Architecture
The formula of architecture deduced by Vitruviy “Benefit, durability, beauty” is still right. However in the 20th century technological revolution took place. New materials were contrived; new machines were invented, new energy resources and new methods of handing over and storing information were discovered. All that changed fundamentally the man’s life, changed his attitude towards the environment and towards his own potential. The man mastered new technologies and understood that any work required a comprehensive approach. If you know the structure of something, it doesn’t mean that you can build it: you need definite resources, materials, technologies, tooling and high-quality specialists who can properly use everything. Wishing to build a new car, you have to buy the whole engineering process, the whole plant and to train the staff for a long time.
This huge leap forward led to the loss of old technologies. Efficiency of new technologies overshadowed carpenter’s personal skill to carve out a pattern on the window surround with an axe, smith’s skill to forge manually a fanciful curiosity, stonemason’s skill to cut out a baluster in the perspective portal. What for, if you can do everything quickly and efficiently on a machine with program management using new materials which can be easily worked.
In new construction it is necessary to master new methods and find new artistic comprehension for them. Without it there is no progression. In one’s time striving for retaining outgoing values caused such trends in architecture as eclecticism and decadence (though there are masterpieces in any style).
In restoration everything is formed according to the same principles as in the modern production, i.e. we need a comprehensive approach. With one, but fundamental peculiarity: we have basic materials used for the construction of the building, definite historical stylistic architectural forms, definite structures. And we need to take one more logical step – to use characteristic historical technologies peculiar to this time. Otherwise the monument will lose something really important and won’t be that monument of architecture it was before our interference. It will become only a model of itself. But what are the historical technologies? In essence, they are handicrafts which many people mastered before. But generations have changed, and even in the remote place there are no craftsmen. The most dangerous thing is that we don’t understand the necessity of all that, especially for application in restoration. Indeed, in the century of man-made materials and high technology we have started to value all natural and unique. Handicrafts, and often only something reminding them, are being valued by tourists. However, substitution of true values for dop is sometimes even more ruinous that oblivion.
It is necessary to investigate the surviving monument, to understand the method and materials which were used to build it originally, when and how it was altered or reconstructed. And only after having gathered initial information, we must learn all the processes and then using historical documents apply all our knowledge and skills in restoration of the monument, constantly checking accuracy of the drawn conclusions on the monument studying it all along the restoration process. With this process completed all the received knowledge and all comprehension of the monument must be formed in a scientific report. Only in this case during restoration we can try not to lose the information about the monument contained in it.
The peculiarity of our restoration centre is in the approach to the technologies. It is very important to see the technological particular features of the monument, namely:
1. To note and fix the tools marks which were used during work.
2. Using different sources – archival materials, graphic presentations, results of the archaeological investigations and others – it is necessary to reconstruct the tools used to construct the monument. When we worked on dismantling the church of St. Prophet Elijah at the Tsypino churchyard near Ferapontovo, Father Sergey, the priest performing services in Ferapontovo, brought an axe which he had found at the attic of the church. Its shape and size fully corresponded with the marks left when erecting the church.
During restoration work in Nenoksa we found a tool, reminding a boat-hook in a way with an elongated and curved lance, with the help of which the carpenters lifted huge rafters and fix them into the corners of the octagonal base. It was driven in as a step, i.e. it was used otherwise, when it was not necessary any more in its direct function. It is interesting that during restoration when solving the problem of lifting these rafters, the head of the work A.V. Popov designed the same tool. How surprised he was when the historical tool found on the second day absolutely coincided with the drawing made the day before!
3. The next thing which should be done is to make the reconstructed tools.
4. To learn to work with these tools according to the old technologies trying to achieve so that the marks left by the new tools were identical with the historical ones.
So it is a long and complicated process.
Often when investigating the monument or sometimes when carrying out restoration, different and unexpected questions arise. For example, during restoration work in 1981-1988 in Verchnaya Uftuga of the Archangelsk region it seemed that on the octagonal base (which was more than 10 meters high) and on the sanctuary the cups in the logs from the outer end were cut carelessly. The Dmitry Solunsky’s church is unheated; the unheated framework was erected of logs very carefully, so that the logs were as close as possible to each other. Because of the high craftsmanship of the carpenters building this church, this “negligence” seemed to be unlikely.
In the lowest tier, in the quadrangle, logs in the interior are joined at right angles in a very careful way. Using this method of joining the carpenter couldn’t work only from one side, because there was a tenon across the cup and the carpenter couldn’t cut the cup through because the axe blade didn’t reach the other end of the cup. It was necessary to work the log from two sides. That was why the scaffolding was made on the inside and from the outside. Thus the carpenter could clearly see the line (a special tool used to adjust logs in the framework) and carefully join one log with another one. On the upper tiers and in the sanctuary where there were no need to use this method (the logs are round in the interior), the carpenter could cut the cup from within the log house. And there are no marks of external scaffolding on this level. With the diameter of the logs 35-50 centimeters it was very difficult to set them into and take out. That was why the carpenter without seeing the line cut the cup on the safe side making it wider just in case. Thus this “carefulness / negligence” was only a technological peculiarity. Moreover, these chinks served for ventilation of the framework, especially because in winter time services in the church were not performed and there was no need to keep the warmth.
Thus, having approached yourself as much as possible to the conditions of old craftsman’s work, having studied his opportunities and having compared all this with the marks, found on the building, you can understand the technological peculiarities of the particular monument.
When some element of the monument is missing, it is a questing of reconstructing it “by analogues”. But imagine the work of different building groups even in the neighbouring regions in former times. It includes different skills of craftsmen, different traditions and different abilities. That’s why you can find on one monument works, conducted according to different technologies, details of different shape. For example, in the church of St. Prophet Elijah at the Tsypino churchyard near Ferapontovo you can find 24 different ways of cutting.
Every monument is unique. The reason is in the technology of works. Everything or almost everything was done manually by different craftsmen. Even in one building group craftsmen differed from each other by skills, kind of work, ability to invent and make details. Sometimes particular tools used only for that monument or only by that group, were invented for specific work. Material used to construct the building was prepared almost always on the spot and it also had characteristic features.
Besides, every monument has its own peculiar history that undoubtedly left its unique imprint and unique destructions.
Don’t refuse new technologies, materials and equipment entirely. But you must use them when diagnosing the monument, strengthening the structures and other elements, protecting it from vermin and ill effects of the environment. However, every time using something new you must be very careful not to do harm. New technologies and materials, new equipment can be used also for adjusting the monument to modern needs.
Ðèñóíêè:
1. The way of joining the logs when there are right angles in the interior
2. The technological peculiarity of cutting the cup from within without external scaffolding. The carpenter doesn’t see the line and just in case makes the cup wider, afterwards there are chinks.
|
