EURAU 2014 I COMPOSITE CITIES I November 12-14, 2014, I Istanbul-Turkey
CLASSIC FRAGMENTS AND RUINS:
ANCIENT ARTWORKS IN THE CONTEMPORARY CITY
Emanuele Romeo, Riccardo Rudiero*
Dipartimento Architettura e Design
Politecnico di Torino
Viale Mattioli, 39 - 10125 Torino (TO)
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
Abstract.
Contemporary cities preserve, in their historic form, some symbols of the past: these had different
purposes and their value has often changed over the years. The artistic value of these symbols
remains in the city of today, enriching it of artworks that are flanked by contemporary ones.
In this sense, a significant example is the Carré d'Art in Nîmes, in association with the Maison Carrée:
both are artistic manifestations that complement each other because they represent two distant
moments of architecture - classical and contemporary - but joined by the fact that they both
contribute to characterize the contemporary city.
Another example is the project for the city park Malpasset-Amphitheatre, in Fréjus, in which
elements of classicism - the amphitheatre - coexist with elements of modernity. The encounter
between the old and the new is represented by the arrangement of the ancient Doric columns of the
Neptune Temple which are flanked by a contemporary sculpture that evokes, in shape, the classical
monument.
So, the ancient and modern forms of art contribute to enrich what can be called a “open-air
museum”. Then, can the ruins and classical fragments be considered artworks of “permanent
installation” next to the artwork of “temporary installation”?
In this regard, the solutions proposed by Igor Mitoraj are interesting because he inserts his
contemporary sculptural works, inspired to Classicism, in the main European cities’ archaeological
areas: the exhibition of these works in Trajan's Market is emblematic because classical ruins and
modern sculptures create a highly evocative urban landscape.
Here we propose compatible conservation strategies of the fragments and ruins as an expression of
art in the contemporary city. The main scope is to avoid their “unconscious” enhancement, which
would lead to aberrations (such as considering the fragments or ruins as a mere fetish of history: for
example, the fragments of the Roman Forum in Arles “inserted” in the modern palaces, or the ruins
of the Temple of Augustus in Barcelona “confined” inside a courtyard) or to phenomena of contrast
or substitution in cases where the new artwork, located next to the ancient one, prevails and lessens
the value of the latter.
Keywords: classical monuments, contemporary cities, conservation, restoration, enhancement.
*
Section one (Ruins and fragments in the contemporary city) is edited by Emanuele Romeo, section two
(Enhancement vs. Conservation: aberration, contrast, substitution) by Riccardo Rudiero.
073:001
Emanuele Romeo, Riccardo Rudiero
RUINS AND FRAGMENTS IN THE CONTEMPORARY CITY
Contemporary cities preserve, in their historic form, some symbols of the past: these had different
purposes and their value (celebratory, political and artistic) has often changed over the years (Settis,
1984).
These witnesses are mainly due to the reuse of the Classical buildings, which starting from the
Middle Ages and characterized some new architectures and, consequently, the cities that were
transformed with them: entire buildings were built by exploiting the existing ones of which were
exhibited the characters of antiquity (Romeo, 2007).
Similarly, for ideological or political reasons were placed near the monuments or in the main squares
fragments of ancient works of art or classical sculptures that represented the historical memory of
the community (Greenhalgh, 1984).
In addition, in the early medieval guides the classical monument or ruin were the landmarks for the
pilgrims or travelers who, on the basis of these indications visited major cities to admire not only new
architectures, but the ruins of the classical ones.
The ruin or the classical monument were important references for the routes suggested in Einsiedeln
map of the city of Rome (VII-IX century) (Mauro, 2001) and this practice continues until the
indications provided in the topographic maps of the same city created by Piranesi, Canina, Nolli at
the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Over the centuries these works also assumed a celebrating role so as to take value of art especially in
the Renaissance city. There are many representations of the city where the ruins or the sculptural
fragment has a preeminent role and compares itself with the new architectures of the new cities
(Cantino Wataghin, 1984). Think of the fifteenth and sixteenth century paintings of the artists or the
representations of theater sets of Peruzzi and Serlio (Cantone, 1978).
Indeed what of the ancient remains, studied or reproduced becomes a source of inspiration until the
nineteenth century: from the pictae or fictae cities, we proceed to the design of ideal cities, which
often take the form in examples of civitas nova.
Then we see an awareness of the historical value of the ancient that is initially due to the
“randomness” of the reuse of materials and then to the specific “intent” to preserve (in the ancient
meaning of the term) the classical ruin or artistic fragment.
Through this process, then the artistic value of these symbols remains in the city of today, enriching
it of artworks that are flanked by contemporary ones.
For example, the columns of the Minerva’s temple still emerge from the cathedral of Siracusa; the
Arch of Augustus in Fano flanks the church of St. Caterina and its hypothetical complete shape is
carved on the facade of the church; the columns of the Divo Adriano’s temple characterizes the
whole Piazza di Pietra in Rome, as well as the colonnade of St. Lorenzo in Milan dominates the entire
urban space; the columns of the temple of the Dioscuri stand out in the facade of San Paolo
Maggiore in Naples; the aqueducts of Segovia and Istanbul cross the city, giving it special and unique
charm.
Even today many fragments of ancient artworks characterize the city, so that in the collective
imagination Rome is the city of the columns of Trajan and Antoninus or the city of the obelisks
located in Piazza del Popolo and Piazza Montecitorio, in San Pietro and San Giovanni in Laterano.
Similarly in Istanbul the ancient obelisks of the Hippodromus Constantini and the column of the
Forum Constantini characterize the modern city (Concina, 2003).
The Portrait of the Four Tetrarchs and the pillars of Acri are even today a symbol of maritime power
of Venice; the statues of Babuino and Pasquino in Rome give the name to the squares in which they
are located, as well as in Naples the statue of the Nile.
073:002
Emanuele Romeo, Riccardo Rudiero
Figures 1-2. The Arch of Augustus sculpted on the facade of the church of
Santa Caterina in Fano and the Portrait of the Four Tetrarchs in Venice.
The ancient statues (of the Tigris and the Nile, of the Dioscuri, the Lupa Capitolina, Minerva) and the
Caballus Constantini adorn the Piazza del Campidoglio by the sixteenth century, as the statue of the
Dioscuri with the obelisk characterizes the present piazza del Quirinale (Pane, 2008).
Even the ancient fragments (casual or voluntary) that adorn the buildings in the cities founded by the
Romans are equally significant: the house of the Crescenzi, the Senatorial Palace and the Palace of
the Conservators, many urban villas and Renaissance architecture in Rome.
Figures 3-4. The house of the Crescenzi and the courtyard of the Conservators in Rome.
Could we consider the ancient monuments and ruins such as classic works of “permanent
installation”? And could we consider these elements as pieces of art in an “open air museum” that
includes the entire contemporary city?
In the first case, the acknowledgment has already occurred, especially for some monuments that
have always had a symbolic value in European and Mediterranean cities: triumphal arches dedicated
to the emperors; the city gates of the Roman towns; temples dedicated to pagan gods and converted
073:003
Emanuele Romeo, Riccardo Rudiero
into churches and then restored since the nineteenth century in their own original facies to better
represent the symbols of classical culture lost and found again (Choay, 1995).
In the second case, the acknowledgment is more difficult because of the fragility of the surviving
elements, which often creates problems of conservation and survival; however they resist to the
ravages of time and to the anthropic degradation; sometimes only the memory of them remains in
the placenames!
But surely at all these works are recognized an historical and artistic value or even more documents
of great importance because, together with the artworks and architecture of today, they help to
understand the culture of the contemporary city in its globality and complexity
So, the ancient and modern forms of art contribute to enrich what can be called an “open-air
museum”.
Then, the ruins and classical fragments can be considered artworks of “permanent installation” next
to the artwork of “temporary installation”!
In this sense, a significant example is the Carré d'Art in Nîmes, in association with the Maison Carré:
both are artistic manifestations that complement each other because they represent two distant
moments of architecture - classical and contemporary - but joined by the fact that they both
contribute to characterize the contemporary city (Garnier, 2008).
Figure 5. The Maison Carrée and the Carré d'Art in Nîmes.
Another example is the project for the city park Malpasset-Amphithèâtre, in Fréjus, in which
elements of classicism - the amphitheatre - coexist with elements of modernity. The encounter
between the old and the new is represented by the arrangement of the ancient Doric columns of the
Neptune Temple which are flanked by a contemporary sculpture that evokes, in shape, the classical
monument (Pasqualini et. al., 2010).
073:004
Emanuele Romeo, Riccardo Rudiero
Figures 6-7. Ancient Doric columns flanked by contemporary sculpture in Fréjus.
Equally interesting are the solutions proposed by Igor Mitoraj are interesting because he inserts his
contemporary sculptural works, inspired to Classicism, in the main European cities’ archaeological
areas: the exhibition of these works in Traiano's Market is emblematic because classical ruins and
modern sculptures create a highly evocative urban landscape (Mitoraj, 1988).
Figures 8-9. Igor Mitoraj contemporary sculptures in front of Traiano’s Market, in Rome.
ENHANCEMENT VS. CONSERVATION: ABERRATION, CONTRAST, SUBSTITUTION
If to the ruins and classical fragments present in contemporary cities we recognize a documental and
artistic value, then it becomes a fundamental priority suggest conservation strategies: they must be
compatible and integrated with the processes of enhancement especially related to the business of
art and the contemporary forms of art (Gurrieri et. al., 1998).
The main scope is to avoid their “unconscious” enhancement, which would lead to aberrations or to
073:005
Emanuele Romeo, Riccardo Rudiero
phenomena of contrast or substitution in cases where the new artwork, located next to the ancient
one, prevails and lessens the value of the latter. An example is given by the temporary installations of
sculpture or architecture that reproduce the ancient pieces of arts when, in the same urban context,
there are fine and real examples of classical ruins and fragments (Choay, 1995).
First not always the fragments and ruins in current urban areas are affected by adequate measures of
protection to guarantee their conservation: you think, just to mention a few examples to the
conditions of the statue of Pasquino in Rome (although, currently and historically, represents the vox
populi), completely papered with flyers or the statue of the Nile in Naples which every day lose a
piece of itself, for the unacceptable anthropogenic degradation.
Figures 10-11. The statue of Pasquino in Rome and the statue of the Nile in Naples
Think also about some architectural ruins not sufficiently enhanced, which are out of context or even
“foreign” to the culture of the city in which they are located: one of the Roman gates of Cologne,
opposite the Gothic cathedral, of which are not explained the reasons for its location in that place
and its origins (Schweiring, 2010); the fragment of the late-antique arcade in the historical center of
Aachen, of which does not mentioned neither the origin nor the relationship with the most famous
Carolingian architecture (Dickmann, 2009); Library of Adriano in Athens and generally in the same
city, all the ruins of Roman buildings. They are still considered marginal compared to ancient Greek,
although most of these distinguished, thanks to their location, the contemporary city (Romeo, 2008).
Fortunately, the construction of the new Acropolis Museum, built in the urban historical context,
creates the correct relationship between Acropolis and lower town; the same for the works exhibited
in the museum and “new container” oriented in relation to the ruins of the Parthenon, of which
exhibits sculptural fragments.
If in these cases there is a secular relationship between city that incorporates the oldest monuments,
the aberration is achieved when the contemporary city suddenly attacks the non-urbanized areas
within which there are classical ruins: the aqueduct of Fréjus, sad history fetishes among new
businesses crafts and hypermarkets!
The ruins of the baths compressed between the new seaside houses and the railway. The arch of
Trajan, incorporated by the buildings and warehouses in the port of Ancona. The Roman mausoleums
of Capua along the Via Appia, silent witnesses of the past compared to the noisy proliferation of
industries and supermarkets (Russo, 2010).
073:006
Emanuele Romeo, Riccardo Rudiero
But if these cases could be considered “unconscious” actions against heritage, there are cases where
just a “conscious” enhancement not shared results: for example, the alteration of the urban
landscape of Sagunto with the intervention of reconstruction of the stage of the Roman theater. The
concreting of the amphitheater of Fréjus to allow events such as corridas (Romeo, 2013).
Perhaps, seemingly more refined, but equally abhorrent is the forced enhancement of some ruins,
such as considering the fragments or ruins as a fetish of history: for example, the fragments of the
Roman Forum in Arles “inserted” in the modern palaces (Heijmans et. al., 2006), or the ruins of the
Temple of Augustus in Barcelona “confined” inside a courtyard.
Figures 12-13. The fragments of the Roman Forum in Arles “inserted” in the modern palaces
and the ruins of the Temple of Augustus in Barcelona.
The theater’s ruins visible beneath a modern building or those of the amphitheater trapped in an
underground car park in the French city of Chaors. The ruins of Roman theaters in Bologna, Florence,
Vicenza, the Stadium of Domitian and the theater of Pompeo in Rome of which you can see the walls
between the shops and courtyards of private houses. But these spectacle buildings characterized,
thanks to their permanence as architectural sign, whole urban districts in those cities (Romeo et. al.,
2013)!
However there are cases in which the ruin can be correctly contextualized and perfectly coexists with
the new urban functions and the contemporary city: is the case of Barcelona (the ruins of the
fifteenth-century convent of Santa Caterina, below the homonymous neighborhood market recently
restored by architects Miralles & Tagliabue), Bologna (the Salaborsa’s Library, with Roman and
medieval ruins visited in the underground rooms) and Modena (the stretch of Via Aemilia enhanced
within the Foro Boario), in which the ruin interacts with the environment and enriches the cultural
value of it.
Even the fragment can assume the role of cultural enrichment of contemporary urban settings: the
interplay between ancient and new created by the ancient works of art which, going beyond the
boundaries of Archaeological Museum in Cologne, become urban furniture in the square
immediately facing the museum institution (Schweiring, 2010).
The artistic writings that are confronted with the Roman walls in Barcelona. The aforementioned
sculptures that flank the ancient columns in the case of Malpasset in Fréjus. A comparison, this, that
073:007
Emanuele Romeo, Riccardo Rudiero
enriches both artistic manifestations: the ancient one and the contemporary one, perfectly related,
where the most recent ones have not the presumption to replace the old ones.
In this sense the installations of Pistoletto at the Baths of Caracalla in Rome or in the archaeological
context of Veio have value of art. In the first case are the ancient fragments that give rise to the
contemporary installation; in the second one the contemporary artwork evokes and makes
understandable the original architectural value of the ruin (Pistoletto, 2011).
Figures 14-15. The ruins of the convent of Santa Caterina in Barcelona
and the Archaeological Museum in Cologne
Similarly, the contemporary installations near the major Byzantine’s monuments of Ravenna evoke,
through sheaves and sleeping buffalos, the agricultural and pastoral origins of this land.
The aforementioned works of Igor Mitoraj in Rome and those near the archaeological area of
Agrigento: here the drama of the sculptural subjects flanks the architectural ruins and especially to
the sculptures of the “giants” lying on the ground (Mitoraj, 1988). The sculpture of Torero (the
Nimeño) in Nîmes that enriches the square in front of the amphitheater after the irresponsible
actions of isolation of the classical monument (Garnier, 2008).
However, the use of supporting or opposing the contemporary artwork to the ancient one often
creates the result that the most recent works becomes a substitute for classical fragments. Venus in
Rome showing their backs among a pile of rags in the apse of the temple of Venus and Rome, also by
Michelangelo Pistoletto: here the will is surely that to overshadow the ancient ruin in favor of the
contemporary object.
The placement of the sculptures, moreover remarkable, of Botero, included in the historical contexts
where the presence of ancient artworks is sufficient to enhance the city. On the contrary
contemporary artworks should serve to enhance the contemporary suburbs or neighborhoods
devoid of attractive elements: think again to Pietrasanta where Botero exhibits in the main square of
the historic town, while Mitoraj places his sculpture at the edge of the historical center in order to
enhance its requalification.
Finally, only citing the example of Turin, you can see a valuation carried out through the installation
of works (certainly devoid of artistic value) that imitate (albeit poorly) ancient sculptures or
fragments: the many statues of Egyptian inspiration with tourists are received on the streets and in
073:008
Emanuele Romeo, Riccardo Rudiero
the main squares of Turin (Gurrieri et. al., 1998).
They certainly represent a wrong connection between cultural heritage and enhancement; between
contemporary city that shows its “original and genuine antiquity” flanked by refined examples of
contemporary art and today’s city which, even if it has authentic fragments and works, prefer “show”
historical forgery in substitution of the originals.
Figure 16. Contemporary Egyptian’s sculture in Piazza Castello, Turin.
CONCLUSIONS
To ensure that the ancient fragment within the contemporary city does not lose its value of art,
should be considered first and foremost as a witness of history, and preserve his memory value. The
relationship between the vestiges of the past and the new urban expansion must ensure that both
derive benefit, in a dialogue that leads to the conservations of values.
In this way we can consider ancient monuments and ruins such as classic works of “permanent
installation”, and these elements as pieces of art in an “open air museum” that includes the entire
contemporary city.
In any case, it is important that the ruins are contextualized correctly and perfectly coexists with the
new urban functions and the contemporary city. So, even the fragment can assume the role of
cultural enrichment of contemporary urban settings.
Even the contemporary artworks can enrich the city and, when properly joined to ancient ones, both
of which increase their value. Moreover, contemporary artworks should serve to enhance the
contemporary suburbs or neighborhoods devoid of attractive elements.
073:009
Emanuele Romeo, Riccardo Rudiero
REFERENCES
Cantino Wataghin, G., Archeologia e “archeologie”. Il rapporto con l’antico fra mito, arte e ricerca, in
Settis, S. (edited by), Memoria dell’antico nell’arte italiana. L’uso dei classici, Tomo I, Torino, 1984,
pp. 171-211.
Cantone, G., La città di marmo, Roma, 1978.
Concina, E., La città bizantina, Roma-Bari, 2003.
Choay, F., L’allegoria del patrimonio, Roma, 1995.
Dickmann, I., Aachen, Petersberg, 2009.
Heijmans, M.; Rouquette, J. M.; Sintés, C., Arles antique, Paris, 2006.
Garnier, J., Nîmes, Monaco 2008.
Greenhalgh, M., Ipsa ruina docet: l’uso dell’antico nel Medioevo, in Settis, S. (edited by), Memoria
dell’antico nell’arte italiana. L’uso dei classici, Tomo I, Torino, 1984, pp. 115-170.
Gurrieri, F.; Belli, G., Birignani, C., Il degrado della città d’arte, Firenze, 1998.
Mauro, F., La rinascita dell’antico. Recupero e riutilizzo dei monumenti classici nel Medioevo, Roma,
2001.
Mitoraj, I., Sculpture, trad. by Di Teodoro, F. P., Parigi 1988.
Pane, A., L’antico e le preesistenze tra Umanesimo e Rinascimento. Teorie, personalità ed interventi
su architetture e città, in Casiello, S. (edited by) Verso una storia del restauro. Dall’età classica al
primo Ottocento, Firenze, 2008, pp. 61-138.
Pasqualini, M.; Thernot, R.; Garcia, H., L’Amphithèâtre de Frèjus. Archèologie et architecture:
relecture d’un monument, Bordeaux, 2010.
Pistoletto, M., Lo specchio del Paradiso. Dialogo con Achille Bonito Oliva, in “Alfabeta2” n.6, 2011.
Romeo, E.; Rudiero, R., Ruins and urban context: analysis towards conservation and enhancement, in
XXIV International CIPA Symposium, 2-6 September 2013, Strasbourg, pp. 531-535.
Romeo, E., Valorizzazione vs conservazione: sul “restauro” dell’anfiteatro di Frejus, in Atti del
Convegno di Studi, Bressanone 9-12 luglio 2013, Conservazione e valorizzazione dei siti archeologici.
Approcci scientifici e problemi di metodo, Venezia, 2013, pp. 257-268.
Romeo, E., La conservazione del patrimonio archeologico come strumento di identità sociale, in
Marotta, A. (edited by) Qualità dell’architettura, qualità della vita, Torino, 2008, pp. 101-105.
Romeo, E., Instaurare, reficere, renovare. Tutela, conservazione, restauro e riuso prima delle
codificazioni ottocentesche, Torino, 2007.
Russo, V., Tra cultura archeologica e restauro dell’antico. Il contributo di Roberto Pane nella prima
metà del Novecento, in Casiello, S.; Pane, A.; Russo, V. (edited by) Roberto Pane tra storia e restauro.
Architettura, città, paesaggio, Venezia, 2010, pp. 159-169.
Schweiring, M. L., Köln, Pulheim, 2010.
Settis, S. (edited by), Memoria dell’antico nell’arte italiana. L’uso dei classici, Tomo I, Torino, 1984.
073:010
Emanuele Romeo, Riccardo Rudiero
Emanuele Romeo is Associate Professor in Architectural Restoration in the Architecture Faculty of the Politecnico of Torino. He teaches in
the Ph. D Cultural Heritage in the Politecnico of Turin, and in the university courses of “Theory and history of restoration” and
“Methodology of restoration project”, courses referred to conservation, restoration of cultural heritage. He’s expert in disciplines as
archaeological and architectonic conservation, theory of restoration, restoration project methodology. He wrote several papers on these
subjects and he participates in conferences on these themes.
Riccardo Rudiero is an architect specialized in History and Conservation of Architectural Heritage and Landscape at the Polytechnic of Turin.
He is engaged in research on Restoration theory and methods for the preservation of cultural heritage, with a specific attention to
enhancing and management of archaeological sites and ruin buildings. He participates in national and international conferences, providing
original contributions to the definition of new strategies for the protection of Cultural Heritage.
073:011