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