255 Dr Weschenfelder: We have now spent the second day listening to highly interesting, very tightly packed lectures. It’s not easy to recapitulate everything in just an hour. However, in the context of the World Heritage application, let us attempt to recall key aspects so that nothing is lost. The first task is therefore to define the site, the proposed World Heritage property, the cultural assets, to recall to mind the various layers of meaning evinced by the Torgau Castle Chapel, expanding as necessary on the given interpretations, and establishing the tangibility of these layers of meaning as they relate to the site itself. Although reference will also be made to the intangible heritage, the material situation will constitute the initial focus of our discussion. Let us begin with the question of what exactly the estate is, what its limits are and what criteria should be proposed. What are the layers of meaning, the attributes? We will subsequently approach the questions of authenticity and integrity, before finally examining possible properties which form the subject of comparative analyses at national and international level, as there must not be a second site that is the same or similar to the proposed one, so a clear demarcation is required. It is also important to look beyond this, and ask ourselves whether comparable properties and sites exist which may be drawn upon to boost the chances of this application being successful, and if so, where are these located? Ms Hansell: I would like to refer once again to the general procedure. We do not have to submit maps displaying boundaries in the Preliminary Assessment process. However, what I took away from the two days of discussion is that other features besides the Castle Chapel are of significance. We need to chart the World Heritage attributes, as well as other heritage features in the pre- appraisal application. Let me refer to these as “monument values”. We do not need to define a buffer zone, but should submit a flexible yet robust nomination strategy, simultaneously showing the setting in which the estate is located. It goes without saying that it still makes sense to employ effective mapping in order to demonstrate what the focus could be with regard to the importance of the Castle Chapel and what other values (heritage features) could be included. We don’t need to set on boundaries before we have actually decided what the justification for the application should be. Prof. Schilling: I believe that the strategic discussion or the framework conditions are the prerequisite for achieving the goal that the conference is designed to serve. We have led a twofold discussion here. A professional one on the one hand, which has enriched me enormously and also brought a number of new aspects to light, and a strategic one on the other. I understand that the main purpose of the present panel discussion is to emphasise all arguments in favour of the strategic. The decisive question is: do any objections to this from a specialist perspective exist? If so, the argument is invalid. If the specific requirements stipulated on the application form can be met, we must provide arguments in line with the procedure. And in answer to your first question, I believe—in the wake of Mr Bürger’s presentation yesterday—that the importance of the castle ensemble in terms of the context it provides to the chapel and other castle buildings has been clearly demonstrated and should not be underestimated. Prof. Bürger: During yesterday’s discussion, I was particularly interested in the presentation by Marius Winzeler on the chapel in Neuburg: a chapel that was constructed earlier does exist. The question we need to ask ourselves is why is this chapel not the subject of the current panel, and why do we nevertheless remain convinced that the focus should be Torgau? And it is the answer to this question which confirms our decision—precisely this is at the very core of this building, including in its function as a social space: here, actions overlap in religious, theological and practically devout terms, but also in sovereign, political and power-political dimensions that far exceed the location. Torgau differs strikingly from Neuburg in this regard. And this also means that this space not only constitutes a structural shell for a historical process, but also represents the manifestation and documentation of a building tradition. We see this in the architecture and in these iconographies in a very direct, expressive and meaningful way, and should also keep in mind that this is an intermediate situation, a palimpsest. Prof. Harasimowicz: Yes, you are absolutely right. It can be said that this chapel was virtually built from existing elements. This is nothing new—architecturally nothing new at all—but its elements have been combined afresh and supplemented by a very important aspect, the social-ecclesial component. This comes across quite clearly in the inaugural sermon: people who come together and pray together. Sitting, which is also very important, not standing. Based on the last lectures, I suggest that we should even take the alabaster altar from Dresden into account (p. 218, fig. 3). This is important. There were only two altars of this kind created after the Reformation: one in Berlin and one in Dresden. The Berlin model was brought to Słońsk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTMyNjA1