Conference at the Research Unit History of Art of the Institute for Habsburg and Balkan Studies (IHB) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW), Vienna
Organisers: Timo Hagen, KHI, University of Bonn
Richard Kurdiovsky, IHB, ÖAW Wien
Gábor György Papp, MI, HUN-REN, Budapest
Frank Rochow, IBK, BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg
Venue: Postal Savings Bank (Postsparkasse), Georg Coch-Platz 2, 1010 Vienna
Deadline (for submitting proposals): January 31, 2024
The conference aims to bring together research on Hansen’s work and his reception in different regions – from his native Denmark, to Central and South-Eastern Europe, to Greece, where the architect spent formative years and helped shape the capital of the young kingdom. On the one hand, the focus will be on the instruments of dissemination – academic teaching, design office and building site operations, specialist publications, the sale of building ornaments, skilful action in the social arena, etc. On the other hand, the various socio-cultural factors that contributed to Hansen ́s reception will be examined. Here, the role of Hansen’s public and private clients and his perception by the general public come into focus. Hansen’s antique designs were regarded by contemporaries such as Rudolf Eitelberger to be exemplary for a “Viennese Renaissance” that was “patriotic towards the empire”. However, his students included a large number of early career architects from Hungary, a country particularly concerned with its autonomy within the Dual Monarchy. Additionally, it was often non-Catholics who enrolled with Hansen as a Protestant teacher, or as patrons made use of his Byzantine designs for Orthodox or Protestant sacral architecture. Here, processes of appropriation, further development and reinterpretation of architectural forms can be observed. The sometimes mimetic adoption of architectural forms by designers and building component manufacturers, raises questions about the copyright dimension of such processes. Last but not least, the limits of Hansenʼs perception and effectiveness must be explored and their conditionality questioned. In this context, a comparative look at similarly influential contemporaries such as the Prussian architect Friedrich August Stüler or the Viennese proponent of the neo-Gothic style Friedrich Schmidt can be revealing; comparative perspectives also offer themselves with regard to the formation of artistic schools and commemorative practices concerning architects.
More information can be found in the full call for papers.