussion, although its chief expert on the culture Ravazi cardinal, a man very, very prepared, probably will express its opinion on the matter. Will it be policy - that I doubt it.

The thought occurred to complete the work of Michelangelo in Florence, the authorities in the process of the reconstruction of the central districts. Streets scheduled to release from the tents, the central market - to rebuild. The project is facing the San Lorenzo is estimated at 2.5 million euros. Proponents point out that the update will be conducted in accordance with original sketches by Michelangelo. Are the finish of the master that he could not or did not have time to complete itself? Interlocutor Radio Liberty - a Moscow architect Eugene Asse.

- This question is not so much architecture as cultural and ethical. On it is a very simple answer which was given in 1964, the Venice Charter (there is a document which was approved by a large number of professional conservators and specialists in the history of architecture. I quote: "Any work on the amendment, deemed necessary for aesthetic or technical reasons, must depend on the architectural composition and bear the stamp of our time. "Everything that is done in the history of all that is layered, different from the previous features of the present moment. If you finish something, then finish is not so, as it would be 300-400 years ago, and since it would have done today, and that this philosophy is built Venice Charter.

- If you have a creative suggestion - to finish, say, the church of San Lorenzo in Florence, Michelangelo's not finished, or to finish some other great monument to the past, how would you react to this?

- I would have to respond to it in terms of today's time, not pretending to fake a story. It sounds cruel, but probably received an order for the completion of San Lorenzo, I have to give up or that it would be quite right, or, if already done, then do some sort of modern thing.

- Is it possible today plans for an adequate understanding of Michelangelo, which for 500 years?

- Michelangelo had left us working drawings, he left the sketch. You can add, of course, it, but it will still work for Michelangelo. Technologies are quite different. Trying today to cut all the stones by hand, hew them, and pretend that it is made in XVI-XVII century - absolute madness. And from an ethical point of view, absolute nonsense.

- When I come to the Moscow Kremlin, and I see there are new, well-plastered building, I always think of a popular socio-political cliches - "we make a new better than the old."

- The restoration work should not claim to improve the historical truth. This is a trend that has existed in recent years in Moscow with a light hand Yuri Mikhailovich. As if we privatized our past and talking about how it would be wise to do: if we were on the ground of our ancestors, we would have done so here. For example, what is done in the Tsarina? Well, Bazhenov and Kazakov simply not coped with this task, but we did, they would have had to do, whether we are in their place. Similarly, you rightly feel falsehood, lies, and lack of taste in such novodelnyh restorations.

- For example, in the Kremlin, was a man's Miracles monastery, which the Bolsheviks destroyed in the late 1920s. No need to even think about the possibility of recovery?

- I think that restore, pretending that it was, quite wrong. Somehow, trying to atone our sins, we must respond to these challenges in terms of time today. If we want to build a monastery today (I'm not talking specifically about the Miracles convent), then it should build in some modern designs, contemporary forms and do not pretend to be someone to think that it existed in that form on over the centuries. In general, any attempt to reconstruct the past, to pretend that it was true, in my opinion, from an aesthetic and technical point of view, absolutely not acceptable.

- Restoration and rehabilitation or construction of Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow - perhaps the most famous Russian restoration project. I'm not talking about the spiritual side of the case and zamalivanii sins - there is more or less understandable. In the context in which we are talking about that, it's normal project or not?

- In my opinion, this is absolutely absurd project. At the time when the idea emerged, it might have under a certain justification. But the attempt to restore not too great project, which was destroyed violently and irrationally, was wrong. In this case, again, in the spiritual sense, perhaps, would be a more powerful move, let's hold a contest for a new main church of Russia. Now we are reborn, we - new people, but today we have spiritual powers not just pulling our some threads from the past, and contact us today with this appeal. In my opinion, it would be, at least, no worse. Another question is that we got, but I think that we would have failed worse.

http://www.svobodanews.ru/content/article/24280018.html

[leonard]

If a repair man is not less talented than Michelangelo. Realizing his work - a particular ratio of proportions , etc. Why not rebuild ? >


And the highest genius can not add
A single thought to the fact that the marble itself
Carries in excess - and it's only us
Hand , obedient to reason, will reveal .
Michelangelo