ARCHITECTURAL
VE NT RIL OQ UY
CRITICAL
ESSAY
SANGEETHA KANEKAL TILAK MA ISD 2013
ARCHITECTURAL
VENTRILOQUY
The core of my practice is anchored in using the analogy of “Architectural Ventriloquy” as a strategy in addressing old buildings, to adapt to contemporary situations. My critical concerns are rooted in the notion that a space has a voice and that this voice can be projected into another space. The mechanism of animating a space with a voice of a foregone time is integral to my research.
Fig.1: Chipperfield retains the scorched columns in the Neues Museum to preserve it’s tumultous past.
Ventriloquism is a dynamic phenomenon which has been and still, can be interpreted in many tangentially. Connor (2000) explains ventriloquism in it’s broader sense. “By`ventriloquism’, I mean, not merely the practice of making one’s voice appear to proceed from elsewhere - although I am, indeed, interested in the history of this particular form of entertainment or illusion. I use the word to designate all of the many forms which may be taken by sourceless, or dissociated or displaced voices, along with the various explications of such voices and ascriptions of source to them.” In literal connotations, “Ventriloquism is the act or art of speaking or uttering sounds in such a manner that the voice or sound appears to come from a source other than the speaker.” Wood (2009,p.104). Though aforementioned by Connor it is more vast than that. From his analysis he states that it could infer to the concept of the “dissociated voice”. In stating this he separates the source of the voice from the voice itself and defines the voice as an entity that could be displaced. This voice can be interpreted as the essence or the identity of an object or a space, this is elaborated on by Davis (2002, p.176) when he states that “...the voice signifies or is made to signify an identity, whether a particular demon, ghost of a living person,...”. He implies that the voice in ventriloquism can represent an identity that could be projected into another inanimate object.
Fig.2: Another’s voice
Fig.3: Another’s voice
With context to the notion that this identity or voice could be dissociated Goldblatt (2009, p.38) states that “Ventriloquism even includes speaking in another voice or speaking in another’s voice. A complex and difficult matter in itself.” Applying this concept spatially I am interested in how spaces can speak in ‘another voice’ or in ‘another place’s voice’. The notion that the voice of a space which is an intangible can be projected into another space which is tangible to animate it directs the practice. My practice explores this aspect of ventriloquy with the work “Another’s voice”, Fig.1 and Fig2. The experiment is a filming of tiny seeds falling from a height onto a flat surface, the falling of the seeds is synchronised with the sound of coins falling. To the perceiver it appears as though the seeds are falling with the voice of the coins. This methodology explores how the voice of an object represents it’s identity and how it can be projected onto another object. The voice of a building to me implies the essence of the building, it’s language, it’s materiality and it’s experience. The Romans called this the Genius Loci, Christian Norberg-Schulz an architectural theorist writes about the “Genius Loci, “According to ancient roman belief every “independent” being has its genius, its guardian spirit. This spirit gives life to people and places, ...and determines their character or essence. The genius thus denotes what a thing is, or what it “wants to be”, to use a word of Louis Kahn.” Schulz (1996, p.422) here uses a part of Louis Kahn’s phrase “what a building wants to be” both Kahn and Schulz here emphasize that there is a sense of the ephemeral and the intangible in a place. Kahn further stressed that a building already partly knows what it wants to be and this is influenced by it’s context, it’s history and it’s material and we as architects should honour this. My practice specifically explores this tangible and intangible aspect of the space in the context of historic archaic fabric by exploring if the voice of a foregone building could be re-imagined and re-infused in a space.
Littlefield (2007, p.139) states that “The mechanism by which the voices of a space can be imagined depends, therefore, on an interplay between an individual’s internalised response and sensibilities and the external realities of the space itself. The one aspect reinforces the other.” He advocates that it is the tangible and the intangible aspects that collectively make the voice of the place. There has been a continuos debate as to what the language of our dialogue should be while intervening in historic fabric. Chipperfield (2009, p.56) states that “Nowhere has this debate been so well and so fiercely articulated as in post war Germany”. There are many ways to address archaic fabric either by restoration, renovation or conservation as explained in Appendix B. These approaches largely deal with the notion of making the building a physical whole. My critical concern is about how we can not only make these spaces physically whole but also whole with respect to it’s original state.
Fig.4: Map of the Museumsinsel
The physical context of my practice is the southern part of the Museumsinsel in Berlin, between the Altes museum and the Neues museum bordered by the river spree on both sides as in Fig.4,5. The arched “Loggia” between Friedrich Schinkel’s Altes Museum and his student August Stüler’s Neues Museum was a significant connection that was bombed in the war. There is now a void that exists in it’s place. The dialogue between the museums no longer exists. The bridge was an attempt to unify the whole Museumsinsel. This Is elaborated on in Appendix A.
Fig.5: Context of the intervention.
My practice attempts to reinterpret this part of the Museumsinsel that was destroyed. This attempt however does not aim to mimic it’s original state, it aims to be a voice of the original. This intervention attempts to be a spatial ventriloquy of the original space reinterpreted and reinstated. It attempts to animate the space using it’s original context.
Fig.6
My research on the projection of voices to animate a space is influenced by the concept of a Capriccio in Giovanni Panini’s painting in Fig.6. A Capriccio is a painting that combines architectural fantasies, sculptures and monuments to portray a place. It can be said that Panini’s work is a form of ventriloquy as he tries to project the essence of Rome on a canvas.
Fig.7: The ‘Savage Beauty’ Exhibition in New York on Alexander Mc Queen
The process of understanding and listening to the voice of an object is the key to interpreting it. In the exhibition “Savage Beauty” on Alexander McQueen, the exhibits were designed to experience his designs. A cabinet of curiosities of various audio visual exhibits projected the voice of his designs in a space. The exhibit designers had to first understand and interpret the essence and identity of McQueen’s designs to be able to infuse it in a space. Within this context Littlefield(2007) advocates that “The act of ‘listening’ makes the building an agent in it’s own reinvention, and the architect has to work hard to hear what is said.” He implies that a building already has it’s context and it’s language and that the architect should respond to this influence. Scarpa understood intervention as a type of interpretation of the building’s language and tried to project this in the additions that he made. Scarpa on designing the Museo di Castelvecchio stated: “...I have a lively sense of critical values, and they move me. Indeed, I would rather on the whole build museums rather than skyscrapers-though the logic maybe otherwise, since the latter may perhaps be creative, while the former requires one to adapt and subordinate oneself to things as they are. One might also say that there is a certain mimicry involved, not a formal kind, not of equivalence, but rather as an attempt at interpretation.”(Scarpa ,1970 cited by Scott,1998, p.14) Scarpa’s approach to intervention and restoration was that of interpretation. In regard to Scarpa’s design for the Museum of Saint Caterina in Treviso, Magagnato (1984, p.) writes that “Scarpa progressively remodelled more and more of the degraded urban fabric on the south side of the Piazza del grano, both with regard to its typological characteristics and it’s volumes.”this is illustrated in Fig.8.
Fig.8. Spatial Analysis by Carlo Scapa For The Museum of Saint Caterina. Fig.9: ‘Language Interpretation’
Original facade of the bridge.
Volumetric voids analysis
Inversion of the voids into solids.
I have used this method of interpretation by Scarpa, Where he uses volumes and typology to understand and respond to the building fabric as shown in my work “Language Interpretation” in Fig.9, Fig.10. The architectural language of the bridge is Neoclassical which I have tried to understand based on it’s typology, it’s volumes and it’s sense of architectural space. Fig.10: ‘Language Interpretation’
Part to whole relationship in facade.
Analysis of the colonnaded view from the loggia.
Analysis of horizontality and verticality.
Fig.11: The Interior of the Neues Museum
A more contemporary context to my practice is David Chipperfield’s Neues Museum. While intervening in the space Chipperfield does not try to interfere or overpower the existing instead he enhances the space and allows it to narrate. Every intervention he makes is based on the context of the existing. He uses the facades, the materials and the damages to narrate. He only intervenes where balance needs to be restored in the existing elements. While doing so he gives the new elements more leverage as it does not exist as only a part but it now exists as a part of a whole. He works to retain the memory of the place by choosing to keep the damages on the surface. This allows the perceiver to immediately associate with the elements and allows them to some extent experience the intangible aspects that the building had lived through. He treats the building as a narrative by itself and only mounts it such that it can narrate. The Museumsinsel was envisioned as an integral part of the Prussian legacy to art and science in Germany. Neoclassicism practiced by Schinkel soon became the state architecture. This was interpreted years later by Mies Van der Rohe. Chipperfield’s extension to the Museumsinsel complex, specifically the James Simon gallery has been seen as an extension of this legacy. I am currently attempting to interpret and reinstate the connection between the museums as a continuation within this context. Schulze (1985, p.43-44) states that “The long low sweep of columns of the Altes Museum is recapitulated in several of the pavillions of Mies’s later years, chief among them Crown hall Chicago and the Berlin National Gallery.” Mies was highly influenced by Schinkel’s architecture.
Fig.12: comparison of the National Gallery and the Altes Museum
Even though Mies’s language has the same spatial clarity, articulate composition and proportionality as Schinkel’s, his language is that of modernism. The National gallery illustrates that Mies was keen on structural clarity. He expressed the structure and material in all it’s honesty and the aesthetic, was defined by this.
Fig.13: ‘Arches in Steel’
In my work “Arches in Steel” in Fig.13, I try to interpret mies’s approach by interpreting the bridge as a pavillion. The material I use is steel wire which in it’s materiality represents the transition from arches into steel. In Fig.13, Fig.14 and Fig.15. I also use scale and proportion to represent the spatial composition of the original bridge.
Fig.14: ‘Arches in Steel’
Fig.15: ‘Arches in Steel’
The figures represent the vertically broken views of the river that could be seen through the original bridge and the horizontality represents the connection. Historically alterations were considered as developments to the historic fabric. This can be seen in Giorgio Vasari’s intervention in central Firenze in the 16th c.. Explained further in Appendix C. Vasari managed to bring order and continuity to the labyrinth of buildings surrounding the long corridor by designing a loggia that addressed the river Arno in central Firenze shown in Fig.16,17.
Fig.16
Fig.17
Fig.18: The Bridge that was bombed.
Using the reference of Vasari’s ‘Uffizi corridor’ I am attempting to reconnect the two museums by displacing the bridge from it’s original context to a context where it re-establishes the relationship with the river and the city and it’s dialogue between the two museums in the form of a loggia.
Fig.19: The Context of the Bridge with the river.
The practice here attempts to create a dialogue between the Altes Museum and the Neues Museum by using the notion of displacement as a type of spatial ventriloquy where the essence of a building is projected in a space displaced from its foregone context.
Fig.20: Sketch showing the Displacement of the bridge.
My practice explores the idea of displacing the essence of the “bridge” from it’s foregone context between the two museums to the river, such that, it can, as a “loggia” provide unexpected revealing views of the river as illustrated in the Fig.21, 24, 25 and Fig.26.
Fig.21: Wooden model of suggested Loggia
Fig.22
The idea of an unexpected view through a loggia comes from the extension that was done to the National Portrait gallery, London. Here a narrow space leads into a space that reveals panoramic views of the city. This space was designed as an “implied loggia� to reveal unexpected views of the city much like the Uffizi loggia.
Fig.23
Fig.24: Wooden model of suggested Loggia
Urbanisation today puts our heritage at risk and requestions our relationship with it. It is essential for any culture to keep the past and the present synchronised because our past is our identity. I am interested in this notion of associating identity with space and how this identity can be displaced.
Fig.25: Model illustrates displacement.
Fig.26: Wooden model of suggested Loggia
My research and practice further aim to re-imagine the lost space between the two museums. I intend to understand the two museums their context and their language and respond to this in a voice that echoes of it’s past by reconnecting with the river and the city and more specifically in the context of the dialogue between the Alltes and the Neues Museum in the form of a pavilion.
References BOOKS: Chipperfield, D., 2009.The Neues Museum, Architectural concept. In: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, ed. 2010.The Neues Museum Berlin, Conserving, restoring, rebuilding within the world heritage”. Leipzig: E. A. Seemann Verlag of Seemann Henschel GmbH & Co.,Ch.2., p.56. Connor, S., 2000. Dumbstruck: A Cultural History of Ventriloquism. London: Oxford University Press. Davis, C.B, 2002. The Drama Review. MIT Press. Vol. No. 46 Issue 2, p.176. Goldblatt, D., 2006. Art and Ventriloquism: Critical voices in art, theory and culture. Abingdon: Routledge, p.38. Littlefield, D., Lewis, S., 2007. Architectural Voices: Listening to old buildings. Great Britain: Wiley-Academy, p.139. Maganato, L., 1984. The Museum of Saint Caterina. In: Boccato, M., Translated from Italian by Sarah Curl. Carlo Scarpa: il progetto per Santa Caterina a Treviso. Treviso: Vianello Libri. Ch.1, p.14. Scott, F., 2008. On Altering Architecture. London: Routledge. Ch.12.,p.215. Schulz, C.N., 1979.The Phenomenon of place. In: Nesbitt, K.,ed. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965 – 1995. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. p.422. Schulze, F., 1985. Mies Van Der Rohe: A Critical Biography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p.43-44. Wood, J., 2009. Ventriloqial Metaphor.In: Aura, S., ed. Articulate Objects: Voice, Sculpture and Performance. Germany: Peter Lang AG, p.104.
Images: Figure 1: Tilak, S.K., (2013). Neues Museum, [Photograph; Interior of the Neues museum] In possession of: Tilak, S.K., London. Figure 2: Tilak, S.K., (2013). Another’s Voice, [Photograph; Image of a film] In possession of: Tilak, S.K., London. Figure 3: Tilak, S.K., (2013). Another’s Voice, [Photograph; Image of a film] In possession of: Tilak, S.K., London. Figure 4: Map of Museumsinsel (2013) [Map] At: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/896/documents/ (Accessed on 18.02.2013). Figure 5.1:Map of Museumsinsel (2013) [Map] At:https://maps.google.co.in/ (Accessed on 18.02.2013). Figure 5.2: View from the river (2013) [photograph] At: http://www.german-architecture.info/ BER.htm (Accessed on 24.11.2012). Figure 5.3: Stuler, A., (1841). Entire floor plan of site. [Photograph of sketch](Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin). Figure 5.4:(1915). View of the Altes Museum and Neues. [Photograph](Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin). Figure 6: Roman ruins and sculpture (1754) [Photograph of the painting] At: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/File:PanniniMusImagin.jpg (Accessed on 10.03.2013). Figure 7: Savage Beauty (2011) [Photograph of the Exhibition] At: [Photograph of the painting] At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PanniniMusImagin.jpg (Accessed on 10.03.2013). (Accessed on 10.03.2013). Figure 8: Scarpa, C., Proportion study of Piazza del Grano. [Sketch](Treviso: Catalogue E Mostra A Cura Di. Figure 9: Tilak, S.K., (2013). Language Interpretation, [Photograph Of wood model] In possession of: Tilak, S.K., London. Figure 10: Tilak, S.K., (2013). Language Interpretation, [Photograph of wood model] In possession of: Tilak, S.K., London.
Figure 11: Tilak, S.K., (2013). The Altes Museum, [Photograph of Buildings] In possession of: Tilak, S.K., London. Figure 11.1: Tilak, S.K., (2013). The National Gallery Berlin, [Photograph of Building] At: http:// pinterest.com/pin/386324474255407219/ Figure 13: Tilak, S.K., (2013). Arches in Steel, [Photograph of wire and wood model] In possession of: Tilak, S.K., London. Figure 14: Tilak, S.K., (2013). Arches in Steel, [Photograph of wire and wood model In possession of: Tilak, S.K., London. Figure 15: Tilak, S.K., (2013). Arches in Steel, [Photograph of wire and wood model In possession of: Tilak,S.K., London. Figure 16: Uffizi Corridor [Photograph] At: http://livingtravel.com/europe/italy/italy_B.htm (Accessed on 18.02.2013). Figure 17: Uffizi Corridor [Photograph] At: Uffizi Corridor [Photograph] At: http://livingtravel. com/europe/italy/italy_B.htm (Accessed on 18.02.2013). Figure 18: Stuler, A., (1841). View of the entire building complex. [Photograph of sketch](Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin). Figure 19: Stuler, A., (1841). View of the entire building complex. [Photograph of sketch](Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin). Figure 20: Tilak, S.K., (2013). Sketch of Displacement, [Photograph of sketch] In possession of: Tilak, S.K., London. Figure 21: Tilak, S.K., (2013). River Loggia, [Photograph of wooden model] In possession of: Tilak, S.K., London. Figure 22: Tilak, S.K., (2013). National portrait Gallery, [Photograph] In possession of: Tilak, S.K., London. Figure 23: Tilak, S.K., (2013). National portrait Gallery, [Photograph] In possession of: Tilak, S.K., London.
Figure 24: Tilak, S.K., (2013). River Loggia, [Photograph of sketch] In possession of: Tilak, S.K., London. Figure 25: Tilak, S.K., (2013). River Loggia, [Photograph of wooden model] In possession of: Tilak, S.K., London. Figure 26: Tilak, S.K., (2013). River Loggia, [Photograph of sketch] In possession of: Tilak, S.K., London.
Appendix A World Heritage List Nomination of the Museumsinsel
WHC Nomination Documentation File Name: 896.pdf UNESCO Region: EUROPE AND THE NORTH AMERICA __________________________________________________________________________________________________ SITE NAME:
Museumsinsel (Museum Island)
DATE OF INSCRIPTION: 4th December 1999 STATE PARTY: CRITERIA:
GERMANY
C (ii)(iv)
DECISION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE: Excerpt from the Report of the 23rd Session of the World Heritage Committee The Committee inscribed the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv). Criterion (ii): The Berlin Museumsinsel is an unique ensemble of museum buildings, which illustrated the evolution of modern museum design over more than a century. Criterion (iv): The art museum is a social phenomenon that owes its origins to the Age of Enlightenment and its extension to all people to the French Revolution. The Museumsinsel is the most outstanding example of this concept given material from and a symbolic central urban setting. The Observer of Poland emphasized that in this type of properties it was essential to maintain not only the values of the monumental buildings, but also to maintain the integrity of the museum collections. BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS The museum as a social phenomenon owes its origins to the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century. The five museums on the Museumsinsel in Berlin, built between 1824 and 1930, represent the realisation of a visionary project and the evolution of approaches to museum design over the century. Each museum has been designed with a view to establishing an organic connection to the art it houses. The importance of the museum's collections – which bear witness to the development of civilisations – is enhanced by buildings' urban and architectural qualities.
1.b State, Province or Region: Land Berlin 1.d Exact location: 52° 31' N, 13° 23' E
Appendix b The ICOMOS Venice Charter for Conservation
INTERNATIONAL CHARTER FOR THE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION OF MONUMENTS AND SITES (THE VENICE CHARTER 1964) IInd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Venice, 1964. Adopted by ICOMOS in 1965. Imbued with a message from the past, the historic monuments of generations of people remain to the present day as living witnesses of their age-old traditions. People are becoming more and more conscious of the unity of human values and regard ancient monuments as a common heritage. The common responsibility to safeguard them for future generations is recognized. It is our duty to hand them on in the full richness of their authenticity. It is essential that the principles guiding the preservation and restoration of ancient buildings should be agreed and be laid down on an international basis, with each country being responsible for applying the plan within the framework of its own culture and traditions. By defining these basic principles for the first time, the Athens Charter of 1931 contributed towards the development of an extensive international movement which has assumed concrete form in national documents, in the work of ICOM and UNESCO and in the establishment by the latter of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property. Increasing awareness and critical study have been brought to bear on problems which have continually become more complex and varied; now the time has come to examine the Charter afresh in order to make a thorough study of the principles involved and to enlarge its scope in a new document. Accordingly, the IInd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, which met in Venice from May 25th to 31st 1964, approved the following text:
DEFINITIONS Article 1. The concept of a historic monument embraces not only the single architectural work but also the urban or rural setting in which is found the evidence of a particular civilization, a significant development or a historic event. This applies not only to great works of art but also to more modest works of the past which have acquired cultural significance with the passing of time. Article 2. The conservation and restoration of monuments must have recourse to all the sciences and techniques which can contribute to the study and safeguarding of the architectural heritage.
Article 3. The intention in conserving and restoring monuments is to safeguard them no less as works of art than as historical evidence.
CONSERVATION Article 4. It is essential to the conservation of monuments that they be maintained on a permanent basis. Article 5. The conservation of monuments is always facilitated by making use of them for some socially useful purpose. Such use is therefore desirable but it must not change the lay-out or decoration of the building. It is within these limits only that modifications demanded by a change of function should be envisaged and may be permitted. Article 6. The conservation of a monument implies preserving a setting which is not out of scale. Wherever the traditional setting exists, it must be kept. No new construction, demolition or modification which would alter the relations of mass and colour must be allowed. Article 7. A monument is inseparable from the history to which it bears witness and from the setting in which it occurs. The moving of all or part of a monument cannot be allowed except where the safeguarding of that monument demands it or where it is justified by national or international interest of paramount importance. Article 8. Items of sculpture, painting or decoration which form an integral part of a monument may only be removed from it if this is the sole means of ensuring their preservation.
RESTORATION Article 9. The process of restoration is a highly specialized operation. Its aim is to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the monument and is based on respect for original material and authentic documents. It must stop at the point where conjecture begins, and in this case moreover any extra work which is indispensable must be distinct from the architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp. The restoration in any case must be preceded and followed by an archaeological and historical study of the monument. Article 10. Where traditional techniques prove inadequate, the consolidation of a monument can be achieved by the use of any modern technique for conservation and construction, the efficacy of which has been shown by scientific data and proved by experience.
Article 11. The valid contributions of all periods to the building of a monument must be respected, since unity of style is not the aim of a restoration. When a building includes the superimposed work of different periods, the revealing of the underlying state can only be justified in exceptional circumstances and when what is removed is of little interest and the material which is brought to light is of great historical, archaeological or aesthetic value, and its state of preservation good enough to justify the action. Evaluation of the importance of the elements involved and the decision as to what may be destroyed cannot rest solely on the individual in charge of the work. Article 12. Replacements of missing parts must integrate harmoniously with the whole, but at the same time must be distinguishable from the original so that restoration does not falsify the artistic or historic evidence. Article 13. Additions cannot be allowed except in so far as they do not detract from the interesting parts of the building, its traditional setting, the balance of its composition and its relation with its surroundings.
HISTORIC SITES Article 14. The sites of monuments must be the object of special care in order to safeguard their integrity and ensure that they are cleared and presented in a seemly manner. The work of conservation and restoration carried out in such places should be inspired by the principles set forth in the foregoing articles.
EXCAVATIONS Article 15. Excavations should be carried out in accordance with scientific standards and the recommendation defining international principles to be applied in the case of archaeological excavation adopted by UNESCO in 1956. Ruins must be maintained and measures necessary for the permanent conservation and protection of architectural features and of objects discovered must be taken. Furthermore, every means must be taken to facilitate the understanding of the monument and to reveal it without ever distorting its meaning. All reconstruction work should however be ruled out "a priori". Only anastylosis, that is to say, the reassembling of existing but dismembered parts can be permitted. The material used for integration should always be recognizable and its use should be the least that will ensure the conservation of a monument and the reinstatement of its form.
PUBLICATION Article 16. In all works of preservation, restoration or excavation, there should always be precise documentation in the form of analytical and critical reports, illustrated with drawings and photographs. Every stage of the work of clearing, consolidation, rearrangement and integration, as well as technical and formal features identified during the course of the work, should be included. This record should be placed in the archives of a public institution and made available to research workers. It is recommended that the report should be published.
The following persons took part in the work of the Committee for drafting the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments: Piero Gazzola (Italy), Chairman Raymond Lemaire (Belgium), Reporter JosĂŠ Bassegoda-Nonell (Spain) Luis Benavente (Portugal) Djurdje Boskovic (Yugoslavia) Hiroshi Daifuku (UNESCO) P.L. de Vrieze (Netherlands) Harald Langberg (Denmark) Mario Matteucci (Italy) Jean Merlet (France) Carlos Flores Marini (Mexico) Roberto Pane (Italy) S.C.J. Pavel (Czechoslovakia) Paul Philippot (ICCROM) Victor Pimentel (Peru) Harold Plenderleith (ICCROM) Deoclecio Redig de Campos (Vatican) Jean Sonnier (France) Francois Sorlin (France) Eustathios Stikas (Greece) Gertrud Tripp (Austria) Jan Zachwatovicz (Poland) Mustafa S. Zbiss (Tunisia)
Appendix C The Ufizzi: The museum as urban design michael Dennis