Levimanthys

Architecture of Germany

Welcome to Wikipedia!

I've attached my advice to new editors below.

About your additions to Architecture of Germany, the thing to remember is to maintain balance.

So, if the Introduction of the article has six lines on the diverse nature of architecture throughout Germany, and you add six lines about one significant period when much was destroyed, then you are creating an imbalance.

This is not an article about WWII, or specifically about the Allied bombing of Germany. The article is about German architecture over a period of about 2,000 years.

The problem with that type of editting is that it is a) factual, b) overloaded. Most editors on most pages simply watch for vandalism. If something appears perfectly factual, (even if it is not referenced) they will leave it there, unbalancing the article.

The statements that many Germany cities were rebuilt in modernist styles is an important fact in establishing the character of architecture in Germany. The fact that the reason for this was the extensive aerial bombing of WWII is background and needs to be treated as such, rather than given tremendous weight.

You also have to be careful of bias. What you had written implied that historic buildings were deliberately targeted. However, the number of churches that were left standing, when all around was devastated, would seem to indicate that the opposite was the case. Note that Frankfurt Cathedral was indeed burned out. But the rest of the city around it was flattened, right up to its very walls, so it would seem that there was an order in place to spare the cathedral. It is clear that what was being targeted was the seats of local government and commerce, rather than specifically heritage, which is what your edits implied.

While the tragedy of the destruction of Germany's architecture in WWII looms large, the wholesale destruction of the towns and villages of France and Russia was also enormous. London suffered badly, with swathes of the city being mown down. Only a tiny fraction of the City's mostly 17th century architecture remains. These things are in each case, part of the background to the relevant architecture articles, but not the subject of the articles themselves.

Amandajm (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and your constructive criticism, Amandajm. When I came across the mentioned article, I just realized that the destructions of WWII and the ensuing reconstruction were not addressed. I found this odd, given the fact that the most important part of the architectural heritage of a European country is usually situated in the centers of its larger cities, and that these had been destroyed to a high degree allover Germany (e.g. Nuremberg and Cologne, over 90%). Indeed, many of the most important architectural monuments in Germany are reconstructions for exactly this reason.

If we just limit ourselves to the small number of examples cited in the article, the following buildings are reconstructions (in the sense that the building was not only damaged, but destroyed to a large extent): Abbey Church of St. Michael's, Hildesheim; 11 of the 12 romanesque churches of Cologne; Lübeck Cathedral; Liebfrauenkirche Trier; City Hall of Münster; St. Michael in Munich; Zwinger Palace, Dresden; Würzburg Residence; Charlottenburg Palace, Berlin; Asamkirche, Munich (choir and altar); Frauenkirche, Dresden; Neue Wache, Berlin; Schauspielhaus, Berlin; Altes Museum, Berlin; Königsplatz, Munich; Semper Opera, Dresden; Reichstag building, Berlin.

This is important information for anyone interested in art history. It makes a difference whether you look at an original or a postwar replica. I have also made the experience that people usually don't know about the extent of the destructions; everybody knows about Dresden or maybe Hamburg, but the fact that the same degree of destruction can be found in virtually any other large German city is unknown, and people are usually disappointed when visiting such a city with wrong expectations. It is thus important to include factual information that a significant part of the architectural heritage of Germany was lost during WWII. Estimations are difficult; in the larger cities (>100,000 inhabitants) I am sure that we look at numbers between 80 and 90%; but this needs to be sourced before putting it into the article.

It is of course possible that with my additions, I had given undue weight to some points, and I fully welcome further editing. I also did not want to discuss at all the moral side of the problem, or to suggest that other countries were not affected by large-scale destructions. However, it is a fact that area bombing did indeed target the historic city centers, for reasons which we don't have to discuss here. That some of the churches survived was in part coincidence, in part due to their massive stone structure that was not ideal for the use of incendiary bombs. In any case, bombing at that time was much too imprecise to consider intent.

If I have time, I will further try to improve the article - there are many aspects which should be addressed more thoroughly. Of course I am open to discussions and welcome improvements of my own additions.

Levimanthys (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Pages you need: Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Manual of Style

AJM's advice to new editors

• Look at the article to see how it is laid out. The Table of Contents is the best place to start.
• Read the article to see if what you want to add or remove is appropriate, necessary, or adds value.
• Search for the right place to put it.
• Check Use the "Show Preview" to make sure that what you have done is appropriate and correct.
• Discuss any change about which you are uncertain, by placing your proposed text, or just a suggestion, on the talk page. Someone who watches the article will usually answer in a day or so. You can monitor this by clicking the watch tag at the top of the page.
• Be aware
  • that an addition inserted between two sentences or paragraphs that are linked in meaning can turn the existent paragraphs into nonsense.
  • that a lengthy addition or the creation of a new sub-section can add inappropriate weight to just one aspect of a topic.

When adding images

• Look to see if the subject of your image is already covered. Don't duplicate subject matter already present. Don't delete a picture just to put in your own, unless your picture is demonstrably better for the purpose. The caption and nearby text will help you decide this.
• Search through the text to find the right place for your image. If you wish it to appear adjacent to a particular body of text, then place it above the text, not at the end of it.
• Look to see how the pictures are formatted. If they are all small thumbnails, do not size your picture at 300 px. The pictures in the article may have been carefully selected to follow a certain visual style e.g. every picture may be horizontal, because of restricted space; every picture might be taken from a certain source, so they all match. Make sure your picture looks appropriate in the context of the article.
• Read the captions of existent pictures, to see how yours should fit in.
• Check the formatting, placement, context and caption before you leave the page by using the Show preview function, and again after saving.
• Discuss If your picture seems to fill a real identifiable need in the article, but doesn't fit well, because of formatting or some other constraint, then put it on the talk page and discuss, before adding.
• Be aware that adding a picture may substantially change the layout of the article. Your addition may push another picture out of its relevant section or cause some other formatting problem.
• Edit before adding. Some pictures will look much better, or fit an article more appropriately if they are cropped to show the relevant subject.

Amandajm (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to comments above

Can I suggest to you that what you have here is the makings of an article. (I don't think that one exists).

The easiest way to go about this is to create it as a list. See List of Ancient Greek temples.

The name needs to start with the words List of....

I could format it for you. You could list every significant building or precinct.

If you check out that Temples list, you will see that it is possible to order the buildings under different categories. For example: Click one arrow, and they are in alphabetical order. Click in the next column, and they order by date, ascending or descending. Click in the next column and they order by city, or geographic region. The next column can be ordered by level of destruction eg. significant damage, major damage, total destruction. The next column lists by current status: demolished, unrestored, restored, renovated, rebuilt. (note that "renovated" would indicate that the building was substantially renewed in an entirely modern style, possibly to suit a different purpose eg. a church became a restaurant or museum.)

Having created the article, you then create simple links or major options within all the relevant articles. So, within the article Architecture of Germany you create an in-line link in the Introduction, but within the section on War-time destruction you add a sub-heading that reads:

Main article: List of German architectural heritage lost in World War II

I think that this would be a good way to go.

Alternately, you could write an article, but it would be harder to both to research and to write, as you would be weighing opinions rather than simply referencing facts. The option of the list means that you can include a brief architectural description of each building, which doesn't require such strenuous referencing. You can also include qualitative quotes eg. (...I'm looking for something on the Frauenkirche, Dresden) and extra facts like "The Frauenkirche is the only major Baroque church in the Protestant areas of Germany." (reference: P. and C. Cannon-Brookes etc). Now there is a fact that needs to go into the lead of the German architecture article. Did you notice that I had expanded the intro?

I await your response! Amandajm (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

An associated problem

The "rebuilding" of German architecture has yet another dimension, which is rather unfortunate. During the 19th century there was this problematic notion of "purity". Certain styles of architecture were seen to be "pure" representation of the German artistic spirit. Many medieval churches needed restoration of course. But in the process of restoring them, the "restorers tore dow and replaced anything that didn't "match the ideal". This means that they demolished the baroque facade of Speyer Cathedral and designed an entirely new westwerk, based only loosely on the Romanesque westwerk, which they had a very good drawing of. I don't know why they didn't make it match exactly, but they didn't!

At another cathedral (it might have been Bamberg) there were original Romanesque towers which didn't quite match. They had never matched. So the one that was shorter was raised in height, and made to match, much to the annoyance of the townsfolk who loved their cathedral just the way it was! However, it is thanks to the same spirit of rectitude and exactitude that we can look at Cologne Cathedral and Ulm Munster and see them complete, despite the gap of several hundred years.

The main problem that I have is that I had a very long fight with someone who was not German, and insisted that no German building ought to be included on the page Romanesque architecture. This was followed up a few months later by a German editor who was furious at me for showing the excellent Romanesque revival architecture facade of Speyer Cathedral in the section on Revival architecture, because of the implication that it carried that Speyer was not actually Romanesque. Actually Speyer was quite a pioneering piece, and must be acknowledged as such, despite the fact that a third of it fell down and was rebuilt in the 19th century. But I do get cross that the purists demolished the Gothic chapels on the south side.

That sort of thing doesn't happen in England, where almost every cathedral is a total mish-mash of styles, and the Victorian architect proudly adds his name to a long list. Canterbury is typical: 1175 William of Sens, 1179 William the Englishman, 1363 John Box, 1379, Henry Yvelle, 1400 Stephen Lote, 1423 Thomas Mapilton, 1485 Richard Beke, 1505 John Wastell, 1834 George Austin, 1904 W.D. Caroe (restoration). And with all this building going on, they all worked in entirely different styles, with the exception of William the Englishman back in 1179 and George Austin who completed the north west tower to match the 400 yr-old south west tower in 1834. The only time we ever went through that purist stage was in the 1960s when they started ripping out Victorian fittings and replacing them with Modern ones!?

They also inserted a number of the most deplorable windows by famous modern artists. Salisbury Cathedral fared the worst. It got a range of windows (five I think) by Marc Chagall. (great artist of course). he did his own thing entirely. Maybe they sent him the measurements but no instructions. Anyway, it's not his design that is the problem; its the colour. All the colour in Salisbury is pale yellow, grey, and brown with hints of red and green and lots of white. Chagall's windows are intensely blue like Chartres by moonlight. The effect could hardly have been less suitable. They should have donated them to some parish church and started again, with the reliable firm of Hardman and Co who would have sent someone down from Birmingham and turned out something 100% suitable...... Somebody had more money than sense. I wish they would rip them out and put them in the Tate Modern...grumble, grumble grumble...... How good they would look in the Tate Modern!

Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

To your suggestion - that really depends on the time I have available. And probably, I would first start on the German Wikipedia, and then translate from there.

Concerning your other remarks: Indeed an interesting topic. However, I would make a distinction between the pre-WWI period (in particular the second half of the 19th century) and the 1950s/ 1960s. Probably Britain and Germany are not that different as you think.

As in many other countries, revival styles were common in Germany in the 19th century, be it Neo-Romanesque, Neo-Gothic, Neo-Renaissance, or Neo-Baroque. And these styles were not only used when creating new buildings, but also when "restoring" old ones. However, this was not done with the aim of achieving a pure style. Rather, it was done with the aim of building impressive, aesthetically pleasing architecture with historical references. Thus, the paintings in the Speyer cathedral were rather romantic than Romanesque. Buildings were however not stripped of the additions they received during their history, at least not systematically or intentionally. For example, Würzburg Cathedral until WWII was a church with a romanesque layout, gothic additions, and a baroque interior.

It was not until the 20th century that people like Georg Dehio initiated a puristic turn. The puristic theories were implemented in practice after WWII, when many building were reconstructed/ restored in a style considered as "pure". For example, a romanesque building would be stripped of its baroque and historicist 19th century changes. The most prominent example is again the Speyer Cathedral, which lost much of its attractiveness in the inside due to the removal of virtually all 19th century additions. Also, the destroyed Würzburg Cathedral was rebuilt without the baroque additions. Today, this wave of purification is seen as a mistake by many people.

Even today, the debate is highly ideological. Aesthetics today is no longer important, instead there is a movement what I would call the cult of the original substance. An interesting example is the Neues Museum in Berlin, which has recently been "rebuilt". The British architect, however, tried to conserve all the damage done to the building during WWII (including traces of bullets), and instead of rebuilding it in its original style, decided for modern additions, e.g. a staircase in exposed concrete which by many vistors is perceived as brutal vis-à-vis the historic architecture. Levimanthys (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)