Krasna Horka castle in fire

[Orionblamblam]

Agreed. And as the image you attached points out, there remains a sick obsession with "royalty" in western culture. Disney has done no end of damage by promoting the notion that hereditary political systems are anything other than archaic and backwards, that princesses are to be anythign but despised.

To take the discussion to a bit of an extreme... I haven;t encountered too many people who think that Berlin and Nuremburg should have been restored to their 1940 standard, that the Reichs Chancellery should have been rebuilt. Indeed. most people are comfortable with the idea that, even though a lot of these buildings might have been architectural marvels, they were better off being leveled, trashed, repurposed.

A building, whether it was built by free enterprise or collectivism, by free people or slaves, by secularists or theocrats, is, in the end, just a building... any meaning the building might have comes from people choosing to apply that meaning themselves. Castles are *almost* universally the result of totalitarian regimes... used by the thieves and murders in charge to protect themselves and their loot from other thieves and murderers.

In general, a house, a marketplace or a workshop would have more meaning to me than a grand armored home of a "nobleman" built by forced labor.

 

[The Artist]

Why don't we tear down Fort McHenry and turn the site over to condo developers? Why don't we bulldoze The Alamo and let them build a strip mall? Why don't we close down Pearl Harbor and let hotels, golf courses and shopping malls be built there? Why waste money keeping the Constitution afloat?

Buildings and places become important to cultures as touchstones in the culture's history. Look at the uproar over the proposed placement of a community center in New York. Those were just a couple of ugly buildings but now they're gone. Why did voices raise so high? We self-centered Americans just will not stand for such sacred ground being mocked. We would not stand for the Alamo being demolished and just the idea of some Japanese corporation running hotels and malls on the site of Pearl Harbor could be enough to start another war. We Americans do have sites and buildings that we care about, but being a younger country, we're not carrying all the extra historical baggage carried by Europeans. Because of that, we are willing to look at different methods of preserving those sites. To us, the view of this incident is (generally) what Scott is saying. The other view is that the fire is now a part of the history of the building and that fire will be remembered after the rebuilding has been completed. I find myself unable to rank either view as the better.

And yes. I do think the World Trade Center buildings were ugly.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Why don't we tear down Fort McHenry and turn the site over to condo developers? Why don't we bulldoze The Alamo and let them build a strip mall? Why don't we close down Pearl Harbor and let hotels, golf courses and shopping malls be built there? Why waste money keeping the Constitution afloat?

As I said, buildings have the value people ascribe to them.

Of course, none of those places have the dark history of your average European castle. Now, when Mexico annexes Texas, I bet the Alamo vanishes...

Addendum: While I think from your post that you generally seems to agree with my view, I note that your hypotheticals involved destroying the historic sites. While I've mentioned that there may be merit in such an idea, my main idea which seemed to irritate a great many people was not to destroy a historic site, but to add a functional improvement/cosmetic non-change to a historic site. And that idea was responded to as if I'd suggested destroyign the place.

Fine. What that basically means is that it is wrong to modernize or update a *structure.* If it is wrong to update a structure, how can it possibly be okay to modernize a *culture,*, a *religion,* or any other way of thinking?

If America - or France, or Russia, Japan, India, anybody - were to set up a large, successful and self-sufficient off-world colony, such as several cities on Mars and innumerable habitats throughout the asteroids, their culture would carry on. Even if Earth was promptly pulverized by a miniature black hole, and all the structures that it was wrong to modernize were converted to a burst of elementary particles, the *culture* would survive just fine... if it was allowed to modernize.

I've said before that I would push the plunger my own self to bring down the VAB and feed all the Saturn V's into giant woodchippers if at the same time the culture could be modernized. And there's no such thing as a castle with as noble a history as the VAB.

 

[Arjen]

You are serious. Better keep you away from that plunger, then.

I've said before that I would push the plunger my own self to bring down the VAB and feed all the Saturn V's into giant woodchippers if at the same time the culture could be modernized.

Nobody is going to offer you the choice 'VAB or modernized culture'. Blowing up the VAB will not get you your modernisation, besides, modernisation isn't intrinsically good: change is inevitable, modernisation is part of that, but modernisation for modernisation's sake? Want to be a fashion victim? If that is what you like, certainly, go ahead.

I have lived in Amsterdam for some years, and people there pay extra to live in what you seem to regard as outdated dwellings. It's impossibe to park their cars next to their real estate. They're cramped compared to more modern dwellings. The place is swamped by tourists every year (makes you wonder whatever they're looking for). Still many people will pay an arm and a leg to move there. Because they like the feel of the place. The city has old bones, thoroughly un-modern crooked streets and alleys, it's what many people like. It's an emotional thing. Real estate in Amsterdam's old quarters is really, really expensive.

I still like visiting Amsterdam, but, personally, I've had it with living in cramped apartments, among swarms of tourists. We've tried living in a modern suburb, and hated it. Now we live in an old farmhouse, because we like old buildings. It's not a listed monument, and we have had it extensively modernised. Because we want to live in some comfort, not to mention safety. But we have chosen oak beams, not steel, to replace the originals, because they feel right, and we want to live in a house that feels right. Now we're skint, but we feel it was money well spent.

Nobody is asking you to contribute to the reconstruction of Krásna Hôrka, but it's going to happen anyway. Because other people do think it's worth the effort. They like having old stuff about, even if it has to be kept safe from fire and rot.

And there's no such thing as a castle with as noble a history as the VAB.

I take it you have thoroughly studied the history of every castle ever built. I may miss the occasional hyperbole, though.

 

[Nik]

There's an infamous, tourist-trap castle / tower-house in Scotland where the current owners have simply roofed the tower and put a shop in the gaping cellar. Without any intervening floors, you can see all the fire-places, joist holes, inter-mural stairs etc etc. Ask about the original configuration, though, and they'll throw you out-- Literally.


I had to stand in the car-park in the rain until the coach-driver returned...

 

[Orionblamblam]

Nobody is going to offer you the choice 'VAB or modernized culture'.

Nope.

modernisation isn't intrinsically good

Neither is intentional outdatedness.

I have lived in Amsterdam for some years, and people there pay extra to live in what you seem to regard as outdated dwellings.

Probably because they *choose* to spend extra to live that way. A very *modern* approach. Still, i bet those outdated dwellings have been updated... phone lines, electicity, perhaps gas lines, indoor plumbing. I bet the people living there have added things like televisions, radios, carpets made from petroleum by-products, fire extinguishers.

The peopel there might like living in old buildings, but they're probably not all universally fanatics about it, but instead choose to modernize in many,many ways.

Now we live in an old farmhouse, because we like old buildings. It's not a listed monument, and we have had it extensively modernised. Because we want to live in some comfort, not to mention safety. But we have chosen oak beams, not steel, to replace the originals, because they feel right, and we want to live in a house that feels right. Now we're skint, but we feel it was money well spent.

You mean you don't live where your local duke or baron tells you to live? Perhaps you've also chosen you own line of employment, perhaps even your own religion or lack thereof. Very *modern.*

And there's no such thing as a castle with as noble a history as the VAB.

I take it you have thoroughly studied the history of every castle ever built.

I may have missed the one that was the starting point for a mission sending free men to the moon. Perhaps you could point out where I might find Castle Awesome.

 

[Arjen]

Start with Torre de Belém

 

[Orionblamblam]

" It was King Manuel I of Portugal, twenty years later, that revisited the idea, ordering the construction of a military fortification..."

A King ordered.

Feh.

"until 1830 (during the Iberian Union), the dungeons of the Tower served as the state prison."

Dungeons.

Feh.

And then...

"The tower and bastion received maintenance and restoration from February 1997 to January 1998, which included reinforcing the structure, treating the mortar joints and structural cleaning. Structural works included the reinforcement of the south balcony supports with stainless steel rods and epoxy resin. "

Stainless steel and epoxy resin. They DESTROYED IT!!! Who could have done such a dastardly thing to a world heritage site?

 

[Arjen]

The tower of Bélem was one of the most important starting points in the early stages of the Portugese discoveries. The Portuguese were the original European explorers of the Far East and the Americas.

I can assure you that replacing wood by steel/concrete/fiberboard/pvc is immediately distinguishable in centuries old buildings, even to casual observers. I have seen plenty of examples of it. It's sometimes necessary to introduce new materials to save crumbling structures, but all too often it's done because there isn't enough money to do the job properly.

Just to clarify my position on new materials. With the tower of Bélem, there was no practical way around it. The matter was amply discussed before the decision was made. I visited the tower in 1991. It was crumbling then, it isn't doing that now.

 

[Orionblamblam]

That's nice. But as I pointed out, it has some serious darkness in it as well, which the VAB does not.

Anything *ordered* by a *King* is automatically tainted by tyranny. Having dungeons makes it worse.

And as I pointed out, it has been modernized. Which I've been told destroys its historical integrity.

 

[Arjen]

I modified my previous posting to include my earlier voiced opinion on using modern materials while you were typing. I repeat: It's sometimes necessary to introduce new materials to save crumbling structure, but all too often it's done because there isn't enough money to do the job properly.

Tainted by tyranny, *because* ordered by a king? I'll be quite happy when the Netherlands becomes a republic but to consider anything 'tainted by tyranny' because dear old Queen Beatrix ordered it built? Weird. There's monarchs and monarchs, some of them were tyrants. Others weren't. Or aren't. Who's talking ideological purity now?

Having dungeons makes it worse.

That's history, warts and all. Just to remind you what it was like.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Torches

 

[Orionblamblam]

Tainted by tyranny, *because* ordered by a king? I'll be quite happy when the Netherlands becomes a republic but to consider anything 'tainted by tyranny' because dear old Queen Beatrix ordered it built? Weird. There's monarchs and monarchs, some of them were tyrants. Others weren't. Or aren't. Who's talking ideological purity now?

It's not a matter of "ideological purity" to recognize that hereditary monarchy is an evil institution. Not all monarchs are really evil; not all slave owners were evil. But the *institutions* were and are evil.

What did Beatrix do to earn the right to order anyone else to do any damned thing?

Imagine how more respectable dear old Queen Beatrix would be if she abolished the monarchy and stepped down.

Having dungeons makes it worse.

That's history, warts and all. Just to remind you what it was like.

Indeed so. But the point was that the VAB has more honor than any castle. The VAB doesn't have that caliber of warts.

 

[Jemiba]

Maybe I got it wrong, but I think, preserving buildings, that were built during the reign of medieval
kings, or even more modern dictators not necessarily means to agree to dictatorship, does it ?
I don't think, we should tear down the concentration camps in Bergen-Belsen, Auschwitz, etc.,
although withoubt doubt they still are remnants of one of the worst dictatorships, that ever were.
BTW, with this argumentation, probably a lot of old, big churches, cathedrales, minsters would be
doomed, too, as drudgery was normal practice during centuries.
Old buildings often are twofold memorials: They remind on old methods and techniques and they remind
on those people, who were involved and that were not only kings, queens and other "dodgy" persons,
but also those, who suffered there !

 

[Orionblamblam]

Maybe I got it wrong, but I think, preserving buildings, that were built during the reign of medieval
kings, or even more modern dictators not necessarily means to agree to dictatorship, does it ?

You got it wrong.

I don't think, we should tear down the concentration camps in Bergen-Belsen, Auschwitz, etc.,
although withoubt doubt they still are remnants of one of the worst dictatorships, that ever were.

Agreed. They should remain for as long as people still hav e the idea that collectivism might work "this time" to remind people of the dangers of groupthink. But you know, if that means they need to survive another 500 years... I really wouldn't have a problem with the management of the place in, say 2104 deciding to erect a force field over the place to keep the rain and snow and sunlight from converting the century and a half old wood into dust.

BTW, with this argumentation, probably a lot of old, big churches, cathedrales, minsters would be
doomed, too, as drudgery was normal practice during centuries.

"Doomed" being defined as using stainless steel supports, epoxy resin or metal shingles, I take it.

 

[Arjen]

Maybe I got it wrong, but I think, preserving buildings, that were built during the reign of medieval
kings, or even more modern dictators not necessarily means to agree to dictatorship, does it ?

You got it wrong.

Your opinion on this matter differs from his opinion. And mine.

BTW, with this argumentation, probably a lot of old, big churches, cathedrales, minsters would be
doomed, too, as drudgery was normal practice during centuries.

"Doomed" being defined as using stainless steel supports, epoxy resin or metal shingles, I take it.

I think you're misunderstanding Jens. If, following your reasoning, preserving castles ordered by kings means implicitly agreeing to dictatorship, then preserving old cathedrals or minsters means implicitly agreeing to forced labour by non-convicts. As I already stated before, I disagree with you reasoning. The buildings exist, they are part of history. They are reminders of how societies came to be, including the bad parts. If you are uncomfortable facing that, look the other way.

 

[Lauge]

The buildings exist, they are part of history. They are reminders of how societies came to be, including the bad parts. If you are uncomfortable facing that, look the other way.

As far as I can remember, I first saw the following in the opening credits of an episode of the space opera "Andromeda":

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Those who do learn from history are doomed to make new mistakes.

Those who learn only select lessons from history, why, they are simply doomed.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[Orionblamblam]

If, following your reasoning, preserving castles ordered by kings means implicitly agreeing to dictatorship

Once again, you're getting it wrong.

The buildings exist, they are part of history. They are reminders of how societies came to be, including the bad parts. If you are uncomfortable facing that, look the other way.

Or recognize them for what they are. Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

[Arjen]

This all about context. In one way, a building is a pile of bricks, stone, wood, mortar. In another way, buildings are the product and backdrop of human behaviour. Look at a building, smell, feel, listen to it, and it tells you about history, the way society used to work or still does. Some buildings were host to processes of supreme importance for society, or, in yet another way, the product of unique circumstances. Knowledge to preserve old buildings is a treasure in itself. Destroy a building, and some, much or all of that information is lost. Buildings both shape human behaviour and in turn are shaped by that same behaviour in a continuous process. I would very much like to keep as much of that information around in its original form, because bits get lost in translation. I accept that not all can be preserved.

You say I get it wrong. From your point of view that may well be correct. I appear to have a fundamentally different point of view.

 

[Orionblamblam]

You say I get it wrong. From your point of view that may well be correct.

Sorry, no. Sometimes things are matters of *fact,* and there really are "right" and "wrong." When you make incorrect assessments of what I'm saying, it's not a matter of having a different interpretation... you're *wrong.*

I never said or implied that "preserving castles ordered by kings means implicitly agreeing to dictatorship." I pointed out that castles ordered by kings have a built-in negative history that the VAB does not have. I've said this several times. Not sure how I could say it any clearer.

As to the importance of keeping old buildings around: not really so important. The history of imperial Rome is fairly well known. Most of the ancient city itself is trashed. If, tomorrow, a half-kilometer asteroid plows into the center of the city and scoops out a crater ten miles wide, converting every last artifact and ancient building into so much incandescent vapor... the history of Rome would *still* be known.


In a sense, keeping an old building around is similar to keeping Grandmas corpse propped up in the living room.

 

[Arjen]

Maybe I got it wrong, but I think, preserving buildings, that were built during the reign of medieval
kings, or even more modern dictators not necessarily means to agree to dictatorship, does it ?

You got it wrong.

So I misunderstood you, but to me - and to Jens as well - this was one way to interpret your posting. As for...

In a sense, keeping an old building around is similar to keeping Grandmas corpse propped up in the living room.

...again, that depends on your viewpoint.

castles ordered by kings have a built-in negative history that the VAB does not have

I still disagree. Which king ordered the castle, what was the castle used for.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I still disagree. Which king ordered the castle, what was the castle used for.

Doesn't much matter. Kings suck. Make no truce with Kings; they as a class are to be despised and rejected by civilized society, along with slavers, slave holders and tax collectors. The job descriptions of "pimp" and "drug dealer" are infinitely more honorable than "monarch."

 

[The Artist]

Why don't we tear down Fort McHenry and turn the site over to condo developers? Why don't we bulldoze The Alamo and let them build a strip mall? Why don't we close down Pearl Harbor and let hotels, golf courses and shopping malls be built there? Why waste money keeping the Constitution afloat?

As I said, buildings have the value people ascribe to them.

Of course, none of those places have the dark history of your average European castle. Now, when Mexico annexes Texas, I bet the Alamo vanishes...

Addendum: While I think from your post that you generally seems to agree with my view, I note that your hypotheticals involved destroying the historic sites. While I've mentioned that there may be merit in such an idea, my main idea which seemed to irritate a great many people was not to destroy a historic site, but to add a functional improvement/cosmetic non-change to a historic site. And that idea was responded to as if I'd suggested destroyign the place.

Fine. What that basically means is that it is wrong to modernize or update a *structure.* If it is wrong to update a structure, how can it possibly be okay to modernize a *culture,*, a *religion,* or any other way of thinking?

If America - or France, or Russia, Japan, India, anybody - were to set up a large, successful and self-sufficient off-world colony, such as several cities on Mars and innumerable habitats throughout the asteroids, their culture would carry on. Even if Earth was promptly pulverized by a miniature black hole, and all the structures that it was wrong to modernize were converted to a burst of elementary particles, the *culture* would survive just fine... if it was allowed to modernize.

I've said before that I would push the plunger my own self to bring down the VAB and feed all the Saturn V's into giant woodchippers if at the same time the culture could be modernized. And there's no such thing as a castle with as noble a history as the VAB.

I can understand your argument for using modern materials but I can also see the other side's point of view. I think the difference can be approached as what the building represents as opposed to what the building is. Even with that, there isn't always a clear dividing line. Was the castle built for the tyrant King Whatshisname the VIII and used as his seat of power during his repression of the Dill Pickle Revolts of 1628? Yes. Is the castle a significant stepping stone in the architectural history of Lesser Finwicke? Yes. Those who focus on the political history and wish to see the castle used to preserve the hatred of Whatshisname VIII would be more likely to accept using modern materials to maintain the structure. Those who focus on the architecture would be likely to insist on maintaining with original or original-like materials whenever possible and take everything that happens as part of the living history of the structure. Yet my example doesn't fully apply here because it is ignoring the vast differences in cultural backgrounds of those taking part in the discussion. We Americans, for example, have a more throw-away attitude toward things. "The castle was a great design achievement but that was centuries ago. It's no longer useful, why do we need to keep it?" Modern day Lesser Fenwickens have a pass-it-down attitude. Someone in each extended family has some utilitarian or decorative item that has been passed down from the time of the revolts, and some from even earlier. Holding on to history is important to them even though the logic of their desire has transformed their beloved/reviled castle from what it is to what it represents - They've restored it to original condition so many times that nothing of the original structure remains in place. Still. To them, it is the castle and it has seen a lot of history.

Let me switch to painting and drawing to suggest a problem with restoring with simulated materials - "It's steel but it looks like wood." as you suggest. What if the Met decided that their paintings and drawings were far too valuable to be left exposed to the world like that. They seal all the works in climate controlled vaults then install high-definition video screens in their place. Each screen displaying the sharpest possible digital recreation of the original. Most visitors who don't really know art wouldn't really mind. Some visitors might see the whole idea as a great work of conceptual art. I, as a painter, would feel cheated. True, I'd be seeing a accurate representation of the work but that's all it would be - a representation. The soul of the work would be messing. The textures left by the brushwork would not really be there, only shadowy representations. The internally lit representation wouldn't present subtle shifts in color as the light coming through the skylight is obscured by clouds.

As with the video pictures of paintings, a grand hall with staircase in which the ancient wood has been replaced by steel armature supported resin materials would be acceptable to many but not to all (no matter how much they look like the original). The sounds of people walking would be different. The patina of age wouldn't be right - for example, subtle differences in odors would be noticed. And it would age in ways that wood does not. People who love old buildings would say that the building has lost its soul.

Again. The question being debated here is which is more important - the thing, or what it represents?

 

[Orionblamblam]

We Americans, for example, have a more throw-away attitude toward things. "The castle was a great design achievement but that was centuries ago. It's no longer useful, why do we need to keep it?"

Indeed so.

Someone in each extended family has some utilitarian or decorative item that has been passed down from the time of the revolts, and some from even earlier.

And soon enough you get a situation that will show up on "Hoarders."

Most visitors who don't really know art wouldn't really mind. Some visitors might see the whole idea as a great work of conceptual art. I, as a painter, would feel cheated. True, I'd be seeing a accurate representation of the work but that's all it would be - a representation. The soul of the work would be messing.

Ah. But... was that the intent of the roof? When the architects were producing the original roof for the castle were they thinking about how it would make a viewer *feel,* whether it had a proper balance of negative and positive space, whether it had the proper visual tension or was it overbalanced? Or were they thinking "this will keep the rain out?"

And just how closely can you examine your average Da Vinci these days, anyway?

People who love old buildings would say that the building has lost its soul.

And when those people keel over and are replaced with new people, the building will regain its soul, since for the new people the building is as it should be.

The question being debated here is which is more important - the thing, or what it represents?

Well, if "what it represents" results in some kids setting a grass fire and burning "the thing" to the ground, I suggest that a wrong choice was made.

 

[Arjen]

It seems I have just joined the society of Modern day Lesser Fenwickens.

 

[Orionblamblam]

A cromulent decision.

 

[Arjen]

Need subtitling.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Need subtitling.

 

[Jemiba]

And soon enough you get a situation that will show up on "Hoarders."

Ah, that's why I feel the skylines of European cities being so boring !

 

[Matej]

Which in many cases would mean gutting the building, and tearing down large portions of the structure that have existed for centuries. How many buildings 500 or more years old can actually be restored to the "original form"?

And who is to say that the "original form" is the "best form?"

Take, for example, the USS New Jersey or USS Missouri. These ships were retired in, IIRC, the 1990's, and were equipped up to 1990's standards. But they were built in the early 1940's, and looked substantially different at the time. Before being put on display as museums, should they have been restored to the original 1940's configurations?

Historians. Its their job. The usual way is to restore the buildings to the condition, when they last time did their original function. For example Šariš castle was destroyed and abandoned in 1660s, so we are restoring it to the condition how it was in 1660s. Including all modifications and enlargements that happened till that time.

In case of USS New Jersey, the "right" approach should be to restore it to the condition, when it for the last time did its regular function, it means 1990s and perhaps modify a few places of interest (like radar rooms) to the condition, when the ship was built. It means 1940s.

So... should there be the heads of dead Turks stuck on pikes around the perimeter? Might have an effect on tourism.

We are close to it But perhaps it will be prohibited by local law.

National museums should be, essentially, fortresses against the ravages of time and dumbassery. Look at the Louvre... I'm pretty sure they've made some substantial changes to it over the last few centuries, and who would want it restored to the original condition? Who would want the Mona Lisa just nailed to the wall for every greasy idiot to paw at?

It had small firefighting system and full fire detection systems, modern alarm, cameras and such a modern things. Lets say that the authenticity paid a price to secure the building, because you really need to secure it. But you cant prevent *any kind* of disaster to happen. What if a plane fall down to the castle. Should we deploy S-300 system around it? As a curiosity, fire was made by a two gypsy kids trying to fire the cigarette. This caused substantial anger that can be for a uninformed observer seen as racism, but the keyword here is noncomformist community of people, no matter of their gender, race or religion.

Ah, but that's not the original condition of the ancient building, is it. You are deciding to make major changes that, unlike a metal roof, are vast and *obvious.*

For the castles it is so natural as it can be, because the forest/wood around it was used to build the castle itself. Later they kept large perimeter without any tree or bush for various reasons - they wanted to see the enemy for long distances or create a grassland for cattle. The fact that a lot of today castles are surrounded by forest has the obvious reason - nobody cares much about them. In the case of Krásna Hôrka, the dumb managers kept the forest just next to the walls and roofs for aesthetic purposes, but this is how the fire moved to building. They were dumb.

Did the fire start inside or outside?

Outside, from barbecue party next to the building. Wooden parts of the roof had even the anti-fire painting that was restoring every year. What I found strange is that it burn out in exactly same day - 10. march.

Are you arguing that the Mi-17's should not have been modified away from their original condition?

No, definitely not. Since we are aviation forum, I just wanted to show something related to aviation, because we often use those helicopters to fight against fire.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Igor skyline ;D