154 155Igor Emili, Museum space

The Southeast Corner of Gradec: Adaptation, Interpolation, Revitalization

fotografije photographs by

Klovićevi dvori Museum space, zagreb, croatia, 1979 - 1985

Rastko Schwalba

Damir Fabijanić (DF)arhiva /archive Muzeja Mimara (AMM)Miljenko Smokvina (MS)Borko Vukosav (BV)

Igor Emili

construction of a housing block in Vlaška Street called Vatican; events surrounding the construction and subsequent adapta­tions of the Croatian Association of Artists by Meštrović on the today’s Victims of Fascism Square; or, the construction of the skyscraper on Ban Jelačić Square (the ‘sky gobbler’, as it was called by some in these circles). Such discussions are still dragging on in relation to the Željpoh/Ferimport building by architect Stanko Fabris on Marshal Tito Square in Zagreb. Some of the interested parties in these debates used to de­termine the future height of the building ‘on a commission level’: by covering the draft of the façade with a palm or a sheet of paper.1 ¶ The mentioned circles manifested similar beha­viour in the case of Mimara’s donation and the conversion in order to place this donation. Only in this instance, a mainly emotional reaction occurred, and this on several levels. At first, there were reactions to the donation and donor’s personality and then reactions again became fiercer when spaces for

1 One case does not belong to such discussions: the demolition of two older buildings on the Cvjetni trg in the protected zone of the Lower Town in order to enable the interpolation of a new large building and digging of the entrance to a private garage in the middle of Varšavska Street. Resistance on the part of citizens to this construction occurred because of public asset appropriation as well as arrogance and violence on the part of the authorities while extending preferential treatment to the private investor.

¶ The adaptation of the former Jesuit monastery building in the Upper Town of Zagreb, Gradec, in order to house Ante Topić Mimara’s donation of artworks, caused different strong reactions. Such reactions and discussions are not uncommon in the cultural circles of Zagreb on the occasions of renovation of certain significant edifices or erection of new buildings in the city centre. Let me merely recall here discussions about the renovation of Zagreb Cathedral and Bollé’s restoration (called boletika, a portmanteau of boljetica, the Croatian word for malady, and the name Bollé); stories related to the

Igor Emili, Muzejski prostor

Jugoistočni ugao Gradeca: adaptacija, interpolacija, revitalizacija

napisaowritten by

Muzejski prostor Klovićevih dvora, zagreb, hrvatska, 1979.-1985.

arhitektarchitect

pri samoj gradnji i kasnijim adaptacijama Meštrovićeva Doma hrvatskih umjetnika na današnjem Trgu žrtava fašizma, ili pri izgradnji nebodera na Trgu bana Jelačića (nazivanog u nekim od tih krugova i nebožderom). Te se rasprave još uvijek vuku i povlače i oko zgrade Željpoha – Ferimporta arhitekta Stanka Fabrisa na zagrebačkom Trgu maršala Tita, za koju su neki od aktera takvih događanja ‘komisijski’ određivali buduću visinu prekrivajući nacrt pročelja zgrade dlanom ili listom papira.1 ¶ Spomenuti su se krugovi slično ponašali i prilikom Mimarine donacije i adaptacija za njen smještaj. Samo je u tom slučaju došlo do, mahom emotivnog, reagiranja u više slojeva. Isprva na samu donaciju i na osobu donatora, a zatim su se reakcije ponovno pojačale kada se radilo o prostorima za smještaj donacije. ¶ Odjek te i takve rasprave nastavio se objavljivanjem knjige britanskog kritičara likovne umjetnosti Briana Sewella Croatia – Aspects of Art, Architecture and Cultural Heritage, u čijem se posljednjem poglavlju autor kritički ‘bavio samo Mu­zejom Mimara i to iz vrlo osobnih razloga’2, te se ‘obrušio na

1 U ovakve rasprave ne spada slučaj rušenja dviju starijih zgrada na Cvjetnom trgu, u zaštićenoj cjelini Donjega grada, kako bi se omogućila interpolacija nove zgradurine, a ulaz u privatnu garažu iskopao usred Varšavske ulice. Građanski otpor ovakvoj gradnji nastao je zbog uzurpiranja javnog dobra, te bahatosti i nasilja vlasti u pogodovanju privatnom investitoru.2 Vesna Kusin, ‘Neoprostiv Mimarin grijeh’, Zarez, br. 280, 1. 4. 2010., str. 28.

¶ Adaptacija zgrade nekadašnjega jezuitskog samostana na zagrebačkomu Gornjem gradu – Gradecu za smještaj donacije umjetnina Ante Topića Mimare izazvala je različite burne reak cije. Takve reakcije i rasprave u zagrebačkim kulturnim kru govima nisu neuobičajene prilikom uređenja pojedinih zna čajnih zgrada ili podizanja građevina na prostorima u centru grada. Ovdje tek podsjećam na rasprave pri obnovi zagrebačke katedrale i Bolléove restauracije (nazivane bole­tikom, od bo lje tica i prezimena Bollé), priča oko izgradnje stambenog blo ka uz Vlašku ulicu zvanog ‘Vatikan’, događanja

(BV)

156 157oris, number 74, year 2012 Igor Emili, Museum space

accommodation of the donation were considered. ¶ An echo of this and such discussion went on when the book Croatia – Aspects of Art, Architecture and Cultural Heritage by the Bri­tish art critic Brian Sewell was published. In the last chapter, the author critically ‘dealt solely with the Mimara Museum and this for very personal reasons.’2 Also, he ‘swooped down upon Ante Topić Mimara (1898–1987) and his art collection with unprecedented ferocity.’3 This publication was followed by an interview with Brian Sewell conducted and published by journalist Patricija Kiš in the newspaper Jutarnji List.4 The revamped controversy about the Mimara Museum caused a reaction in Zarez, a biweekly for culture and social events, re­sulting in ‘The Mimara Museum’ being the main topic of the issue.5 ¶ We are not interested here in the debates about the donation or the choice of building to accommodate it. We are

2 Kusin, Vesna: ‘Neoprostiv Mimarin grijeh’, (Mimara’s Unforgivable Sin), Zarez, Issue 280, 1 April 2010, p.28.3 Lukšić, Tugomir: ‘Pokušaj linč’, (An Attempted Lynch), Zarez, Issue 280, 1 April 2010, p.27.4 Jutarnji List’, 5 February and 27 February 2010.5 Within ‘The Main Topic: The Mimara Museum’, editorial board of Zarez published responses to the statements by Brian Sewell and individual evaluations of the collection itself. Berislav Valušek answered to his colleague Sewell with a humorous gag with which he suggested Sewell advocate closing down the British Museum because it is a warehouse of stolen works of art. Opinions by Arijana Kralj and Snješka Knežević are not relevant for this topic and least of all that by Mirko Petrić whose contribution is based on two ‘magazine articles’, obviously utterly averse to the late donator. The only text mentioning adaptation of the former monastery and renovation of the south­east corner of Gradec is the one by Boris Ljubičić, titled ‘Six Letters’. Unfortunately, this contribution, written with an intention to enlighten, is full of untruths and half­truths, and all seen in a pastoral manner (as Ljubičić himself calls his point of view).

solely interested in the conversion of the former Jesuit mo­nastery building in the Upper Town. We are interested in the projects and executed works of architect Igor Emili as well as implications that resulted from these works in the south­east corner of Gradec. In doing so, however, we cannot ignore the unfavourable climate in which pressure was and is still being exerted on the donation and the entire issue. ¶ Re construction and renovation of the complex in the Upper Town can be observed merely on the basis of excellent texts by the untimely deceased architecture critic and museologist Ivo Maroević. This is moreover possible because, due to his competence and scholarly meticulousness, he was able to avoid taking sides and talking politics even in the times of the most ardent po­lemics, unlike some other experts on this complex issue who have not managed to do so even now. Such an attitude by Ivo Maroević would sometimes come at a price, but he stayed consistent. This rare attitude of his, his pe cu liarity is clearly recognizable in all of his writings about the new museum space in Gradec. ¶ The essential question in de ciding on the construction and presentation of the ‘corona’, the ‘acropolis’ of Gradec is valorisation. Maroević thinks that valorisation of the south and east fronts of Gradec is defined merely ‘by big and general expressions, and no analysis has been carried out to reveal real and current values. ... Never theless, the fact is undeniable that the façade and height contour of the south front are results of interventions in the 19th and 20th centuries on the medievally defined edge of the town with here and there preserved and at some points barely re cogni zable ele­ments of the structure and forming of me dieval times.’6 ¶ Before the conversion works, the Jesuit monastery complex served as an office space and for a while, unfortunately just a short while, the Academy of Applied Arts was housed there. Therefore, for example, in a dilapidated little ground­floor building in front of the south front of the complex, in the

6 Maroević, Ivo: Analiza projekta interpolacije na jugoistočnom uglu Gradeca, (Analysis of the Interpolation Project in the South­east Corner of Gradec), Peristil, Issue 26, Zagreb, 1983, p.163.

Construction and Design institute, Rijeka, Croatia, 1970

(MS)

Kraš building, Rijeka, Croatia, 1968

(MS)

Zgrada građevno–projektnog zavoda, Rijeka, Hrvatska, 1970.

Zgrada Kraša, Rijeka, Hrvatska, 1968.

oris, broj 74, godina 2012 Igor Emili, Muzejski prostor

Antu Topića Mimaru (1898. – 1987.) i na njegovu umjetničku zbirku do sada neviđenom žestinom.’3 Na tu su se knjigu nado­vezali i razgovori s Brianom Sewellom koje je vodila i objavila novinarka Patricija Kiš u Jutarnjem listu.4 Na ponovno raz buk­talu polemiku oko Muzeja Mimara reagirao je dvotjednik za kulturu i društvena zbivanja Zarez temom broja Muzej Mi­mara.5 ¶ Nas ovdje ne zanima ni polemika o donaciji, ni o izboru zgrade za njen smještaj, nego nas zanima samo adapta­cija zgrade bivšega jezuitskog samostana na Gornjem gradu. Zanimaju nas projekti i izvedeni radovi arhitekta Igora Emilija i implikacije nastale tim radovima u prostoru jugoistočnog ugla Gradeca. Pritom se ipak ne može zanemariti i nepovoljna klima kojom je vršen i još se vrši pritisak na donaciju i cjelinu problema. ¶ Adaptaciju i uređenje kompleksa na Gornjem gra­du može se razmatrati samo na osnovi izvrsnih tekstova pre­rano preminulog kritičara graditeljstva i muzeologa Ive Maro­evića. Tim više što je on svojim znanjem i akribijom, još u vrije me najžešćih polemika, uspio izbjeći grupaško svrstava nje i poli tiziranje, što nekim od stručnjaka koji raspravljaju o ovom

3 Tugomir Lukšić, ‘Pokušaj linča’ (bilj. 2), str. 27.4 Jutarnji list, 5. 2. i 27. 2. 2010.5 Redakcija Zareza je u temi broja Muzej Mimara objavila odgovore na izjave Briana Sewella te pojedine ocjene same zbirke. Berislav Valušek je odgovorio kolegi Sewellu duhovitom opaskom predloživši mu da se založi za zatvaranje British Museuma, jer je riječ o skladištu ukradenih umjetnina. Mišljenja Arijane Kralj i Snješke Knežević nisu bitna za ovu našu temu, a najmanje Mirka Petrića čiji se prilog temelji na dva

‘časopisna članka’ očito krajnje nesklona pokojnom donatoru. Jedini tekst koji navodi adaptaciju nekadašnjeg samostana i uređenje jugoistočnog ugla Gradeca je onaj Borisa Ljubičića s naslovom ‘Šest slova’. Prilog, nažalost, pisan s prosvjeti­teljskom namjerom, vrvi neistinama i poluistinama, a sve to viđeno na ‘pastoralni način’, kako svoje viđenje naziva sam Ljubičić.

komp leksnom problemu još ni do danas nije uspjelo. Ivu Ma­roevića je takav stav i znao koštati, ali on mu je ostajao dos­ljedan. I u svim je njegovim napisima o novome muzejskom pros toru na Gradecu taj rijedak stav, njemu svojstven, jasno pre poz natljiv. ¶ Osnovno pitanje u donošenju odluka o izgrad­nji i prezentaciji ‘korone’, ‘akropole’ Gradeca je valo rizacija. Maroević smatra da je valorizacija južne i istočne fronte Gra­deca definirana tek ‘velikim i općenitim izrazima, a ne zalazi se u analizu koja bi pokazala stvarne i današnje vrijed nosti. (...) No nedvojbena je činjenica da su lice i visinski gabariti južne fronte rezultat intervencija 19. i 20. st. na sred njo vje­kovno određenom rubu grada, sa tu i tamo sačuvanim, negdje i jedva prepoznatljivim elementima strukture i obli kovanja srednjeg vijeka.’6 ¶ Kompleks nekadašnjega isu so vačkog sa­mostana, prije radova na adaptaciji, imao je ureds ku namjenu, a jedno je vrijeme u njemu bila smještena, na žalost kratkog vijeka, Akademija za primijenjenu umjetnost. Tako su, na prim jer, u jednoj trošnoj prizemnoj zgradici ispred južnog pro­če lja kompleksa, usred povrtnjaka, studenti imali kiparsku radionicu. Naime, tlo najvećeg dijela sadašnjega južnog dvo­rišta bilo je prekriveno povrtnjacima. Na samom jugo istoč­nom uglu, nad rubom gradskoga obrambenog zida u ljetno su se vrijeme uzdizali i kolci s mahunama bažula. ¶ Nigdje nije za bilježeno kako je došlo do toga da se odredi adaptacija kompleksa za donaciju umjetnina Ante Topića Mi mare. Maro­ević, decentno, nije nigdje naveo ni ime prvog projektanta, a niti razloge prekida njegova rada na adaptaciji. Ipak, adap­ta cija koja je trajala od 1973. do 1984. godine, za počela je prema projektu zagrebačkog arhitekta Vahida Hodžića (1933.

– 2009.). Prema Hodžićevu projektu adapta cije za padno je pročelje, koje je nekada služilo za unutrašnju ko munikaciju između južnog i sjevernog krila samostana, pro šireno te mu je nadozidan drugi kat. Tako su se dobila dva veća izložbena prostora. Građevinskim radovima pre ma pr vom projektu odstranjeni su kameni okviri vrata samostanskih ćelija, te su

6 Ivo Maroević, ‘Analiza projekta interpolacije na jugoistočnom uglu Gradeca’, Peristil, br. 26, Zagreb, 1983., str. 163.

(BV)

158 159oris, number 74, year 2012 Igor Emili, Museum space

middle of a vegetable patch, students had a sculpture work­shop. Namely, the ground of the largest section of to day’s south courtyard used to be covered with vegetable patches. On the south­east corner itself, above the edge of the city’s defensive wall, stakes with bean pods used to rise in summer time. ¶ There is no record about what circumstances led to the decision to convert the complex for housing the do nation of Ante Topić Mimara’s artworks. Maroević, decently, did not mention the first architect’s name at any point as well as the reasons why this person had stopped working on the con ver­sion. Nevertheless, the conversion that lasted from 1973 to 1984 started to develop after the design by Zagreb architect Vahid Hodžić (1933–2009). According to Hodžić’s design for conversion, the west front, which used to serve for internal communication between the south and north wings of the monastery, was extended and the second floor was additio­nally constructed. In this manner, two larger exhibition spaces were obtained. As part of construction works according to the first design, the stone doorframes of the monastery cells were removed and a number of partition walls were clea red away so that the exhibition spaces became larger. ¶ After suspension of construction, Dr Stipe Šuvar, the head of the Republic Secre tariat for Education and Culture at that time, being acquain ted with the works of architect Igor Emili in Rijeka (for which he was awarded a number of prizes), asked him to take over the completion of the conversion. Emili had already been retired for several years at that time, but he was still active as a freelancer. He resisted the unrewarding work for a long time, even when the donator Topić Mimara accepted him. He con­ceded only after much persuasion. Conversion of the former monastery was already completed in terms of construction until 1979 and therefore just smaller changes could have been executed in the building. Nevertheless, many vari ous problems still remained which required a quick so lution. Emili was aware of his poor health as well as the fact that the conversion was causing waves in professional and other circles, and an un­favourable climate was created in re lation to the efforts to complete what had been begun. He tried to stay aside and focus on completion of the work he had taken upon himself.7 ¶ In his text titled ‘The Analysis of the Interpolation Project in the South­east Corner of Gradec,’ Ivo Maroević writes that Emili completed and architecturally de signed the interior of the former monastery for a new pur pose after long­lasting trials and tribulations and that he ‘in this context, continued to think about space in the south­east cor ner. Here, he was inclined to the concept of a modern construction without

7 Schwalba, Rastko: Monograph Igor Emili, MGR, Rijeka 1999, pp.152 and 200.

ground floor plan, site plan, variant 1

site plan

prizemlje, situacija varijanta 1

situacija

imitating the existing construction, which he thought was not defined sufficiently to be imitated. With this Emili wanted to say that there is enough awareness in our time in relation to such an intervention, and the time is sufficiently civilized not to jeopardize the existing values of Gradec in the process, but to express due respect to these values and to include them into an egalitarian and active con temporary life (part of the explanation in the complaint to the decision of the Regional Institute for Cultural Heritage Pre servation in Zagreb).’8 The quoted are obviously postulates by Emili himself because his building (the term considered as architecture and urbanism together) is not mere creation of the very physical space, but this building also means organi zing space in order for people to find there and develop sig nificant psychological and social values. And this, with no for cing whatsoever, just because it

8 Maroević, Analiza projekta interpolacije na jugoistočnom uglu Gradeca, p.163.

oris, broj 74, godina 2012 Igor Emili, Muzejski prostor

tojao je ostati po strani i koncentrirati se na dovršetak pre u ze tog posla.7 ¶ Ivo Maroević u svom tekstu s naslovom ‘Analiza projekta inter polacije na jugoistočnom uglu Gradeca’ piše da je Emili nakon dugih peripetija dovršio i arhitektonski oblikovao unutrašnjost nekadašnjeg samostana za novu nam­jenu, te da je ‘u tom kon tekstu nastavio razmišljati o prostoru na jugoistočnom uglu. Tu se priklonio koncepciji moderne grad nje bez oponašanja postojećeg, za koje misli da nije defi­nirano do te mjere da bi se moglo oponašati. Na taj način želi reći da je naše vrijeme s takvom intervencijom svjesno sebe i dovoljno civilizirano da time ne ugrozi posto jeće vrijednosti Gradeca, već da im iskaže dužno poštovanje i da ih uključi u ravnopravan i aktivan suvre meni život (dio obrazloženja iz žalbe na rješenje Regionalnog zavoda za zaštitu spomenika

7 Rastko Schwalba, monografija Igor Emili, MGR, Rijeka, 1999., str. 152, 200.

uklonjeni brojni pregradni zidovi kako bi se povećali izložbeni prostori. ¶ Nakon obustave radova, tadašnji sekretar Repu­bličkog sekretarijata za prosvjetu i kulturu dr. Stipe Šuvar, poz­navajući radove arhitekta Igora Emilija u Rijeci za koje mu je dodijeljen niz nagrada, zatražio je od njega da preuzme do­vrše tak adaptacije. Emili je tada već nekoliko godina u miro­vini, ali je i dalje djelovao kao slobodni autor. Dugo se odu­pirao nezahvalnom poslu, pa i onda kada ga je prihvatio i donator Topić Mimara. Pristao je tek nakon mnogo nago­varanja. Adaptacija nekadašnjeg samostana bila je do 1979. godine građevinski već dovršena, pa su se u zgradi mogle napraviti samo manje izmjene. Međutim, ostalo je još mno­go raznih problema koje je trebalo brzo rješavati. Emili je bio svjestan i svojega lošeg zdravlja, kao i toga da je adap­tacija uzburkala stručne i druge krugove, da je stvorena ne­povoljna klima prema naporima da se započeto i dovrši. Nas­

160 161oris, number 74, year 2012 Igor Emili, Museum space

main building, 1st floor plan

main building, ground floor plan

glavna zgrada, tlocrt 1. kata

glavna zgrada, tlocrt prizemlja

main building, 4th floor plan

south elevation

glavna zgrada, tlocrt 4. kata

južno pročelje

(AMM)(AMM)

oris, broj 74, godina 2012 Igor Emili, Muzejski prostor

162 163oris, number 74, year 2012 Igor Emili, Museum space

offers itself. Spaces con ceived in such a manner differ from spaces of modern archi tecture which frequently have a cha­racter of exclusive ness. Emili attempted to equip his inte rior and exterior spaces in such a way that staying there would be pleasant.9 Apart from that, Emili never imitated the old style of building, but he used its forms and accentuated values that are still valid today. ¶ The Regional Institute for Preservation of Cultural Heritage in Zagreb, as well as the Commission for issuing expert opi nions on appeals in the court of second instance procedure reacted by refusing the proposed solution ‘to such an a priori extent that they even did not use arguments from the analysis of the location and project in the documents, but their posi tion is axiomatic (refusal without hearing of evi­dence).’10 To this, the Republic Committee for Education, Cul­ture etc. annulled the decision by the Regional Institute and did not adopt the opinion by the Commission of the Republic

9 Schwalba: op.cit. p.29.10 Maroević: Analiza projekta interpolacije na jugoistočnom uglu Gradeca, p.163.

(BV)

section, south court, catering facilities

section, restaurant

presjek; južno dvorište, ugostiteljski sadržaji

presjek, restoran

oris, broj 74, godina 2012 Igor Emili, Muzejski prostor

kulture u Zagrebu).’8 To su očito postavke samog Emilija jer njegovo graditeljstvo (pojam uzet kao arhi tektura i urbanizam zajedno) nije puko kreiranje samo ga fizič kog prostora, već ono znači i njegovo organiziranje kako bi ljudi u njemu mogli naći i razvijati bitne psihološke i so cijalne vrijednosti. I to bez ikak­ve prisile jer se on samo nudi. Prostori koncipirani na taj način razlikuju se od prostora mo derne arhitekture, koji su često isključivi. Svoje je unutrašnje i vanjske prostore Emili nastojao opremiti tako da boravak u nji ma bude ugodan.9 Osim toga, Emili nikada nije oponašao staru gradnju, ali je koristio njene oblike i isticao vrijednosti koje vrijede i danas. ¶ Regionalni zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture u Zagrebu, kao i Komisija za davanje stručnog mišlje nja na žalbe u drugostupanjskom postupku reagirali su odbi janjem predloženog rješenja ‘i do te mjere apriorno da se u doku mentima čak ni ne upotrebljavaju ar gumenti iz analize lokacije i projekta, već sa stanovišta

8 I. Maroević (bilj. 6), str.163.9 R. Schwalba (bilj. 7), str. 29.

(BV)

164 165oris, number 74, year 2012 Igor Emili, Museum space

prostor.’13 Nastavlja da su tom iz lož bom potvrđene sve mo­gućnosti prostora, ali su uočeni i nje govi nedostaci. Zadani gabariti su osnovni ne dostatak koji je ne moguće popraviti i koji je projektantu bilo nemoguće pro mije niti. Sama funkcija samostanske arhi tek ture s hodni cima i ćelijama, bez obzira na uklonjena vrata i pregradne zidove, umanjuje izložbeni prostor i mo gućnost nesmetanog toka kretanja što je na­ročito važno u prostorima takve nam jene. Projektant je u unutrašnjosti nastojao postići pot rebnu intimnost opremivši ga toplim i mekanim mate rija lima, te tako što je vidljive teh­ničke uređaje sveo na najmanju moguću mjeru. Izložbene je prostore ujednačio bijelim zi do vima, riđom ‘heugom’ (teks­tilna obloga) na podu i me tal nom letvicom koja teče između poda i zida. Maroević smatra da je tim jednostav nim ele­mentima projektant ostavio mo guć nost indi viduali zacije prostora prema budućem ekspozitu. ¶ Rasvjeta je ta kođer fleksibilna što omogućuju vodovi ispod metalne letvice. Danje svjetlo ublaženo je zaslonima, no pre ma potrebi prozori se mogu otvarati. ¶ Nezadovoljan za te čenim izvedenim rado­vima, koji su samo omogućavali bu duću namjenu i to bez poš tivanja kontinuiteta nastanka i razvoja kompleksa, Emili se upustio i u istraživanja. Tako je u pod rumskom dijelu, na spoju s crkvom ostavio vidljivim stari dio zida, te je prezentirao i staru kriptu sa zemljanim podom onako kako je nađena. ¶ Pros tor je u Emilijevoj arhitekturi uvijek posebno istaknut. Svoj odnos prema njemu je sam formulirao: ‘Potpuno je krivo ako prostor počinje ili svršava u objektu. Pristup mora biti kompleksniji.’14 ¶ To ističe i Ma roević: ‘Emilijev projekt dos­ljedno nastoji da se muzejski pros tor čim bolje i potpunije uključi u koncept revitalizacije Gornjeg grada i da se maksi­malno poveže s vanjskim pros torima (...) izvlačeći muzej iz zatvorenosti zgrade i uvo đenje ambijenta u muzej što još nije ostvareno. Postoji vizuelna veza, jer nema barijere teških vrat nica (...)’15 (koje su bile izlo žene u ulaznom prostoru, op. R. S.), a isto tako staklenim vratima ostvarena je veza i s unutraš njim dvorištem. ¶ Emiliju je od početka bilo jasno da se ure đenje muzeja neće moći svesti samo na kompleks nekadašnjeg samostana, već da će se za njegovo funkcionira­nje morati urediti nedefinirani pros tor od same zgrade i crkve Sv. Kata rine, Gornjogradske gim nazije do samoga jugo­istočnog ugla grads kog zida. Godine 1980. izradio je i projekt revitalizacije tog dijela Gradeca. Pro jektom je predložio ure­đenje vanjskoga dvo rišnog prostora, gotovo trga, s vizurama na donje dijelove i susjedni dio grada. Taj jednostavni prostor

13 I. Maroević (bilj. 12), str. 165.14 R. Schwalba (bilj. 7), str. 29.15 I. Maroević, ‘Novija muzejska arhitektura u Hrvatskoj’, Čovjek i prostor, 3/1986., str. 7 i Rastava..., str. 165.

Insti tute. Sin ce not one among the two negative opinions refused the possibility of construction on this location ‘the Republic Committee, on the basis of opinions by a group of prominent experts and persons active in culture estimated that the proposed project ‘would contribute to the even greater promi nence of cultural heritage values of the Upper Town’ and that it repre sents ‘an extraordinary creative approach to this cultural heri tage entity by the author of this revitalization project...’11 ¶ In 1984, on the occasion of the exhibition ‘The Treasury of Zag reb Cathedral’, Ivo Maroević wrote about the exhibition space itself.12 He noted it was impossible to deny the connection of the exhibition with the exhibition space in this situation, there fore he dedicated more than half of his text to both the space and new building of the Museum and Gallery Centre mana ge ment than to the exhibition. He says (and this without taking into consideration whether it was necessary or not to damage a high quality monument in a brutal and irreversible manner or to bring it to life again with this conversion) that we ‘have obtained an adequate museum space after a long time, ...in my opi nion, a gain that is not without disadvantages, but never theless a

11 Ibid., p.16312 Maroević: Rastava zakladnice zagrebške katedrale v novem muzejskem prostoru v Zagrebu (The exhibition ‘The Treasury of Zagreb Cathedral’ in the new Museum and Gallery Centre in Zagreb), Sinteza, Issue 65–68, Ljubljana, 1984, pp.165–168.

gain which brings above all a precious and useful exhibition space to Zagreb.’13 He further adds that this exhibition con­firmed all the possibilities of the space, but its disa dvan tages were noticed as well. The main disadvantage, and it is impossible to repair it, just as it was not possible for the archi­tect to change it, was the given outline. The very function of the monastery architecture with corridors and cells, regardless of removed doors and partition walls, reduced the exhibition space and the possibility to have an unhindered flow of mo­vement which is of particular importance in spaces of such purpose. The architect attempted to achieve the needed inti­macy in the interior by equipping it with warm and soft materials, and by reducing to the minimum visible technical devices. He made the exhibition spaces uniform with white walls, reddish­brown wall to wall carpet and a thin metal lath which flows between the floor and wall. Maroević thought that the architect left options for individualization of the space for future exhibits with these simple elements. ¶ The lighting is also flexible, which is enabled by means of cables beneath the metal lath. Daylight is reduced by means of screens, nevertheless, windows can be opened if need be. ¶ Dissatisfied with the works that had been carried out and which merely enabled the future purpose without apprecia­tion of continuity and development of the building complex, Emili also started to do some research. Therefore, he left the old section of the wall visible where the basement is connec­ted to the church. Also, he presented the old crypt with the earthen floor in the same condition it had been found. ¶ Space is always uniquely accentuated in Emili’s architecture. He formulated his relation to space as follows: ‘It is completely wrong if space starts or ends in a building. The approach has to be more complex.’14 ¶ Maroević says the same thing: ‘Emili’s project consistently attempts to include the museum space into the concept of revitalization of the Upper Town in the best and most complete possible way and to connect it with the exterior spaces to the maximum... by drawing the mu­seum out of the closeness of the building and introducing an ambience into the museum, which has not yet been achieved. There is a visual connection because there is no barrier of the heavy doorframes’15 (which were exposed in the entran ce space, author’s note); and also, the connection with the inner courtyard is realized by means of a glass door. ¶ From the very

13 Maroević: Rastava zakladnice zagrebške katedrale v novem muzejskem prostoru v Zagrebu, p.165.14 Schwalba: op.cit. p.29.15 Maroević: Novija muzejska arhitektura u Hrvatskoj (Modern Museum Architecture in Croatia), Man and Space, Issue 3/1986, p.7 and Rastava zakladnice zagrebške katedrale v novem muzejskem prostoru v Zagrebu, p.165.

(DF)

oris, broj 74, godina 2012 Igor Emili, Muzejski prostor

aksiomatična – odba ci vanja bez dokaznog postupka.’10 Na to Republički komitet za prosvjetu, kulturu itd. poništava rješenje Regionalnog zavoda i ne usvaja mišljenje Komisije Repu­bličkog zavoda. S obzirom da niti jedno od ta dva negativna rješenja nije odbacivalo mo gućnost gradnje na ovoj lokaciji, ‘Re publički komitet je na te melju mišljenja grupe istaknutih stručnjaka i kul turnih rad nika ocijenio da će predloženi pro­jekt ‘pridonijeti još većem isti canju spomeničkih vrijednosti Gornjeg grada’ i da predstav lja ‘izvanredan kreativan pristup autora projekta revi ta lizacije ove spomeničke cjeline (...)’.11 ¶ Godine 1984. u po vo du izlož be Riznice zagrebačke kate­drale Ivo Maroević piše o samome izložbenom prostoru.12

Napominje kako mu u tak voj prilici nije moguće zanijekati povezanost izložbe s izlož benim prosto rom, pa gotovo veći dio teksta posvećuje pros toru i novoj zgradi uprave Mu­zejskog prostora nego samoj izložbi. On kaže – zanemarivši je li trebalo ili ne tom adap tacijom, grubo i nepovratno ošte­titi kvalitetan spome nik ili ga na taj način oživjeti – da smo ‘nakon mnogo vre mena dobili primjeran mu zejski prostor, (...) po meni dobi tak koji nije bez gre ša ka, no ipak dobitak koji Zagrebu donosi nadasve dra gocjen i koristan izložbeni

10 I. Maroević (bilj. 6), str. 163.11 Ibid.12 I. Maroević, ‘Rastava zakladnice zagrebške katedrale v novem muzejskem pro­storu v Zagrebu’, Sinteza, br. 65 – 68, Lubljana, 1984, str. 165 – 168.

166 167oris, number 74, year 2012 Igor Emili, Museum space

nije htio optere titi masom nove arhi tekture, ali je uz unu­trašnju stranu jugo zapadnog ugla gradskoga obrambe nog zida dio dvorišta spus tio na nivo šetališta pred njim. Na taj način mogao je s obje strane prezentirati ugaoni dio gradskoga obrambenog zida Gradeca. Prostor nastao spuš­ta njem nivoa predvidio je za ugostiteljske i uslužne sadržaje. ¶ Gornji plato vanjskog dvo rišta u sjeveroistočnom i jugo­zapadnom uglu blago je zakrilio novim građevinama, tek toliko da se vizualno dobije in tim niji prostor. Manja zgrada uz sjeveroistočni ugao vanjskog dvo rišta tek je ma som aso­cirala na nekadašnji prigrađeni objekt, o kojem je bilo tek malo podataka. Veća je predviđena za upra vu i druge mu­zejske službe. ¶ ‘Zbog kompleksnosti cjelokupne mu zejske strukture i ograničenja pos tojeće zgrade, donijeta je odluka da se uz zgradu gim nazije, u neposrednoj blizini sa mostana, sagradi upravna zgrada muzeja, u koju je trebalo staviti one sadržaje koji zbog svog kapaciteta i sadržaja nisu mogli stati u postojeći volumen bivšeg samostana, unatoč povećanjima (ulazno krilo, dio pod zemljom, i u potkrovlju).’16 Naime, donator je s vremenom povećavao svoju donaciju pa je po­manjkanje prostora postajalo sve veći problem, zbog če ga je odustao od izlaganja zbirke u nekadašnjemu jezuitskom samostanu, ali izložbeni su prostori tada već bili pred samim završetkom. ¶ O upravnoj zgradi Muzejskog prostora Maro­ević najopšir nije piše onda kada je zgrada već preuređena za izložbe i otvorena za 1. svjetski trijenale keramike 1985. go­dine.17 Zgra du namijenjenu za upravu muzeja projektant je postavio pred goli zabat zgrade gim nazije, koji tako gol stoji još od gradnje u drugoj polovini 19. stoljeća. Maroević potvrđu je da je taj protupožarni zid ko načno trebalo zatvoriti jer je ostavljao dojam nedovrše nosti. ¶ Emili je pred zabat gim na zije postavio skulpturalno definiranu zgradu, koja oblikom podsje ća na klasičnu kuću. Pročelje na šetalište je u ravnini sa zgra dom gimnazije, dok je šire pročelje okrenuo na istok, nad upušteni dio dvorišta. Sjeverno pročelje, ono okrenuto prema kompleksu neka dašnjeg samostana, razlom­ljeno je u čvrste blokove. A tako su razvedene i stare zgrade iza apsi dalnog dijela crkve i na suprotnoj stražnja strana gimnazije. Na taj način, s razvijenim sjevernim pročeljem, Emili je uklo pio novu zgradu i valorizirao zapadni dio vanjskog prostora kao dio dvo rišta, koje tako postupno pre­lazi u suženi prolaz prema Kata rinskom trgu. ¶ Čitavu novu zgra du, čak i krov, obložio je veli kim pločama lijevanoga mutnog stakla. Takve ali manje ploče lijevanog stakla već je

16 I. Maroević (bilj. 15), str. 7.17 I. Maroević, ‘Zagrebška arhitekturna kronika. Jugovzhodni vogal Gornjega grada’, Sinteza, br. 69 – 72, Ljubljana, 1985, str. 207.

beginning, Emili understood that design of the museum could not be reduced merely to the complex of the former monastery. For its operation, the undefined space from the building itself and St Catherine’s Church, the Upper Town Gymnasium to the very south­east corner of the town wall would have to be designed. In 1980, he also created a project of revitalization of this section of Gradec. With this project, he proposed the design of the exterior courtyard, almost a square, with views of lower parts and the neighbouring zone of the city. He did not want to burden this simple space with a mass of new archi­tecture, but he lowered a part of the courtyard along the inner side of the south­west corner of the town defensive wall to the level of the promenade in front of it. In this manner, he was able to present the corner section of the city’s defensive wall of Gradec on both sides. The space that was created by lowering the surface level was planned to host catering and service contents. ¶ He slightly shielded the upper area of the exterior courtyard in the north­east and south­west corner with new buildings, but just to obtain a more visually intimate space. The smaller building along the north­east corner recalled a former, additionally constructed building merely with its mass, and there was little data on this building. The lar ger building was intended for the management and other museum services. ¶ ‘Due to the complexity of the entire museum structure and restrictions of the existing building, a decision was made to build the building of the museum mana­gement along the gymnasium building in the immediate vici­nity of the monastery. It should house programmes that could not be accommodated in the existing volume of the former monastery in spite of additions (the entrance wing, the sec­tion underground and in the attic) due to their capacity and content.’16 Namely, the donator was enlarging his donation over the course of time and therefore lack of space become more and more of a problem. He therefore decided not to exhibit the collection in the former Jesuit Monastery, but the exhibition spaces were already almost completed at that time. ¶ Maroević wrote most extensively about the management building of the Museum and Gallery Centre when the building was already renovated for exhibitions and opened for the 1st World Triennial of Ceramics in 1985.17 The architect placed the building that was intended for the museum management in front of the bare gable wall of the high school, which had remained naked since its construction in the second half of the 19th century. Maro ević confirmed that this fire wall was

16 Maroević: Novija muzejska arhitektura u Hrvatskoj, p.7.17 Maroević: Zagrebška arhitekturna kronika, Jugovzhodni vogal Gornjega grada (Zagreb’s Architectural Chronicle: South­east Corner of the Upper Town), Sinteza, Issue 69–72, Ljubljana, 1985, p.207.

oris, broj 74, godina 2012 Igor Emili, Muzejski prostor

(BV)

168 169oris, number 74, year 2012 Igor Emili, Museum space

ranije isprobao kao oblogu na zidu pasaža kroz prizemlje zgrade Privredne banke u riječkome Starom gradu. Autor tih staklenih ploča bio je profesor Aka demije likovnih umjetnosti u Zagrebu Raul Gol doni (1919. – 1983.). Naime, Emili je već na samim po čecima svojega pro jektantskog rada nastojao da uvijek kao suradnici budu uklju čeni i likovnjaci koji će likovno opremati eksterijer i inte rijer građevine. Tako je u njegova dva posljednja ostva rena projekta surađivao Raul Goldoni.18 ¶ Emili je još na po četku rada na projektima u riječkome Starom gradu govorio o nuž nosti upotrebe ‘skupih i trajnih materijala’ na novim dije lovima starih zgrada i naročito na novim zgradama u sta rim ambi jentima. Nastojao je suvremenim materijalima obli kovati iz gubljene forme u starim ambijentima ili na taj način otkriti i potvrditi vrijednosti starih prostora.19 Čini se da su se ‘zbu njeni pojedinci’ (cit. I. M.), koji su bili protiv te gradnje, najviše obarali na indigo boju obloge upravne zgrade. Ivo Maroević o tome dalje kaže da akcent s indigo bojom nije

18 R. Schwalba (bilj. 6), Emili je u dvadesetak godina projektantskog rada surađivao s više od dvadeset suradnika na likovnom planu, v. str. 202.19. Ibid, str. 29; indigo boja pod staklenim pločama uvezena je iz Njemačke, no unatoč jamstvu IGH kojem je bilo povjereno rješenje, nije opravdala očekivanja.

karakterističan za zagrebačke gradske prostore, ali zaključuje da nije šokantan. Žaleći što naše vrijeme nije osjetljivije na boju u arhitekturi, o tome kaže: ‘zanemarujemo mogućnosti postojanja crvene, modre, crne i bijele boje na Gradecu 17. i 18. vijeka, žalujući za austrijskim okerom 19. stoljeća.’20 ¶ O vizurama na Gradec s novom zgradom indigo boje iz Donjeg grada i s Kaptola Maro ević piše na jednom mjestu vrlo kratko, ocjenjujući da s reali zacijom ne moramo biti razočarani.21 ¶ Interpretirajući kon cepciju i projektnu viziju autora, Maro­ević konstatira da ‘Igor Emili sa svojim senzibilitetom i sa svojom autorskom fizio nomijom nije mogao doći do nekog bitno drugačijeg rezultata. U ovom se projektu osjeća njegov kreativni i pro jektantski način razmišljanja za koji treba reći da je apso lutno uzimao u obzir sve one vrijednosti prostora, koje su bile dostupne i koje je spoznao.’22 Taj citat je iz teksta objavljenog 1983. godine i u kojem kaže da ne ulazi u ocjenu je li to rješenje za tu lokaciju dobro ili ne, te da će se vredno­vanje iskristalizirati kroz raspra vu. ¶ Valo rizirajući gra đevinu 1985. godine, kada se valjda već ocjena iskrista lizirala, Ma­roević ocjenjuje da ‘indigo zgrada’ kao arhitektura nije do­voljno genijalna da bi dodala nešto vrijednosno nepo novljivo tako vrijednom prostoru, iako se u kreativnom pos tupku arhi tektu učinila kao jedina mo gućnost. ¶ Kaže da je arhitekt tu želio mnogo više nego je mogao, nego mu je do puštala tehnologija, da je Emili želio ‘postaviti dragulj na krunu Gor­njeg grada’, što mu unatoč velikom stvaralačkom senzi bi­litetu i nastojanju nije uspjelo. Maroević na kraju kaže da je rad povjeren Emiliju kao velikoj kreativnoj osobnosti: ‘oče­kivanja nije iznevjerio, niti je pore metio kvalitetu pros tor nih odnosa, ali ih nije niti ispunio, pa rezultat ne doseže vrijednos ni nivo lokacije.’23 ¶ Maroevićeva slika s gričkom kru nom i neostvarenim draguljem čini se literarno zgodnom, ali ipak pretjeranom. Igor Emili bio je svjestan ‘škrbave’ kru­ne, njene nedefiniranosti i situacije poteza čija je jedina oču­vana srednjovjekovna gradska kula izoliranjem iz kon teksta postala interpolacijom, kako je to sam utvrdio i Maro ević u svojemu značajnom traktatu o interpolacijama.24 Tak va ge­nijalna zgra da koja bi prekrivala svu nedorečenost i skri ve­nost nekadašnje funkcije prostora po mom se mišlje nju ne može ostvariti. Emi li je bio toga svjestan, kao i činje nice da određeni glasni kru govi neće omogućiti prihva ćanje takvoga kreativnog rješe nja koje bi iskazalo ne samo sve mogućnosti

20. I. Maroević (bilj. 17), str. 207.21 Ibid, str. 208.22 I. Maroević (bilj. 6), str. 165.23 I. Maroević (bilj. 17), str. 208.24 I. Maroević, ‘O nekim novim pogledima na interpolacije’, Arhitektura, br. 184 – 185, Zagreb, 1983., str. 28.

supposed to be finally closed since it was leaving an impression of incompleteness. ¶ In front of the high school building’s gable wall, Emili placed a sculpturally defined building which reminds one of a classical house with its shape. The front oriented to the promenade is in line with the high school building and the wider front is directed to the east, above the lowered section of the court yard. The north front, the one turned to the former mo nastery complex, is divided into strict block. And the old buildings behind the apsidal section of the church as well as the rear section of the high school on the opposite side are indented in the same manner. In this way, with the indented front, Emili incorporated the new building and valorised the west zone of the exterior space as part of the courtyard which in this manner gradually transforms into a narrowed passage towards Catherine Square. ¶ He covered the entire new buil ding, and even its roofing, with large panels made of cast opaque glass. He had already previously tested the same, but smaller, panels made of cast glass as cladding on the walls of the passage through the ground floor of the Privredna Bank building in Rijeka’s Old Town. The author of these glass panels was a professor at the Academy of Fine Arts, Raul Goldoni (1919­1983). Namely, at the very beginning of Emili’s archi tectural design work, he made efforts to always include visual artists as collaborators who would equip the exterior and interior of a building by means of visual arts. And so Raul Goldoni collaborated in his last two realized projects.18 ¶ At the be ginning of his work on projects in Rijeka’s Old Town, Emili talked of the necessity to use ‘expensive and durable materials’ on new sections of old buildings and particularly on new buil dings in old ambiences. He was trying to shape lost forms in old ambiences with contemporary materials or to reveal and confirm the values of old spaces in this manner.19 It seems that ‘confused individuals’ (quote I. M.), who were against this construction, mostly attacked the indigo colour of the mana gement building’s cladding. Further about this, Ivo Maroević says that the accent with indigo is not cha racte­ristic of city spaces in Zagreb, but he concludes it is not shocking either. Having some regrets that our time does not manifest more sensitiveness to colour in architecture, he says: ‘We neglect the possibility that red, blue, black and white existed in the Gradec of the 17th and 18th centuries, grieving

18 Schwalba: op.cit. In some twenty years of architectural design work, Emili collaborated with more than twenty collaborators in the field of visual arts. The list is on page 202.19 Ibid. p.29. The indigo colour beneath the glass panels was imported from Germany; nevertheless, it did not justify expectations in spite of assurances by the Civil Engineering Institute of Croatia who were responsible for the solution.

for the Austrian ochre of the 19th century.’20 ¶ Maroević writes very briefly at one point about vistas of Gradec with the new building in indigo from the Lower Town and Kaptol, stating his opinion that we do not have to be disappointed with the realization.21 ¶ When interpreting the author’s concept and design vision, Maroević establishes that ‘Igor Emili, with his sensitivity and with his authorial physiognomy, could not have reached a significantly different result. One can feel his way of thinking as a creator and architectural designer in this project. Regarding his thin king, it has to be said that he was absolutely taking into con sideration all the values of a space that were accessible and that he had become aware of.’22 This quote is from one of his texts, published in 1983, in which he says that he is not going to elaborate on an evaluation whether this solution for the lo cation is good or not, and that evaluation would be crystalli zed through discussions. ¶ When he valo­rised this building in 1985, when an estimate had probably already been crystallized, Maroević established that ‘the in­digo building’ was not sufficiently brilliant as architecture to add something unique to such a precious space in terms of value, although this seemed the only possibility to the archi­tect in the creative pro cedure. ¶ He says that the architect wanted much more than he could get, than technology allo­wed him; that Emili wanted ‘to place a jewel on the crown of the Upper Town’ which failed in spite of large creative sensi­tivity and striving. Regarding the work entrusted to Emili as a great creative personality, Maroević says in the end: ‘Emili did not fail expectations, or disturb the quality of spatial re­lations, but he also did not fulfil them so the result does not match the value of the location.23 ¶ Maroević’s image with the crown of Grič and unrealized jewel appears to be literarily con­venient, but still exaggerated. Igor Emili was aware of the ‘jagged’ crown, its undefined quality, and the situation of this line in which the only preserved medieval town’s tower be­came an interpolation by means of its isolation from the con­text, as Maroević himself established in his significant treatise on interpolations.24 A brilliant building, which would cover all the incompleteness and concealment of the former function of the space, could not have been realized in my opinion. Emili

20 Maroević: Zagrebška arhitekturna kronika, Jugovzhodni vogal Gornjega grada, p.207.21 Ibid. p.208.22 Maroević, Ivo: ‘Analiza projekta interpolacije na jugoistočnom uglu Gradeca,’ (Analysis of the Interpolation Project in the South­east Corner of Gradec), p.165, Peristil, Issue 26, Zagreb, 1983.23 Maroević: Zagrebška arhitekturna kronika, Jugovzhodni vogal Gornjega grada, p.208.24 Maroević: ‘O nekim novim pogledima na interpolacije,’ (On New Approaches to Interpolations), Arhitektura, Issue 184–185, Zagreb, 1983, p.28.

oris, broj 74, godina 2012 Igor Emili, Muzejski prostor

(BV)

170 171oris, number 74, year 2012 Igor Emili, Museum space

novoga, nego bi i iniciralo cjelovitu prezentaciju južne fasade Gradeca. Čini mi se da je Emili nastojao u ovom prostoru suzdržano uskladiti razne sadržaje, organizacijom prostora stvoriti cjelinu koja će pre zen tirati njegove vrijednosti, nag­lasivši osnovni muzejski sadržaj; vrednovati ga kao isho dište šireg prostora, nagla ša vajući njegovu prvotnu fortifikacijsku funkciju, naznačava jući nastajanje i razvoj prostora na jugo­istočnom uglu Gradeca. ¶ Što imamo danas? Imamo Klovićeve dvore, promijenjeno ime Muzejskom prostoru, ali srećom ne i promijenjene vrijedne izložbene i druge aktivnosti; imamo napuštenu i zapuštenu zgradu namijenjenu upravi donacije; nedefinirano vanjsko dvorište pretvoreno u pusti trg, čiji istočni rub sada grubo udara u ugao zgrade nekadašnjeg samostana na mjestu gdje je stajala zgradica podignuta po Emilijevu projektu, poru šena iz tko zna kojeg razloga; imamo pet klupa raspoređenih po rubovima toga pustog trga, koje bi trebale svjedočiti o pros toru koji nudi ugodu; zapuštene stube, sada neprijatni spoj Strossmayerova šetališta s gornjom razinom vanjskog dvo riš ta, koje sada postaje pusti trg; dio gradskoga obram benog zida do neprepoznatljivosti obraslog zelenilom; ču dovišne sun cobrane koji niču u (ne­postojećem) režimu za rad u visoko vrijednom kulturnom dobru; imamo ponovno teške vratnice na glavnom ulazu u Dvore; imamo dva ulaza u kompleks, jedan na Jezuitski trg

– reguliran prema projektu V. Kovačića i H. Ehrlicha, te drugi na vanjsko dvorište, koji su sada flankirani parkiralištima za automobile. Dakle, ima mo sliku našeg odnosa ne samo pre­ma kreativnom naporu jednog vremena, nego i prema naše­mu, deklarativno, naj većemu kulturnom dobru. ¶ Očito je da od svih relevantnih stručnjaka visoko valorizirani jugo istočni dio Gradeca u stvar nosti nije valoriziran. Stoji zapušten i napušten, ničiji. Možda će se u nekom doglednom vremenu netko potruditi da se dovrši i uredi i taj dio Gradeca. ¶ Rje­šenja za njegovo uređenje mogu biti različita, a ovdje mis­limo o kreativnim, a ne admi nistrativnim, upravnim rje­šenjima, još manje onim stranačkim. Rješenje se može naći u rasponu od povlačenja u srednjo vjekovni Gradec, nas tav­ljanju izgradnje ‘ko rone’ Gradeca na romantični način, ili do njegova futurističkog obli kovanja. Rješenje, po mojem miš­ljenju i nekakvom iskustvu, ne treba tražiti ni u javnim ni u pozivnim nat ječa jima. Ono se može naći samo u ozbiljnom, zajedničkom radu sku pine suradnika potrebnih struka, ali onih koji su sposobni za takav rad, i koji su se već dokazali kreativnošću. No, rje šenje prije svega treba tražiti u cje­lovitoj i sveobuhvatnoj analizi kako povijesnog razvoja prostora, tako i svih dosa dašnjih radova poštujući dostignu­ća prethodnika i uva žava jući njihova razmišljanja. Ništa

was aware of that, as well as the fact that certain vociferous circles would not allow acceptance of a creative solution expressing not only all the possibilities of the new, but also initiating an integral presentation of the south façade of Gradec. It seems that Emili was trying to reservedly harmonize different contents in this space, to create a unity by means of spatial organization which would present its values with an accent on the essential content of the museum; to evaluate it as a starting point of a wider space, stressing its initial fortification function, indi cating a coming into being as well as development of the space in the south­east corner of Gradec. ¶ What do we have today? We have the Palace of Klović, the new name for the Museum and Gallery Centre, but luckily with the same valu able exhibition as well as other activities; we have the abando ned and neglected building intended for the mana gement of the donation; we have the undefined outer court yard trans for med into a desolate square whose eastern edge now brutally hits the corner of the building that used to be a monas tery in the place where a small building was erected after Emili’s project, torn down for some totally unknown reason; we have five benches arranged along the edge of this desolated square that should bear witness to a space that offers comfort; we have a neg lected staircase, now an unpleasant connection between Strossmayer Promenade and the upper level of the outer courtyard that has become a desolated square at pre sent; we have part of the defensive wall covered with vege tation to the extent that it is unrecognizable; we have monstrous sunshades that emerge from a (non­existent) wor king schedule in highly valuable cultural assets; we again have heavy doorframes on the main entrance to the Palace; we have two entrances to the complex, one from Jesuit Square – regu lated after the design by V. Ko­vačić and H. Ehrlich, and the other from the exterior courtyard which is now flanked by parking spaces for automobiles. In other words, we have an image of our relation not only to the creative efforts of one time, but also to our, theoretically speaking, greatest cultural treasure. ¶ It is obvious that the south­east section of Gradec, highly valorised by of all the relevant experts, in reality has not been valorised. It is there, neglected and abandoned, belon ging to no one. Perhaps someone will make some effort to complete and arrange this part of Gradec as well in some near future. ¶ Solutions for its design can be various, and here we mean creative and not administrative, managerial solutions, and even less party­related ones. A solution can be found within a range from a return to the medieval Gradec, conti nuation of construction of Gradec’s ‘corona’ in a romantic manner, or to its forming in

novo. Ipak, kako se u ovom trenutku stanja teorije i prakse očuvanja i unapređivanja ur bane baštine čini, reklo bi se da su postavke i način raz miš ljanja Igora Emilija još uvijek najbliži rješenju.

futuristic style. The solution, in my opinion and some experi­ence, should not be looked for through open or invi tation competitions. It can only be found in serious work together by a group of collaborators of the necessary professions, but only those who are capable of such work. And, who have already proved to be creative. Never theless, the solution should above all be sought in an integral and all­inclusive analysis of the historical develop ment of the space, as well as of all the works so far with appreci ation for pre decessors’ achievements and respect for their way of thin king. Nothing new. And yet, considering the state in which the theory and practice of the preservation and impro vement of the urban heritage is at this moment, it seems that Igor Emili’s pos­tulates and ways of thinking are still closest to the solution.

(BV)

oris, broj 74, godina 2012 Igor Emili, Muzejski prostor