|
|
Serban Cantacuzino - Founder of Pro Patrimonio Foundation.
We started in London at the offices of the Ratiu Family Foundation and Romanian Cultural Centre. It was 1993 or 1994, and Indrei and Nicolae Ratiu, the sons of Ion and Elizabeth Ratiu, and Jessica Douglas-Home, who had already founded the Mihai Eminescu Trust, had this idea of setting up in Romania the equivalent of the English National Trust to help save the natural and built heritage in Romania. There were half-a-dozen of us, both Romanian and English, and we had weekly meetings. We knew that the heritage, especially the civil heritage (castles, manor houses, fortified houses ['cule'], villas, town houses, etc.) was in a dire condition and that Romania had been without a Commission for Historic Monuments from 1977 until 1990, a Commission which had previously kept the ecclesiastical heritage in reasonable condition. The heritage field had greatly widened and, with the likelihood of property restitution, much of the civil heritage was likely to end up in private ownership. As had long ago been accepted by western European countries, the state could no longer be expected to pay for all heritage preservation. In future the cost would have to be borne by both the public and private sector.
We asked Yolanda Costide, a Romanian architect who had been working in London for the past 15 years, to go to Romania and, through her good connections there, inquire whether post-Communist Romania was ready for an English National Trust type foundation. She came back with the answer NO. This was at the time of Iliescu's second presidency.
When in November 1996 Constantinescu became president and appointed Ion Caramitru and Maria Berza to the Ministry of Culture, we re-convened our group and decided to go ahead with setting up the Pro Patrimonio Foundation both in Romania and in the United Kingdom.
By a coincidence, the Ion Mincu School of Architecture in Bucharest had just set up a post-graduate master’s course in architectural conservation. The professor was the late and much regretted Sanda Voiculescu who asked me to conduct a seminar for her 15 post-graduate students. During the seminar I introduced the idea of setting up a National Trust for Romania. It was greeted enthusiastically. Among the students was the Romanian snowboard champion, Silvia Demeter, whose mother, a capable and energetic engineer from Brasov, offered to undertake the legal business of setting up the Pro Patrimonio Foundation and to run it until we found a permanent director.
In London, the Romanian Ambassador, Radu Onofrei, had become a friend and supporter of Pro Patrimonio. He offered us a launch event at the Romanian Embassy in Belgrave Square. We also arranged a launch event in Bucharest. The two launch events took place in May 2000, a fortnight apart. By then it was clear that Constantinescu would not run for the presidency a second time and that Ion Caramitru and Maria Berza were unlikely to remain at the Ministry of Culture. They were invited onto the board of Pro Patrimonio. Maria Berza also became a vice-president and was asked to run the Foundation, moving its headquarters from Brasov to Bucharest, but leaving a Pro Patrimonio branch under Mrs. Demeter's direction in Brasov.
...and we began to search houses for restoration.
At the launch event in Bucharest, the well-known actor and collector, Dan Nasta, made a dramatic interjection, offering to donate his house and contents to the Pro Patrimonio Foundation on the condition that he and his wife could continue to live there and that Pro Patrimonio converted the roof space of the house into a gallery exhibiting his fine collection of Romanian folk art. Pro Patrimonio could also have its office in the house and use the spacious reception rooms and large garden for fund-raising events. Subsequently it proved impossible for Pro Patrimonio to reach an agreement with Mr. Nasta who insisted that an essential part of the deal was the paying of an annual rent of US$ 80,000 by Pro Patrimonio to Mr. Nasta. After this first attempt, we started the Golescu Villa project in Campulung Muscel, the restoration of a Saxon house in Viscri, small projects in Northern of Bucovina county etc.
You can find out more about Pro Patrimonio projects from other sections of our website.
Nicolae Ratiu is the Vice-President and Chairman of the Pro Patrimonio Foundation. (up)
The Pro Patrimonio Foundation has 10 years of activity. How did the Foundation come to be?
In the Ratiu Foundation offices in Regent Street London a group of us met in 1999, at Indrei Ratiu’s initiative, to discuss the formation of a Romanian version of the National Trust of Great Britain. I remember the group included Indrei, myself, Serban Cantacuzino, Marie-Lise Ruhrmann (nee Cantacuzino), Inge Haag, Jessica Douglas-Home,Nat Page, John Nandris (I believe) – we called ourselves a Steering Group – until such time as we succeeded in getting Pro Patrimonio registered in the UK with the Charity Commission – which occurred in 2001.
How do you convince people abroad to donate money for a Romanian historical site in danger?
Initially we only raised money at a series of lectures and events purely on the strength of the idea understood by many British people that there was a national heritage at risk – the Romanian one. Fundraising for particular projects: Voronet wall paintings, Viscri and Golescu House renovations came later.
We have in England the National Trust model. A successful one, but it is deeply linked to education and respect for the national values and history. How do you see it applied in Romania?
With great difficulty. A general respect for Romania’s heritage is lacking amongst the vast majority of Romanian people, especially amongst the new rich. For them “new” is most exciting; “restored” means little, “renovated” not much better. New Romanian architects were initially only interested in demolishing and building new. The right fiscal legislation also is not in place to make it advantageous for private property owners to transfer their property to an NGO such as Pro Patrimonio neither for restoration nor for the State to transfer properties to private individuals for restoration.
How important is the fundraising process for a Foundation with such ambitious goals as Pro Patrimonio?
Highly desirable and is I think possible now 20 years since the fall of communism and the restoration of some pride in the national heritage.
How do you see the collaboration between foundations as Pro Patrimonio and the authorities? Do we have enough legal backup to save those monuments?
Cooperation is essential since nothing can occur without the approvals of local authorities. Legislation as described above must be put in place as well as legislation to protect national heritage buildings from destruction.
What do you see as challenges for 2010 and beyond?
Legislation, fundraising, ensuring the self-sustainability of existing projects: Viscri and Golescu, education of the authorities and the population, further restoration project implementation, continuation of the promotion of the teaching of heritage building skills.
Where do you see Pro Patrimonio in 5 or 10 years?
A true Romanian National Trust with an extensive nationwide membership, branches in all major towns and cities, active in the preservation and restoration of buildings and natural areas of beauty and/or historical significance with a well organized structure of PP personnel including many volunteer workers in the process of restoring and operating restored and active self-sustaining heritage buildings and national monuments around the country.
Aurelian Trişcu is a well-known architect, a board member of Pro Patrimonio. (up)
How did you join Pro Patrimonio?
The father of the founder Şerban Cantacuzino, Mr. G. M. Cantacuzino, was my professor in '43-'44; it is like talking about Michael the Brave in history classes. He was an extraordinary man, just like his son. I was very marked by him. He made me realise what family and cultural aristocracy really mean. Then I came to know of Şerban Cantacuzino before we got acquainted. At some point he was editor in chief at the Architectural Review and, as students of architecture and then as architects, we paid much attention to these publications and the quality of the magazine. He caught my attention back then, by his relationship with his father and his attitude towards architecture in general, by all the materials published by that magazine, but also by his interest in what was going on in our country, first in terms of values, history, culture, and then politics. And they had interesting articles too, such as on the “cule” of Oltenia, which are very special for our civilisation and culture, but quite unknown.
And then came the so-called revolution; or rather started with a revolution that unfortunately did not last long; on that same day of Christmas in 1989 I was called at the Institute of Archaeology, and we contemplated the possibility of re-establishing the Committee for historical monuments, which had been dissolved in 1977, when the earthquake gave a reason for mass demolitions. We had already started taking care of monuments, by re-establishing the National Romanian Centre ICOMOS. At that time the chairman was Radu Popa, an outstanding archaeologist and historian, who died 3 days before the establishment of the centre. I was then the vice-chairman.
They were exceptional people; as chairman of ICOMOS, he could not go to a meeting in Paris, as he was convened to another one, more important, in Prague and he sent me to represent him. There I met Şerban Cantacuzino, as he was on the board of ICOMOS.
What is a “monument”?
Me and other people like me, as architects, we were very enthusiastic because we knew an essential truth about monuments, something that people don’t really understand, not even the authorities or those in charge of monuments: a monument is not created to be a monument, it becomes a monument in time, by its age, value, artistic qualities, the persons who come to see it, by its religious or political symbols. A monument lives and acts; architecture, unlike a picture, a sculpture or music, offers not only aesthetical, sentimental or logical and philosophical satisfaction. It is used, it acts, it is more exposed than other masterpieces, but people are unaware of the fact that monuments should live and be independent. One must give them life and help them survive, not by offering them a “cane”, but by giving them the possibility to be as they once were. We should not turn them into museums, make every valuable house a museum, because it is impossible and, to be honest, the Ministry of Culture or even the state cannot foster 20,000 – 25,000 buildings that are now on the list of historical monuments. Back then, this formula, this historical upstart of Pro Patrimonio seemed excellent. When originally built, the monuments were preserved by their founders, rulers or squires, and taken care of by the people, the peasants, for hundreds of years. Nowadays, when you see Suceviţa or Moldoviţa, you get the impression that they have been easily taken care of, people planted grass, preserved the pictures, but such monuments were built some hundred years ago. And they lived.
At some point I organised an exhibition with the old houses in Bucharest, dating back to Carol I, an essay-exhibition which gathered regular houses of Bucharest – I was not concerned with the palaces on Calea Victoriei, nor the official buildings dating back to Carol I, which are famous. When I took hundreds of photographs and observed what was going on, I remarked that in uptown Bucharest there was an area, like a wide circle, made up of these houses. When we were taking pictures, people were coming out, worried and wondering what was happening. There were two situations. Some said: “You should know that these buildings exist because we took care of them”, with patriotic passion. Others said: “Do come in and see the house, don’t look at the exterior only”. And the interior was indeed different, with decorated ceilings, doors resembling the ones in France, some 200 years back. I insist on this story because this is how it all started. Along with a well-known architect, who put his soul into reconditioning Golescu house in Câmpulung Muscel, we took interest in reviving, shedding light on a house that was dying; there are certain aspects, some small details that can be mentioned, such as when the officials realise that something can be profitable and become aware that they could have made some inquiries and taken it. That is what happened to Râşnov Borough, which was reconditioned by an Italian, who also passed away, and had 100 visitors a day – then the Town Hall took a sudden interest in it and decided to take it back, although it had been given in custody to him for 45 years.
How did the reconditioning of Golescu House begin?
As architects, we were more active and useful, not only in terms of discussions and counselling, we actually worked with the engineer specialised in monuments, who was a professor at the Institute of Universal Architecture, now the Faculty of Architecture at the University. We realised that we had to start with the things concealed to the eye, with the inventory of the house, checking the woodwork and the roof, to see to the fencing, so that people would not just burst in, and, little by little, by means of these technical aspects, we tried to find new formulas, adapted to our society. The problem is to obtain from the authorities the right to put such buildings to use as boarding houses, so that they will live and be used and appreciated. At the same time, the place must acquire a cultural identity. The next step would be that this object that we present in nature or in a town is more close to the world and the people and this function adds value to the monument and the place by its personal value highlighted by cultural or religious issues, even civic education.
And then the members of the board stepped in – which I refrain to praise by giving their names, who endeavoured to establish connections and, despite the fact that in the beginning it was sometimes difficult, they won the authorities on their side, the neighbours, the persons they came in touch with, not only to be at ease, but also to take a step forward. The Town Hall of Câmpulung has now a deed of cooperation and is familiar with the situation; they are even happy to have a sign outside their building presenting the cultural values of the town. Being located in a fantastic area, the town is ideal for tourist routes. It also shelters one of the oldest churches in Walachia, the main Church in Câmpulung, but also a very old catholic church, in which many things are still preserved. People think that Catholicism existed only in Moldavia, that only the wives of some great rulers were catholic. It is interesting to see how this area embraces the neighbourhoods. Apart from the monuments and the many manorial and peasant houses in the area, one can take a very interesting route to get to Bucegi or Iezer Păpuşa, in picturesque areas. The last stage would be to make a circuit of fortified churches in Transylvania.
Pro Patrimonio does not only have reconditioning activities, but also educational ones.
It represents the second category of activities of Pro Patrimonio, namely the relations with various institutions, partnership programmes, promotional programmes for the education of the public. It is a very important aspect because, as I already said, the Ministry of Culture cannot administer tens of hundreds of monuments. The people and the institutions must take care of them, as many monuments are in the custody of certain public institutions. People should administer them and take interest in the patrimony that belongs to them; some do not realise that this patrimony is theirs. Nowadays, the town no longer belongs to the citizens and the citizens no longer belong to the town.
That’s what Pro Patrimonio is in a few words. It tries to educate the public, to enhance the value of certain monuments and then to focus on other monuments, to establish connections with various authorities in many ways – for instance with the Union of Architects and the Order of Architects, with the University of Architecture and Urbanism, with their activities and interests. We not only discuss and cooperate with these institutions, we also organise activities, conferences, “instructions” with the locals and the students that are trained to participate in this life event, which is normal for the town, the society, the social group.
How did you choose, for instance, the house in Câmpulung or in Viscri? Did you make a list of monuments, and set out some criteria for the operation of Pro Patrimonio?
In the beginning, Pro Patrimonio had a list of criteria for selection of programes and, with little steps, we discovered the possibility to obtain or buy certain buildings. The Golescu sisters, who were quite elderly, could not take care of their house and it was them who offered it to the Pro Patrimonio.
We are also determined to see to the “cule” of Oltenia. It is hard to believe that of the 30-40 “cule” of the 1970’s, there are now only 9 left. I was so surprised, I couldn’t believe it. We shall take the “cula” in Şiacu and recondition it. Some of Romania’s “cule” are now owned by the local town halls, which showed no interest in restorting them. They are fortified houses, with no windows at the ground floor, with crowbars at the door, with openings and high outer walls; they only have inner stairs. Some were built for surveillance, some for dwelling, and others for defence.
What other monuments would you like to have in the care of Pro Patrimonio?
Gabovreni Inn, the wall paintings in Văcăreşti … We asked for a house in Lipscani, the whole of it or at least some part, and to establish an information point there, an office, if possible. It has a variety of values that must be preserved here. And no other such area has that; it is a historical centre, with tens of nationalities, tens of trades, with occidental influences, all in all a variety that should attract visitors.
There have been some official protests, some of them very efficient. They wanted a Dracula Land, a sort of Disneyland here. They would have destroyed a place that is not only valuable in itself, but also taken with the neighbourhood. With Roşia Montană things went on the same course; it is not enough to protest, you must ally with certain institutions, such as UNESCO, ICOMOS. I was lucky to be part of the committee when such monuments in the world patrimony were put on the list. We were not allowed to propose many monuments, we were convened and came up with four in one year, unlike Italy, England, Spain, Germany, which had only one monument. In order to have as many monuments as possible, we proposed them in groups: the monasteries in Moldavia, the Transylvanian Saxon fortified churches, the wood churches in Maramureş; we highly appreciated it, they concurred with our choices, saw their importance. A big project in which we are involved is the training of tradesmen; we have difficulties in finding them. Such artisan schools are in general located in buildings that need help, maintenance. The school, trades workshop and reconditioning are done at the same time; those who came to learn and work were very skilled; they combined traditional methods and modern ones.
In what other areas has Pro Patrimonio been involved?
We undertook joint actions with the Association for Urban Transition, with the development strategy for Bucharest or for a cleaner Bucharest, or “Case care plâng” [Weeping Houses] – not only the designations are interesting, but also the results. Another action involved Urban Memories and Memory of Europe. And then our protests: Save Sinaia, Save Carol Park, Save Sulina, Save Roşia Montană. At first Şerban Cantacuzino made protests to Europa Nostra, then Europa Nostra to Ion Iliescu and the other bodies here. This chain of aristocrats, professionals and willing people, valuable and strong people, succeeded in building a network and extending it, an unseen and non palpable network, to take fruitful action. It is extraordinary, especially because it happens in a society in which nobody cares for anything.
Are there cultural managers in Romania, people who are aware of our values and know how to preserve them?
At some point we had a very interesting action, at the Presidential Administration. The Foundation Pro Patrimonio and the National Museum of Cotroceni worked two days on the vitality of the patrimony – innovation, creativity, identity. Valeria Valeri, then counsellor for integration, explained and responded to questions, showing the importance of the programmes, which are not yet understood and respected, thus. We talked about integrated projects, about the patrimony within programming progress, sustainable development through culture. If we build networks of education, programmes, protests, we might succeed.
I believe that the public has little information about these issues.
As you know, we now have this discipline on Communication, the University of Architecture now has such a course, which is indeed only optional. Communication can take place by a cooperation protocol, such as the one between the Town Hall of Câmpulung Muscel and Pro Patrimonio Foundation, which sometimes results in meetings on education, awareness, information of various persons in different fields.
What lost monuments in Bucharest would you like to see restored?
Some of them are not lost forever, for instance some parts of Gabroveni Inn. When you build on some remains that are still standing, you get more credibility, based both on the restoration rules that Romania signed for observance and on the reality that the architect, contractor, historian and archaeologist wish to preserve. These remains are still standing, but they may fall down soon, I wonder how they still hold on. Another one is behind the church “Sfântul Ionică” in Piaţa Unirii, located between two large blocks of flats, a very interesting inn with one side facing “Cocor” store, which is in a quite good condition, with a genuine courtyard, the old courtyard of the inn, occupied by non residents; this inn is slowly degrading. There are only five inns left in Bucharest, if we also count “Hanul cu Tei” and “Hanul lui Manuc”.
There are houses in many towns, boroughs, which taken separately do not necessarily have the value of a monument, but which are valuable if taken as a whole, by their oldness and uniformity, which offers them the statute of protected area. Paradoxically, those who give approvals for demolitions say that they are forced by the law to give them; if they do not approve, the applicants sue them and the authorities lose. They claim that no house in the protected area is in fact protected. It is natural for me to believe that Pro Patrimonio is an island of normality in a troubled see; our world and the market are so strange and sick that this island of normality offers a perspective of informed production, interventions, actions, order, efficiency.
What is the relation between the foundation and the companions?
The companions are those masons, builders, with their medieval actions and very important crafts in the history of cathedrals, of European civilisation, who still preserve their title and fraternity relationships; the companions came to us through the French Pro Patrimonio to keep the park of the house in Câmpulung Muscel or to teach various trades – ironwork, for instance – in Ţibăneşti, as the old architecture contained balustrades, door knobs, portals. Pro Patrimonio takes over dwellings, but it is also very important not to overlook the green spaces, they are also in the patrimony and have an identity related to the public space; a monument is seen and used with architectural quality, but not only the façade matters. Many houses, among these I mention the manorial houses in Moldavia, Walachia, Oltenia, have extraordinary design details, such as: the mirror, the stairs, the terracotta stoves, with reference to the painted hearth, a transition from old tradition at that time. Such things must be seen and put to good use. Pro Patrimonio tries to achieve this.
Can you say that Pro Patrimonio is an advocate of Romanian monuments before the entire world?
A concealed action of Pro Patrimonio – at a certain time there was a text, “Religious and laic monuments of “Brancovenian” art, monasteries and palaces built and restored by Constantin Brâncoveanu“. This text also refers to religious buildings, such as Horezu, Govora, Cozia and other buildings that perished, civil buildings such as Mogoşoaia Palace or Potlogi Palace. Why was it written? It was submitted by Pro Patrimonio to the British Cultural Institute, in English, to be used for Prince Charles’ visit in 2005. Some actions can involve foreign personalities in order to trigger a reaction from inside. It can be rewarding and stimulating, it makes you want to go on, even if you feel drowned in a sea of indolence and lack of interest. Pro Patrimonio will try to recondition Cula Şiacu. It is like a breath of fresh air.
Do you believe that the current minister will be more open to these monument protection projects?
I hope he does what he wants, I hope he keeps in mind what the persons around him wanted, in the sense that he could take some quick steps in acquiring experience not in the cultural field, but in the very tricky field of political administration in our country. It is important to have the will, to have knowledge in the field, to surround yourself by people that can point you to the right direction and to count on them. Everything I say refers to the new generation, these incredible people.
