Hajek Svobodova - Centrum pro krajinu
Transkript
Hajek Svobodova - Centrum pro krajinu
Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 191 – 201 Received: 05 October 2010; Accepted: 18 November 2010; Published online: 11 December 2010 Journal of Landscape Studies Principles for designing tour routes in a historic garden and park Tomáš Hájek*1, Kamila Svobodová2, Sylvie Majerová3 1 2 3 Project Solutions, s.r.o., Podjavorinské 1606/16, 14900 Prague 4, Czech Republic Department of Spatial Planning, Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University, Thákurova 7, 166 34 Prague 6, Czech Republic Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic, Vršovická 1442/65, 100 10 Prague 10, Czech Republic Abstract Following the transfer of extensive aristocratic property to the state in the period after World War II, a distinctive theory and practice of presenting heritage sites to the public developed in Czechoslovakia in the 1950s and 1960s. This specifically Czech approach deals primarily with interiors and almost overlooks the presentation of historic parks and gardens that are fundamental to the value of the cultural heritage site, or in some cases possess their own distinctive value. There is little literature on this topic (with the exception of historic gardens and parks in Prague). Mindful of the fact that heritage care has in recent decades developed an awareness of the contexts of a heritage site’s environment, and that the perception of landscape as a type of cultural heritage in its own right is becoming more widespread, the team of authors performed a study of castles and chateaux open to the public, looking at how tour paths are used to present the associated parks and gardens. The study confirmed the assumption, based on the evolution of Czech heritage care after 1945, that the tour routes in historic parks and gardens open to the public tend to emphasise rather to be derived and related to the chateau building itself than to the surrounding landscape. One possible reason for this state of affairs is the lack of conceptual materials concerning the presentation of chateau gardens and parks. The team of authors has therefore attempted to devise an approach to help the heritage authorities to present historic parks and gardens in a sensitive and truly systematic way, based on fundamental and incontestable heritage documents, most notably ICOMOS and the Venice and Florence charters. This specific approach, fundamentally different from the way historic gardens and parks are presented to the public, for example, by nature and rural conservation organisations or tourism organisations (although they do sometimes formally overlap), was used to design a tour path in the English landscape park of the Krásný Dvůr national heritage site. Key words: Tour route; Heritage site; Garden; Park; English landscaped park; Krásný Dvůr 1. Introduction 1.1 Concept of the garden in a historical context The concept of the garden has undergone a complicated development over several centuries, influenced by the dominant artistic philosophies of the times in which the gardens were created. The first gardens date back to the Middle Ages, and are linked to an initial expansion of settlement. The medieval garden is characterised by its formal layout, its enclosed form and its division into parts intended for nutritional purposes, education and meditation (Pavlátová et al., 2004). The medieval garden takes on the concept of the garden as a place with an extensive but strictly symmetrical * Corresponding autor; E-mail: [email protected] Available online at: www.centrumprokrajinu.cz/jls/ 191 T. Hájek et al.: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 191 – 201 layout. Regularity, axiality and balance are typical features of Renaissance gardens. The Renaissance garden, as a place of Beauty and Reason, is something of a labyrinth, a place preordained for philosophy and, in some regard, a place of Utopia, the creation of the immutably ideal. During the Renaissance period, gardens became an expression of a deliberate and disciplined artistic will and a standard part of aristocratic seats (Dokoupil et al., 1957). It was during the Renaissance that the revolutionary concept of the garden as an enlarged living space forming an integral harmonious whole with a building was formulated. The Renaissance concept, which carries on the legacy of the ancient Roman villa, was gradually joined by other concepts that were, however, largely re-workings of theories that had gone before. Bramante’s design of the Belvedere garden in Rome creates a garden as a specifically museographic space (ancient Roman sculptures of Laocoön, Venus and the Apollo Belvedere), and simultaneously as a tableau. Elements of luxury and the demonstration of power were amplified by Baroque gardens, designed in the Aldobrandini or Mondragone villas, for example, as a grandiose theatre space projecting deep into the surrounding landscape (Hendrych, 2000). The landscaping of the hunting park at Château de Chambord included the first example of long star-shaped forest avenues heralding a new era of gardens as independent and extensive landscape compositions that climaxed with Vaux le Vicomte and Versailles and were gradually developed into the landscaped park, which continued to integrate the previous purposes of gardens such as meditation, love, asylum or theatricality. The English landscape park that so fundamentally shaped the face of Europe in the past centuries derives from the Romantic view of nature (e.g. the ruins of Fountains Abbey as the dominant visual feature at Studley Royal), from an emphasis on self-sustaining scenery, the concept of Chinese gardens and Poussin’s landscapes, and from the concept of country living (established earlier by Henry VIII). The English landscape park is the product of a reaction to the strictures of formal gardens; it expresses the principle of freedom and emancipation as opposed to the “despotism” of formal gardens. Although the landscape park applies architectural techniques to the landscape, it does so in an unforced and 192 entirely natural way, discarding symmetry and geometrisation (Pacáková-Hošťálková et al., 1999). One example is Prince Pückler, who created the park at Bad-Muskau without using garden architecture and decorative features, as a monumentalising set of unrepeated pastoral scenes (e.g. Uhlíková, 2004); one park influenced by this design is Central Park in New York. In the Czech lands, the new garden design led to the development of two different types of landscaping. The first type of landscaping, more widespread in practice, comprised the radical transformation of previous, mainly Baroque, compositions into landscape parks (e.g. Červený Dvůr, Ostrov). The second type comprised extensive landscaping done in the broad environs of aristocratic seats (e.g. Vlašim, Krásný Dvůr, Veltrusy) (Pavlátová et al., 2004). Both garden and park are an interposition and simultaneously an embodiment of the connection between a building and its surroundings in both time and space. They are a contextualisation of a building that is to be presented to visitors, and the garden and park are designed for this purpose right from the start (this is particularly striking in the case of large-scale landscape compositions. This means, however, that a profound disruption of the historical context that occurs in a particular country is bound to result, primarily, in something of a breakdown in the perception of garden art as providing a context and an interpretation of architectural monuments and their furnishings. As the history of garden design reveals, every garden is to some extent a Plato’s Academy and, as such, a repository of enduring ideals. The garden is at attempt to rebuild the lost Eden commemorated in myths all over the world (Dvořáček, 2008). The fundamental historical reversal that occurred in the Czech lands after World War II and led to the confiscation of aristocratic seats by the state was bound to result in the undervaluation of historic gardens and parks as mere adjuncts to architectural monuments, adjuncts of secondary importance in terms of both care and presentation efforts. Another reason is surely that at a time of shortages of funds there is a need to forego care for “living monuments” whose upkeep is extremely costly (Jančo, 2009), since historic gardens and parks, as works of designed nature, live their own biological life (Pacáková-Hošťálková, 1999). T. Hájek et al.: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 191 – 201 1.2 Specifics of heritage care It has already been said that, despite globalisation and, for example, the creation of highly organised and influential nature and rural conservation institutions, heritage care is still highly diversified both in various cultural circles and even in individual countries (mainly as a consequence of their historical development). In this case the sources that one or other heritage authority refers to vary both regionally and from country to country (Vinter, 1982; Holubičková, 2008). In the Czech lands, which have not enjoyed much continuous historical development (experiencing changes in the state establishment and in political and social systems), heritage care unequivocally refers to the Austrian tradition, i.e. the tradition of the Central Commission for the Study and Preservation of Historic Buildings (Zídek, 2000). Czech heritage care is partly influenced by the German tradition, through G. Dehio; there is also some Italian influence, mainly in the field of restoration (Brandi, 2000). There are only a few sources that Czech heritage care draws on: Moderní památková péče (Riegl, 2003); Katechismus památkové péče (Dvořák, 1991); Ochrana a zachování památek (Deiho, 1907); Umělecké dílo a jeho ochrana (Wagner, 2005); Cena stáří (Štěcha, 1968); Památka a péče (Richter, 1993); Demolovaná krása (Sedlmayr, 1993); and Marketing a management muzeí a památek (Kesner, 2005). This collection is relatively sparse due to the fact that heritage care in the Czech Republic is not regarded by definition as a field of theory but as a practical activity based on an interdisciplinary approach. 1.3 Presentation of gardens as a part of cultural heritage The upshot of the major changes in heritage care in the Czech Republic after 1945 is a set of 154 aristocratic seats that were opened to the public (Uhlíková, 2004). A new, artificial historical environment was created by means of installations, many of which were taken from buildings that had no designated cultural use, although in a number of cases the original chateau furniture was installed (e.g. Velké Losiny, Hrádek u Nechanic, Telč, Bítov, Rožmberk). These installations mainly presented articles of outstanding value and paid no attention to the presentation of items of everyday use (above all from the times of the last owners). The presentation of the interiors of chateaux and castles, including state installation plans, is covered by Blažíček (1983), who ranks heritage installations higher than museum-type presentations, and approves of “thematic expositions” (the chateau as a thematic museum). The author’s endeavour to provide a coherent context in which an architectural monument’s interior is to be presented does not apply, however, to the building’s physical environment or to its concomitant garden or park. Gardens and garden architecture are dealt with by Sršeň (1994), who presents the creation of an experimental exposition at Vrchotovy Janovice chateau, where the visitors’ tour leads through the chateau park and its garden architecture, and is accompanied by a gardener providing instruction and information. This is merely a mention, however; subsequently, with the adoption of the European Landscape Convention, for example, increasing emphasis is placed on the environments of the monuments and on the landscape as a valuable heritage element, but little attention is paid to the theory of the separate presentation of historic gardens or parks. Let us briefly mention Great Britain’s distinctive care for its cultural heritage in contrast to the Czech Republic. The promotion of gardens in Great Britain forms part of local, regional and national tourism development strategies (Connell, 2004). One example of the present-day presentation of a historic garden in Great Britain is Down House in Kent, Charles Darwin’s house, where the visitors’ tour includes a separate garden tour as well as a tour of the building and its original fittings. The exposition as a whole is designed as an authentic evocation of the places where Darwin lived and worked. Although no conceptual discussion of the creation of tour paths in important historic gardens and parks in the Czech Republic can be found in the specialist literature, tour routes have gradually been created in them, mainly in the last two decades. These have been spontaneous processes, however, and do not reflect heritage care theory (e.g. the boat tour of the chateau park at Lednice as a separate tour route running through the park but focusing solely on architectural monuments and not on aspects of the landscape park). At the same time, it should be stressed that the presentation of 193 T. Hájek et al.: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 191 – 201 gardens and parks is understood to refer to officially declared, separate (or in some cases only partially separate) tour routes running through a garden or park, whether led by a guide or using other expositional techniques. The mere mention of a garden’s existence in information materials or the sporadic occurrence of information boards cannot be regarded as a tour route. The ideas behind the creation of tour routes through gardens and parks are categorically set out in ICOMOS documents (International Council on Monuments and Sites), above all in the Venice and Florence charters. Although these charters do not set out an entirely specific instruction manual, they can be used as fundamental guidelines for designing tour routes. Other theoretical guidelines, albeit indirect, are the installation plans created in the past sixty years in the Czech Republic (from 1950 to the present day), specialist texts dealing with particular installations (e.g. Heritage Care Reports), monographs on historic parks and gardens in the Czech Republic, and works produced by British heritage authorities, above all English Heritage (e.g. the yearbook of Historic Houses and Gardens (open to the public). It should be taken into account, however, that the heritage care systems of different countries vary significantly despite external morphological similarities (e.g. the kind of presentation accepted by the British public as appropriate is certainly different from the kind accepted by the Czech public). No studies quantifying these national differences currently exist. The aim of this study is to catalogue and assess the ways in which heritage monuments in the Czech Republic open to the public are presented. The work was done by the team of authors in 2009, and sought to ascertain whether the presentation covers parks and gardens in terms of historical and heritage importance, and how this presentation is conceived. Another aim of the study is to put forward sensitive and substantiated methodological principles for creating tour routes in historic gardens and landscape parks and subsequently to propose an experimental route through the grounds of Krásný Dvůr chateau, a monument with very significant landscape features. Figure 1. Location of Krásný Dvůr chateau, national cultural heritage monument, including the landscape park. 194 T. Hájek et al.: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 191 – 201 Object name Bečov nad Teplou Bechyně Bělá pod Bezdězem Benátky nad Jizerou Owner Object description Object presentation Services state extensive complex of castle and chateau; castle founded in 13th century by the lords of Osek; Renaissance and late Gothic renovation by the Pluh family from Rabštejn; baroque chateau built on the site of a Renaissance building in 18th century 2 circuits: Circuit 1: reliquary of St Mauro with accompanying exposition; Circuit 2: chateau interiors with period furnishings and collections, chateau’s terraced gardens (castle closed) weddings; room rentals; Bečovské mumraje festival of music, fencing, theatre; Balbínův Bečov folk festival; celebrations of the 20th anniversary of the discovery of the reliquary of St Mauro originally Gothic castle on the site of the Přemysl fortified settlement; late Gothic alterations by the Šternberk private family; rebuilt as a Renaissance organisation chateau by Petr Vok of Rožmberk; Classicist alterations during tenure of the Paar family; English park (aviaries, animal trench) Renaissance chateau on the site of a former Gothic fort; rebuilt in baroque style by B. town Canevallo for Arnošt of authority Wallenstein; late Classicist alterations; part of the chateau houses a museum 1 circuit: historic interiors with valuable wall paintings and stuccos, with original furnishings + separate V. Preclík museum in a former Gothic granary beside the chateau + separate International Museum of Ceramics in the former chateau brewery 1 circuit: interiors with ceilings with Renaissance frescoes and beams; exposition of the history of the region up to the end of the 19th century, archaeology, ethnography town authority complex of Renaissance and Baroque chateau buildings with a church on the site of an older monastery; sculptures by M. Braun and his students independently (with a guide by arrangement, groups): history of the museum, prominent people from the region, nature, astroarchaeology restaurant, accommodation, weddings, room rentals, golf club, Jazzfe jazz festival room rentals, exhibitions, children’s theatre, film screenings, concerts and lectures weddings, exhibitions ... Table 1. Part of the database from the cataloguing of heritage monument presentation methods in the Czech Republic. 2. Methods 2.1 Cataloguing the ways in which heritage sites open to the public in the Czech Republic are presented A catalogue of the ways in which heritage sites open to the public in the Czech Republic are presented was made in 2009. During the catalogu- ing process, first a detailed analysis of the expert literature on heritage monuments in the Czech Republic was conducted (Ondřej, 1964; Makásek et al., 1987; Kolektiv, 2001; Riedl, 2005; Sučková and Abušinov, 2005; brochures on the following monuments: Ploskovice chateau, Kynžvart chateau, Rožmberk castle and chateau, Velhartice castle, Sychrov chateau, Hořovice chateau, Jaroměřice nad Rokytnou chateau). Then data from the expert 195 T. Hájek et al.: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 191 – 201 literature was factored in and verified. This took place in a combination of three ways: through local visits to monuments, by telephone calls, and by emails to persons or workplaces with custodianship responsibilities. The cataloguing process employed five basic pieces of information about the monument: object name; owner (e.g. state, city, private individual); a description of the object’s basic physical characteristics and historical context; object presentation method (number of tour routes and their layouts); and services provided as part of the operation of the heritage object (e.g. letting, weddings, concerts, etc.) In total, data was gathered on 300 heritage monuments open to the public; this data was entered into a database (Table 1) and subjected to further analysis. Separately located parks and gardens (public parks) were not included in the cataloguing process. It should be stressed that this cataloguing concerns tour circuits that are organised by the heritage authority or by the owner of the monument in question and are intended to present the valuable features of a historic park or monument. There are, of course, also paths and routes leading through landscape parks, e.g. those of the Czech Tourists Club. These trails, however, are founded on utterly different principles from standard heritage principles. At the same time, it should be taken into account that the way monuments, especially privately owned monuments, are presented changes frequently (e.g. the presentation of Hluboš chateau and park, which was also catalogued, was terminated in 2010). 2.2 Krásný Dvůr chateau, national cultural heritage monument The municipality of Krásný Dvůr (population approx. 750) is situated in the northwest of the Czech Republic, just under 100 km from Prague. The state-owned Baroque chateau, with a chateau park spread over an area of approximately 1 km2 between the municipalities of Krásný Dvůr and Brody (Figure 1), stands on the southern edge of the village. This was one of the first Romantic landscape parks in the Czech Republic, and is the biggest English garden in the Czech Republic (Lorenc and Tříska, 1954). The park was founded 196 in the 1780s by Jan Rudolf Czernín (Klobasa, 2000) on the foundations of a Renaissance villa and a Baroque garden; it contained a number of Romantic buildings. The cour d’honneur and the three-pronged avenue typical of these earliest landscape compositions and originally connecting the garden to the surrounding countryside are elements of the Baroque design that have been preserved. The shallow valley of Leskovský stream forms the park’s northern border; to the south there are slopes with a relative elevation of as much as 100 m. Meadows with oak trees hundreds of years old (the vegetation is original and additional plantings used local tree species). A 1 km long hornbeam alley ending with a tall obelisk forms the park’s main axis. The park contains a diverse range of garden architecture, e.g. Pan’s Temple, a Gothic temple as a viewing tower, a Chinese Pavilion, an artificial grotto with ancient Roman and Greek tombs, a hermitage and a Dutch farm (Pacáková-Hošťálková, 1999). The Krásný Dvůr landscape park did not undergo any major alterations in later times and is thus a unique example of the Romantic landscape gardening style (Dvořáček, 2008), and it is in this context that it should be presented to the public. It should be mentioned that four Czech Tourists Club footpaths run through the park; however, these trails are based on tourist principles and not on heritage principles. 2.3 Methodological principles for creating a tour route through historic gardens and parks The methodological principles for creating tour routes in historic gardens and landscape parks are based on the key documents of heritage care theory and practice and on relevant experience from other countries. As mentioned in the introduction to this study, heritage care takes on different forms in different countries and in different cultural circles; for that reason every methodological approach is highly individual (unless it is to be entirely general, which is unavoidable in certain cases). The basic theoretical guideline for methodologically defining the presentation of historic gardens and parks is the Florence Charter, promulgated by ICOMOS. The Florence Charter deals with the issue of care for historic gardens on an international level; it deals with maintenance, restoration and reconstruction, use, and legal and T. Hájek et al.: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 191 – 201 administrative protection. It entered into effect in 1982 as an adjunct to the Venice Charter, with particular regard to vegetal material that is living and thus perishable. The Florence Charter provides that a historic garden or park is a vegetal and architectural composition and is as such considered a monument, irrespective of its size. The Florence Charter contains 25 articles, the most important of which is Article 7, which states that if a garden is attached to a building it is an inseparable complement to it. Article 18 is no less important. It says: “While any historic garden is designed to be seen and walked about in, access to it must be restricted to the extent demanded by its size and vulnerability, so that its physical fabric and cultural message may be preserved.” Besides the Florence Charter, the methodological principles draw on other theoretical sources (e.g. heritage reports, domestic and foreign publications on historic gardens and parks). Methodological principles will be put forward for a tour route in the English garden of Krásný Dvůr in a comprehensive manner, i.e. the methodology will be tailored to a specific garden, with some significance for related monuments (i.e. English landscape parks). 3. Results 3.1 Presentation of monuments open to the public in the Czech Republic In total, data was gathered on 300 heritage monuments. 80 of the monuments (27%) possess only a park; 15 monuments (5%) only a historic garden; and 25 monuments (8%) both a park and a garden. Only 25% (i.e. 10) of those monuments that include a historic garden have a tour route leading through the garden. In the case of parks the number is even lower at 6%, i.e. only 6 monuments. In monuments that have a garden and a park, tour routes lead through the historic garden rather than the park (16% garden, 4% park). As regards the concept of the presentation of the garden or park, 75% of the gardens and parks are presented as part of a tour circuit that is primarily devoted to another subject. 19% of the monuments only allow unaccompanied visits to the garden or park, and only 6% of the monuments offer a tour route devoted primarily to the garden (i.e. one monument, Děčín chateau). The cataloguing results clearly show that the presentation of gardens and parks is insufficient and highly unsatisfactory in heritage monuments open to the public in the Czech Republic. As regards the concept of the presentation of existing visitor circuits that lead through a garden or park, the cataloguing results show that the presentation is not systematic; the garden or park is most commonly presented as part of a circuit with a different thematic focus or an individual visit without any guide to expound. 3.2 Methodological principles for creating tour routes through historic gardens and parks and their application The identified shortage of tour routes presenting gardens and parks suggests that there is an urgent need for methodological principles for creating such routes. Our proposal sets forth individual methodological principles for presenting a specific garden monument, the Krásný Dvůr chateau park; it also has relevance for similar monuments, i.e. English landscape parks. The results of cataloguing show that Krásný Dvůr chateau, a national cultural monument, is state-owned and that the presentation takes place via a single visitor circuit that leads through the first floor of the chateau building. The heritage aspect of the English landscape park is currently only presented in brochures. Basic methodological principles for creating tour routes presenting gardens or parks 1) The garden or park cannot be interpreted separately from the building that it forms a part of. Tour routes through a garden or park are therefore principally connected with tour routes in the main building and with the overall heritage value of the complex. NB: If this is not the case, and only part of a historic garden or a segment of it is interpreted distinctly from the whole, e.g. only garden architecture for architects, or dendrological aspects for dendrologists, it will infringe on the operation of the garden and will lead to the garden’s essence being overlooked in the historical and present-day context. 2) Tour routes should be highly representative of the overall value of the complex being presented. 197 T. Hájek et al.: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 191 – 201 They should integrate the architectural and vegetal composition of the garden or park. 3) The principles of tour routes based on heritage care theory should be distinguished from the tourist approach, which aims eclectically to link sites with the highest visitor potential (e.g. visually interesting sites, sites linked to legend or to a famous person, etc.) and thus to create a rounded tourist product. 4) The correct presentation of gardens or parks in a heritage sense cannot endeavour to achieve the greatest possible numbers of visitors, just as it cannot abandon a systematic approach to designing visitor circuits based on a unifying interpretational formula. One possible interpretational formula in the case of the English landscape park at Krásný Dvůr is to interpret it in the context of the founding of the park and in the didactic context of the general principles of designing English landscape parks. The tour route should fully and utterly respect the preserved path network and should not create new paths. 5) The tour route should start and end at the main chateau building. Actual course of the tour route through the Krásný Dvůr chateau park To a large extent, the tour route respects the development over time of the Krásný Dvůr chateau park; its individual stopping points present the fundamental principles of English park design, including anachronisms. The stopping points are situated at points where there are key landscape compositions that constitute a significant, though no longer existing, evolutionary phase of the park or an unrealised intention. Figure 2. Proposed tour route through the grounds of Krásný Dvůr with nine stopping points (1 – By the two-winged staircase in the chateau courtyard; 2 – In front of the chateau’s entrance gate; 3 – Beneath the cluster of horse chestnuts; 4 – The old oak; 5 Snílek Lake; 6 – Pan’s Temple and waterfall; 7 – Below the gloriette; 8 – Edge of the Great Meadow; 9 – Beginning of the vista of the obelisk). 198 T. Hájek et al.: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 191 – 201 The proposed tour route has 9 stopping points (Figure 2): Stopping Point 1, Chateau courtyard by the twowinged staircase: presents the inseparably of the park from the chateau and the links between the two. The central exposition themes are the Baroque parterre built on artificially constructed terrain and the cour d’honneur, its creation and function (Figure 3a, b). Stopping Point 2, In front of the chateau’s entrance gate: presents the trident of alleys converging at the gate of the castle courtyard, which highlights the link between the garden and the countryside and one of the fundamental ideas of landscape design during the Baroque period (Figure 3c). Stopping Point 3, Beneath the cluster of horse chestnuts: demonstrates one of the fundamental ideas of the English park, the principle of light and shade playing a key role in spatial design (Figure 3d). Stopping Point 4, The old oak: deals with the subject of trees as part of the English landscape park. The park made use of the original old trees, sensitively combined with new plantings of mainly local tree species (Figure 3e). Stopping Point 5, Snílek Pond, presents the principle of the use of water in English landscape parks. Water features were created in a natural form in the lowest parts of the terrain to reflect an organic shape (Figure 3g). Stopping Point 6, Pan’s Temple and waterfall: devoted to the oldest garden pavilion in the park, built in the spirit of antiquity. Contrasting with the charming park scenery, the idyllic meadows and temple create a dramatically pronounced rocky formation with a waterfall (Figure 3f). Stopping Point 7, Below the gloriette: presents a view of the gloriette and a moment of surprise linked to the way solitaire trees were planted in English landscape parks – they were used to create a stronger visual effect (Figure 3h). Stopping Point 8, Edge of the Great Meadow, presents the classical principle of working with vegetation in English landscaping, where a space is modelled by a tree level; the trees frame vistas and views, create a contrast of light and shade and offer surprising images. The layout uses waves and curves, not direct and regular lines; small copses are planted to help shape the space. Major dominant features are used in the space – a Gothic temple – and are visible from near and far (Figure 3i). Stopping Point 9, Beginning of the view of the obelisk: presents axial vistas and views in English landscaping. This over 1 km long vista of the obelisk lined by a hornbeam alley (not entirely typical for English parks) is an utterly exceptional feature in the Czech Republic. It draws attention to the monumentality and turbulence of events in the Austrian empire during the Napoleonic wars (Figure 3j). 4. Summary The cataloguing of the ways in which heritage monuments open to the public are presented in the Czech Republic shows that the presentation of gardens and parks as inseparable parts of monuments is insufficient, if not critically poor. What is more, most monuments with visitor circuits presenting a garden or park treat this presentation in a way that does not conform to the principles of heritage care. The results of this study show that creating tour routes through a historic garden or park in line with heritage principles is one way to present these monuments in a historical context. The proposed tour route in the park of Krásný Dvůr chateau respects the historical, chronological and spatial development of the park, and presents the ideas applied in designing an English landscape park in the 18th century. Historic parks or gardens are cultural monuments on an equal footing with historic buildings (they are sometimes more important than the buildings they are attached to) and should therefore not be a mere backdrop. Only a few historic gardens and parks receive adequate attention, whether from the public or in state heritage budgets. For this reason, these historic works of gardening and landscaping art should be presented via the kind of conceptual approach that will showcase their importance in the historical, aesthetic and evolutionary context. Acknowledgements This study was produced by making a detailed elaboration of aspects of the study entitled Analysis of Necessary New Trends in the Presentation of 199 T. Hájek et al.: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 191 – 201 Figure 3. Photographs showing the stopping points on the tour route (a – Krásný Dvůr chateau; b – cour d’honneur with view of the countryside; c - Baroque trident in front of the castle gate; d – principle of light and shade; e – solitary oak tree framing the view of the summer-house; f – Pan’s Temple and its location in the meadow; g – Snílek Pond as a mirror; h – the surprising view of the gloriette beyond the trees; i – the Great Meadow with the vista of the Gothic Temple; j – vista of the obelisk linked with the hornbeam alley). 200 T. Hájek et al.: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 191 – 201 Heritage Buildings (in the territory of the Czech Republic) Open to the Public as Part of the Tourism Industry, which was commissioned by the Ministry for Regional Development and drawn up by Project Solutions s.r.o. in 2009. References Alberti, L. B. 1956. Deset knih o architektuře. SNKLHU, Prague, CR. Blažíček, O. J. 1983. Minulost a současné otázky prezentace zámeckých interiérů. Metodické listy, Ústí nad Labem monuments authority, CR. Brandi, C. 2000. Teorie restaurování. Tichá Byzanc, Kutná Hora, CR. Heritage monument brochures: Ploskovice chateau, Kynžvart chateau, Rožmberk castle and chateau, Velhartice castle, Sychrov chateau, Hořovice chateau, Jaroměřice nad Rokytnou chateau. Connell, J. 2004. The purest of human pleasures: the characteristics and motivations of garden visitors in Great Britain. Tourism Management, 25: 229 – 247. Czech National Committee of ICOMOS, 2001. ICOMOS international documents on cultural heritage preservation, issued by the Czech National Committee of ICOMOS, Prague, CR. Dehio, G. 1907. Ochrana a zachování památek. Society of Friends of Czech Antiques, Prague, CR. Dokoupil, Z., Naumann, P., Riedl, D., Veselý, V. 1957. Historické zahrady v Čechách a na Moravě. Nakladatelství československých výtvarných umělců, Prague, CR. Dvořáček, P. 2008. Naše nejkrásnější zahrady. Rubico, Olomouc, CR. Dvořák, M. 1991 Katechismus památková péče, State Heritage Institute, Prague, CR. Gallagher, J. 1983. Visiting historic gardens. A report on contemporary garden visiting and its literature. Planning Research Unit, School of Planning and Environmental Studies, Leeds Polytechnic, Leeds, UK. Hájek, T. 2005. Zánik a vznik památkových péčí: filosofie památkové péče. Epocha, Prague, CR. Hendrych, J. 2000. Tvorba krajiny a zahrad III. ČVUT, Prague, CR. Holubičková, P. 2008. Památková péče v České republice a ve Francii. Diploma work. Masaryk University, Brno, CR. Jančo, M. 2009. Historické zahrady a parky a jejich obnova z pohledu zahradního archeologického výzkumu. Heritage Care Reports, year 69, number 5: 358-370. Kesner, L. 2005. Marketing a management muzeí a památek. Grada Publishing, Prague, CR. Klobasa, P. 2000. Czerninové z Chudenic. Stručné dějiny rodu a schematismus rodových panství. Historicko-Vlastivědný spolek v Českých Budějovicích, České Budějovice, CR. Kohlschmidt S. et al. 1995. Im Spiegel der Erinnerung Hermann Fürst von Pückler-Muskau, Edition Branitz, Fürst Pückler Museum. Kolektiv, 2001. Palácové zahrady pod pražským hradem [Palace Gardens Below the Prague Castle]. State Heritage Institute, Prague, CR. Lorenc, V., Tříska, K. 1954. Krásný Dvůr, Státní zámek a okolí. Státní tělovýchovné nakladatelství pro Státní památkovou správu, Prague, CR. Makásek, I. et al. 1987. Portál 31/1987, bulletin of voluntary assets of state heritage care and nature conservation. Prague Centre of Heritage Care and Nature Conservation, Prague, CR. Ondřej, J. 1964. Zámecké parky a zahrady středních Čech. Central Bohemian Regional Centre of Heritage Care and Nature Conservation. Prague, CR. Pacáková-Hošťálková, B. et al. 1999. Zahrady a parky v Čechách, na Moravě a ve Slezsku. LIBRI, Prague, CR. Palmer, M. 2009. A model creation: Celebrating the legacy of Charles Darwin. Heritage Today, March 2009: 17 – 21. Pavlátová, M., Ehrlich, M. et al. 2004. Zahrady a parky Jižních Čech. Společnost pro zahradní a krajinářskou tvorbu, o.s. a Nebe s.r.o., Prague, CR. Riedl, D. 2005. O obnově historických zahrad, zámecká zahrada v Miloticích. National Heritage Institute, Brno, CR. Riegl, A. 2003. Moderní památková péče. National Heritage Institute – head-office, Prague, CR. Richter, V. 1993. Památka a péče. State Heritage Care Institute, Prague, CR. Sedlmayr, H. 1993. Demolovaná krása. State Heritage Care Institute, Prague, CR. Sršeň, L. 1994. Památkový objekt jako muzeum. In: Sborník Seminář ke správě a prezentaci veřejnosti přístupných památkových objektů, State Heritage Care Institute and Heritage Institute in České Budějovice, Jindřichův Hradec, 11-13 October 1994. Sučková, K., Abušinov, R. 2005. Kamenný klíč k hradům, zámkům a dalším zpřístupněným památkám v České republice. Kateřina Sučková, Příbram, CR. Štěch, V.V. 1968. Cena stáří, Staletá Praha digest – year III. Prague Centre of Heritage Care and Nature Conservation, Prague, CR. Uhlíková, K. 2004. Národní kulturní komise 1947-1951, Fontes Historiae Artium XI, Artefactum, History of Art Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the CR, Prague, CR. Vagner, V. 2005. Umělecké dílo minulosti a jeho ochrana. National Heritage Institute, Prague, CR. Vinter, V. 1982. Úvod do dějin a teorie památkové péče I., Nástin vývoje a základní ideové otázky. Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, Prague, CR. Zídek, M. 2000. Ochrana památek v Rakousku, Almanach programu městských památkových rezervací a městských památkových zón. Ministry of Culture, Prague, CR. 201