We are about to wake up in a country where the most interesting examples of postmodern architecture will cease to exist. The trouble is that while protection needs to be increased, so far it has not been possible to create any rational criteria for the protection of the architecture of modernism of the 1960s, 1970s, or so-called social modernism. And since there is no regular protection of the architecture of that time, I don't believe we will start protecting the architecture of the 1990s," says art historian Professor Malgorzata Omilanowska in an interview with AiB.
Ewa Karendys: Zlote Kamienice in Gdansk is another building from the 1990s that is planned for demolition. Don't you feel sorry for this example of postmodern architecture?
Prof. Małgorzata Omilanowska-Kiljańczyk*: Certainly a pity, the building is an example of a certain architectural style, a witness to a certain era. But as an art historian, I am aware that this is generally the order of things. Children demolish buildings built by their fathers, and later the grandchildren grieve over it. What is left of the legacy of previous generations is the product of many complex issues, not necessarily the quality of the building.
At the moment, multifamily residential buildings built 20, 40, 60 years ago have the best chance of survival. If people bought apartments there, there is actually no way to evict them all and demolish such a building. On the other hand, if the building serves office, hotel, public utility functions, it is easy to sell, demolish, build something that will bring more profit. And such processes, unfortunately, are taking place in all Polish cities.
Ewa Karendys: Still, not many people are standing up for this postmodern architecture - on the one hand, not so old, on the other hand, regarded as kitsch. Does a building have to please people in order to have more value for them?
Prof. Małgorzata Omilanowska-Kiljańczyk: We must separate the matter of taste, liking, fashion, from the quality of architecture. First of all, each era has its own stylistic character, which usually pleases those who create it, and the next generation - not necessarily anymore. Thus, in the interwar period, most Art Nouveau buildings were destroyed; at the moment, Modernism is being destroyed. An example is the demolition on Foksal Street in Warsaw of Mączeński's modernist facade, which has been replaced by a copy of a late 19th-century neo-Renaissance decoration. The latter is more visually appealing to the investor and the public than the simple facades of Modernism.
Each era has its own taste, and within that taste it rejects something and accepts something. But these issues do not connect very well with an objective assessment of the quality of a project. The fact that one likes or dislikes something should not be a criterion that determines the survival of a building.
Ewa Karendys: Is it necessary to increase the protection of postmodern architecture?
Prof. Małgorzata Omilanowska-Kiljańczyk: Undoubtedly, because in a moment we will wake up in a country where the most interesting examples of postmodern architecture will cease to exist. And we will protect much less interesting buildings just because they managed to survive the onslaught of demolitions. The trouble is that while protection needs to be increased, so far it has not been possible to create any rational criteria for the protection of the architecture of modernism of the 1960s, 1970s or so-called socmodernism. And since there is no regular protection of the architecture of that time, I don't believe we will start protecting the architecture of the 1990s.
Ewa Karendys: What should determine when a postmodern building is worth protecting and when it is not? What should be the criteria?
Prof. Malgorzata Omilanowska-Kiljańczyk: It is difficult to point out ones that would be objective. Good quality of architecture is important, moreover, we want to save buildings that had important social functions. Often a building is worth protecting because important events took place in it. This is a complex aspect, and therein lies the problem: all historic preservation is based on expert evaluation, not on a metric system.
Along with the golden tenements, the historicizing tenements on Szopy Street are to be demolished
Google Street View
Ewa Karendys: Increasing this protection is a task for provincial conservators?
Prof. Małgorzata Omilanowska-Kiljańczyk: Such things are worked out by the environment. However, in order for society to protect some architecture, it must believe in its value. And in order for that to happen, scholars have to valorize it and convince society that its qualitative features should determine its protection. These are processes that sometimes take several decades. The problem with the architecture of the 1990s is that we do not have clear formulations in science that raise the value of this architecture. Therefore, there is a long way to go to achieve the goal - that is, to make the public believe that such buildings need to be protected. Without convincing the public we won't protect anything, because in the end it is the flow of funds, the cost of erecting a new development object and the profits from it that decides.
* Prof. Dr. Małgorzata Omilanowska-Kiljańczyk - art historian, graduate of art history at Warsaw University, director of the Royal Castle in Warsaw - Museum. She specializes in the problems of architecture of the 19th and 20th centuries, protection of historical monuments, issues of artistic life, artistic patronage and collecting. Undersecretary of State in 2012-2014 and Minister of Culture and National Heritage in 2014-2015. Author of scientific articles and books.
