Papers by Cosmin Minea
Periodization in the Art Historiographies of Central and Eastern Europe, 2022
This chapter analyses the first writings about Romanian art in the decades following the formatio... more This chapter analyses the first writings about Romanian art in the decades following the formation of the nation-state in 1859 and explains the configuration of key artistic periods that constituted the basis of the future history of Romanian art. It focuses first on the notion of the ‘Byzantine style’ and examines how this was used by both foreign and local commentators to describe, restore and promote historical monuments in Romania. It shows how they struggled to integrate Romanian art into a grand narrative of European art, often resorting to uniformization and a disregard for local specificities. The second part explores writings that represent a rupture with earlier approaches, and which were both an expression of an emancipated local voice and the basis for future, ethnic-focused histories of Romanian art. The new narratives centred on the distinctive monuments of the Brâncovenesc period, which were promoted by more and more thinkers as representing the first truly ‘national’ architecture. Although it has received less scholarly attention, Romanian art historiography from the second half of the nineteenth century was the basis from which the grand narratives of Romanian art history emerged in the twentieth century. It also provided the artistic source material for the Neo-Romanian architectural style.
Art East Central, 2022
This article offers a critical reading of the works and thinking of the celebrated Romanian archi... more This article offers a critical reading of the works and thinking of the celebrated Romanian architect Ion Mincu (1852-1912) in relation to the broader cultural and political context of the new nation-state. It investigates the literature on him up until the present day to trace the formation of his image as 'creator' of the Romanian (also known as Neo-Romanian or National) architectural style before presenting Mincu's range of artistic interests, innovative ideas and designs. Even if famous in Romania, Mincu is little-known for an English-language audience and partly to blame is precisely his fame as national architect which has made him a central figure only in histories of Romanian art and architecture. However, the article shows that Mincu harboured a diverse range of artistic ideas and interests, not all related to Romanian national ideology. His understanding of the relation between local building traditions and contemporary architecture was multi-faceted and driven by attempts to reconcile ideas about artistic progress and modernity with those about traditions and cultural identity. Therefore, the article move beyond the connection between his work and ideas about national identity in order to discern his many artistic concerns and his complex relation to the Romanian architectural heritage.
Anastasis Review, 2021
This article describes how the material heritage was given new shape and meaning in the context o... more This article describes how the material heritage was given new shape and meaning in the context of the new nation-state of Romania. It starts by looking at the history of the first public museum in Romania, namely the Museum of Natural History and Antiquities in Bucharest and also at the broader interest in the Roman antiquities in 19th century Romania. It then focuses on the first restoration of historical monuments and the initiatives of two of the most well-known architects at the time to establish museums of religious art: André Lecomte du Noüy (1844-1914) and Ion Mincu (1852-1912). The process of creating a national heritage for Romania has led to the design of valuable new buildings and was underpinned by a powerful will to modernise the country. At the same time, it has represented a destructive force. The built fabric of historical sites and historical artefacts were reshaped, rebuilt, given new meanings and context, so that to fit into the political objectives of the new nation-state. The article will balance and analyse the significance of these various efforts to restore historical monuments and establish the first museums of Romanian heritage.
Art and Politics in the Modern Period Conference Proceedings, 2019
This paper explains the emergence of a national architectural heritage in late 19th century Roman... more This paper explains the emergence of a national architectural heritage in late 19th century Romania as a result of multiple transnational interactions between French, German-speaking and Romanian artists and scholars. It considers the first architectural study on a monument in Romania, written by the Habsburg scholar Ludwig Reissenberger, the Romanian pavilion at the 1867 Universal Exhibition designed by the French architect Ambroise Baudry and the restorations of historical monuments in Romania done by another French architect, André Lecomte du Noüy. The essay also ponders local reactions to all these works, by scholars such as Alexandru Odobescu and architects such as Dimitrie Berindei and George Sterian. It shows how Romanians were not passive receivers of European artistic norms or styles, but actively shaped and adapted foreign ideas and works to eventually develop new methods for the preservation and promotion of the Romanian architectural heritage.
RESTORATION OF HISTORICAL MONUMENTS IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY EUROPE: ‘THE BATTLE FOR STAVROPOLEOS
https://arthist.ro/2020/10/restoration-of-historical-monuments-in-twentieth-century-europe-the-battle-for-stavropoleos/, 2020
A small but lavishly decorated eighteenth-century monastery in the centre of Bucharest reveals di... more A small but lavishly decorated eighteenth-century monastery in the centre of Bucharest reveals different ideas about the conservation and promotion of historical monuments in early twentieth-century Europe and gives important lessons about the management of heritage sites today.
The first attempts at defining what was perceived in the 19th century as a “Romanian” architectur... more The first attempts at defining what was perceived in the 19th century as a “Romanian” architectural style and at creating a national architectural heritage had at the forefront the 16th century monastery of Curtea de Argeş. Its 19th century discovery in the first modern architectural studies, its display in world exhibitions and finally its restoration illustrate how old monuments in Romania came to be used as proof and visual illustration of the country’s national history and thus as symbols of the new state. The paper aims to show that architecture gradually came to prominence in the process of nation-building through the example of Curtea de Argeş and, at the same time aims, to draw a new light on the way in which national ideologies are constructed. The example of the architectural heritage reveals a dual impetus from both local and foreign actors, events or publications, proving how national histories and ideologies are constructed at the borderline between foreign ideas and actors, on the one hand, and local decision-makers, on the other. The paper looks at Curtea de Argeş monastery as the central subject to a number of events and publications from mid to late 19th century. It starts with the first art history study on an artwork from Romania, the volume on Curtea de Argeş by the Habsburg scholar Ludwig Reissenberger. Reissenberger’s work raised awareness of the architectural heritage, stirred debates and responses from the Romanian intellectuals like, for instance, the writings on architecture of Dimitrie Berindei and Alexandru Odobescu. All these three works have only been briefly mentioned in the literature and are for the first time considered at length. The next part culminates with the display of Curtea de Argeş at the 1867 Paris Universal Exhibition where for the first time the monument stood as a symbol of the new Romanian state. In the final chapter the paper looks at the long but lavish restoration of Curtea de Argeş. Carried out between 1875-1886 by the French architect Andre Lecomte du Noüy, it marked the moment when the monastery became the landmark of the new Romanian state. The paper concludes at the end of the 19th century when the Romanian architectural heritage began to take shape and fulfil its role as support for the national narrative and basis for the future National Style in architecture. Overall, the architectural heritage emergences at the crossroads of foreign and local inputs, involving writings, exhibitions, restorations and research, all focused around Curtea de Argeş Monastery.
19th Century Universal Exhibitions were essential opportunities for newly emerged countries to de... more 19th Century Universal Exhibitions were essential opportunities for newly emerged countries to define a cultural identity. I explore in more depth here the architectural display of Greece, Serbia and Romania at 1889 Universal Exhibition in Paris.
The two books, outcome of PhD dissertations by Romanian scholars, contribute to further defining ... more The two books, outcome of PhD dissertations by Romanian scholars, contribute to further defining and enriching the understanding of the turn of the 19th century Romanian National style.
At all three Parisian Universal Exhibition in which it participated in the 19 th century, 1867, 1... more At all three Parisian Universal Exhibition in which it participated in the 19 th century, 1867, 1889 and 1900, Romanian tried to display a unique architectural style to remind of its ancient monuments and cultural heritage. However the French audience saw the architecture as representing an Oriental culture that displayed Oriental architectural motifs. What is more, the majority of architects who designed the constructions were French and they used oriental architectural motifs, considered in the national discourse to be specific Romanian. My paper sheds light on the inherent difficulties the young Romanian state had in forging and promoting a national ideology.
An Image for the Nation: Architecture of the Balkan Countries at 19th Century Universal Exhibitions in Paris, (MA Thesis, Central European University, Budapest, 2014)
In this research I analyse the architecture of the Balkan nations at four 19th century Universal ... more In this research I analyse the architecture of the Balkan nations at four 19th century Universal Exhibitions in Paris as well as their reception by the French audience. I argue that by way of participating and designing “national” architecture, the countries from the Balkans had to pose new questions and find quick answers related to national representation, architecture and cultural heritage.
Books by Cosmin Minea
rt and Politics in the Modern Period. Conference Proceedings, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, 2019, 2019
How artists and intellectuals of various nationalities contributed at restoring, promoting and ma... more How artists and intellectuals of various nationalities contributed at restoring, promoting and making historical monuments relevant for the new nation-state of Romania
This collection of essays focuses on the exhibition architecture in Central and Eastern European ... more This collection of essays focuses on the exhibition architecture in Central and Eastern European countries, a region of fluid geo-political conception, composed of multi-ethnic countries with constantly shifting borders. The authors analyse temporary constructions erected for national and international exhibitions in the 19th and 20th centuries presenting Polish, Czechoslovak, Hungarian, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian-Herzegovinian, Yugoslav, Romanian, Russian cases. In the papers the pavilions are considered hubs of architectural and artistic trends, political visions of this culturally heterogeneous territory. The papers demonstrate the complex political, cultural, social, economic and urban context in which the exhibition architecture was created. The complexity of the hitherto less known Central-Eastern European exhibition architecture is demonstrated not only by the variety of cases analyzed, but also by the diversity of scholarly approaches applied. In the 19th century pavilions and exhibition galleries were powerful means for nation building and mass entertainment, as well as they provided a "magic frame" for the latest technological and cultural achievements. In 20th century ephemeral constructions were often appropriated and utilized by the changing political regimes for power demonstration or for signifying their role as flagships of modernism.
Talks by Cosmin Minea
What happens when those living alongside historical monuments—churchgoers, farmers, workers, cust... more What happens when those living alongside historical monuments—churchgoers, farmers, workers, custodians, local officials, non-human entities—see these sites as theirs? Through what sources and scholarly approaches can we recover their voices and their role in the state-led activities of restoration and preservation of architectural monuments?
This conference explores the debates, conflicts and role of local communities in the heritage politics starting from the mid-19th century and focusing especially but not exclusively on Central and Eastern Europe. It also seeks to understand the role of non-human actors, such as plants, animals, natural formations, weather and the different, more-than-human perspectives, they bring to the process of heritage making. The conference is based on the premise that local communities played an unrecognized role in official heritage policies, through resistance, negotiations, adaptations, and the use of traditions and knowledge. Architects and commissions frequently relied on the knowledge and testimonies of these communities, acted in accordance with their desires and employed them on works of restoration or preservation. At the same time there was often a sense of struggle over the heritage. For example, communities opposed the modifications to their monuments while architects and state institutions had to also prevent transformations, replacements or demolition by the locals.
The institutions, actors and ideologies underpinning the process of heritage building have been thoroughly analysed in groundbreaking studies (Jukka Jokilehto, Miles Glendinning, Brenda Schildgen) as well as more recent works that focus on Central and Eastern Europe (Maria Couroucli and Tchavdar Marinov, Dragan Damjanović and Aleksander Łupienko, Maximilian Hartmuth and Ayse Dilsiz Hartmuth). They have revealed a wealth of case studies that explain how national ideologies shaped a specific vision of the past with the help of historical monuments. These are seen as “living witnesses” of the past, as states the Venice International Charter of 1964, still a reference in the management of architectural heritage today.
However, in the processes of restoration and preservation, other types of “living witnesses” were silenced, namely the local communities and non-human entities. They have been legally and symbolically dispossessed of their monuments, which were placed in the custody of the state. Legitimized by national narratives, “heritage experts” emerged, holding the “authorized heritage discourse” as Laurajane Smith famously noted.
This conference seeks to balance the disproportionate attention that state actors and elites have received and analyse what has been the role as well as the influence on those for whom the monuments were part of their daily lives.
Proposals for 20-minute papers are invited on topics such as:
- Attitudes, reactions, reflections on the state-led restoration activities from the local communities as well as their influential role in the process.
- Grassroots preservation practices. How local communities took care of their historical buildings?
- Local notions of “architectural heritage”. Beyond the dichotomy “bad taste” of locals and the “expertise” of professionals, how did the local population see historical architecture?
- How can we configure a more-than-human perspective on the heritage-making process? What was the role of non-human actors such as insects, rivers, snow, trees, etc.?
- Marginalised communities, minorities, alternative official voices, including responses to quasi-colonial attitudes of the elites of Central and Eastern Europe.
- Discussion of sources. How can we study local voices and what kind of sources did they produce?
- Displaced and destroyed heritage. Responses to the disappearance of the heritage through decay, destruction or relocation to ethnographic museums or other sites.
- Definitions and inquiries into notions of heritage, patrimony, possession, ownership, communities, etc.
The deadline for submission of abstracts of up to 300 words including a short biography is 11 April. They should be sent to cosmin.minea@phil.muni.cz Selected participants will be notified by 22 April. Some travel and accommodation costs may be covered for participants without access to institutional funding.
This conference is hosted by the Masaryk University, Department of Art History and it is part of the project The First Histories of Architecture and the Creation of National Heritage in South- Eastern Europe (1860-1930). A Transnational Approach (GN22-19492I) led by Dr Cosmin Minea.
Book Reviews by Cosmin Minea
Art East/Central , 2024
A Review of: Maximilian Hartmuth and Ayse Dilsiz Hartmuth, eds,
Patrimonialization on the Ruins o... more A Review of: Maximilian Hartmuth and Ayse Dilsiz Hartmuth, eds,
Patrimonialization on the Ruins of Empire. Islamic Heritage
and the Modern State in Post-Ottoman Europe, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2024. 282 pages. ISBN 978-3-8394-7104-3.
Conference Presentations by Cosmin Minea
What happens when those living alongside historical monuments—churchgoers, farmers, workers, cust... more What happens when those living alongside historical monuments—churchgoers, farmers, workers, custodians, local officials, non-human entities—see these sites as theirs? Through what sources and scholarly approaches can we recover their voices and their role in the state-led activities of restoration and preservation of architectural monuments?
This conference explores the debates, conflicts and role of local communities in the heritage politics starting from the mid-19th century and focusing especially but not exclusively on Central and Eastern Europe. It also seeks to understand the role of non-human actors, such as plants, animals, natural formations, weather and the different, more-than-human perspectives, they bring to the process of heritage making. The conference is based on the premise that local communities played an unrecognized role in official heritage policies, through resistance, negotiations, adaptations, and the use of traditions and knowledge. Architects and commissions frequently relied on the knowledge and testimonies of these communities, acted in accordance with their desires and employed them on works of restoration or preservation. At the same time there was often a sense of struggle over the heritage. For example, communities opposed the modifications to their monuments while architects and state institutions had to also prevent transformations, replacements or demolition by the locals.
The institutions, actors and ideologies underpinning the process of heritage building have been thoroughly analysed in groundbreaking studies (Jukka Jokilehto, Miles Glendinning, Brenda Schildgen) as well as more recent works that focus on Central and Eastern Europe (Maria Couroucli and Tchavdar Marinov, Dragan Damjanović and Aleksander Łupienko, Maximilian Hartmuth and Ayse Dilsiz Hartmuth). They have revealed a wealth of case studies that explain how national ideologies shaped a specific vision of the past with the help of historical monuments. These are seen as “living witnesses” of the past, as states the Venice International Charter of 1964, still a reference in the management of architectural heritage today.
However, in the processes of restoration and preservation, other types of “living witnesses” were silenced, namely the local communities and non-human entities. They have been legally and symbolically dispossessed of their monuments, which were placed in the custody of the state. Legitimized by national narratives, “heritage experts” emerged, holding the “authorized heritage discourse” as Laurajane Smith famously noted.
This conference seeks to balance the disproportionate attention that state actors and elites have received and analyse what has been the role as well as the influence on those for whom the monuments were part of their daily lives.
Proposals for 20-minute papers are invited on topics such as:
- Attitudes, reactions, reflections on the state-led restoration activities from the local communities as well as their influential role in the process.
- Grassroots preservation practices. How local communities took care of their historical buildings?
- Local notions of “architectural heritage”. Beyond the dichotomy “bad taste” of locals and the “expertise” of professionals, how did the local population see historical architecture?
- How can we configure a more-than-human perspective on the heritage-making process? What was the role of non-human actors such as insects, rivers, snow, trees, etc.?
- Marginalised communities, minorities, alternative official voices, including responses to quasi-colonial attitudes of the elites of Central and Eastern Europe.
- Discussion of sources. How can we study local voices and what kind of sources did they produce?
- Displaced and destroyed heritage. Responses to the disappearance of the heritage through decay, destruction or relocation to ethnographic museums or other sites.
- Definitions and inquiries into notions of heritage, patrimony, possession, ownership, communities, etc.
The deadline for submission of abstracts of up to 300 words including a short biography is 22 April. They should be sent to cosmin.minea@phil.muni.cz Selected participants will be notified by 28 April. Some travel and accommodation costs may be covered for participants without access to institutional funding.
This conference is hosted by the Masaryk University, Department of Art History and it is part of the project The First Histories of Architecture and the Creation of National Heritage in South- Eastern Europe (1860-1930). A Transnational Approach (GN22-19492I) led by Dr Cosmin Minea.
Uploads
Papers by Cosmin Minea
Books by Cosmin Minea
Talks by Cosmin Minea
This conference explores the debates, conflicts and role of local communities in the heritage politics starting from the mid-19th century and focusing especially but not exclusively on Central and Eastern Europe. It also seeks to understand the role of non-human actors, such as plants, animals, natural formations, weather and the different, more-than-human perspectives, they bring to the process of heritage making. The conference is based on the premise that local communities played an unrecognized role in official heritage policies, through resistance, negotiations, adaptations, and the use of traditions and knowledge. Architects and commissions frequently relied on the knowledge and testimonies of these communities, acted in accordance with their desires and employed them on works of restoration or preservation. At the same time there was often a sense of struggle over the heritage. For example, communities opposed the modifications to their monuments while architects and state institutions had to also prevent transformations, replacements or demolition by the locals.
The institutions, actors and ideologies underpinning the process of heritage building have been thoroughly analysed in groundbreaking studies (Jukka Jokilehto, Miles Glendinning, Brenda Schildgen) as well as more recent works that focus on Central and Eastern Europe (Maria Couroucli and Tchavdar Marinov, Dragan Damjanović and Aleksander Łupienko, Maximilian Hartmuth and Ayse Dilsiz Hartmuth). They have revealed a wealth of case studies that explain how national ideologies shaped a specific vision of the past with the help of historical monuments. These are seen as “living witnesses” of the past, as states the Venice International Charter of 1964, still a reference in the management of architectural heritage today.
However, in the processes of restoration and preservation, other types of “living witnesses” were silenced, namely the local communities and non-human entities. They have been legally and symbolically dispossessed of their monuments, which were placed in the custody of the state. Legitimized by national narratives, “heritage experts” emerged, holding the “authorized heritage discourse” as Laurajane Smith famously noted.
This conference seeks to balance the disproportionate attention that state actors and elites have received and analyse what has been the role as well as the influence on those for whom the monuments were part of their daily lives.
Proposals for 20-minute papers are invited on topics such as:
- Attitudes, reactions, reflections on the state-led restoration activities from the local communities as well as their influential role in the process.
- Grassroots preservation practices. How local communities took care of their historical buildings?
- Local notions of “architectural heritage”. Beyond the dichotomy “bad taste” of locals and the “expertise” of professionals, how did the local population see historical architecture?
- How can we configure a more-than-human perspective on the heritage-making process? What was the role of non-human actors such as insects, rivers, snow, trees, etc.?
- Marginalised communities, minorities, alternative official voices, including responses to quasi-colonial attitudes of the elites of Central and Eastern Europe.
- Discussion of sources. How can we study local voices and what kind of sources did they produce?
- Displaced and destroyed heritage. Responses to the disappearance of the heritage through decay, destruction or relocation to ethnographic museums or other sites.
- Definitions and inquiries into notions of heritage, patrimony, possession, ownership, communities, etc.
The deadline for submission of abstracts of up to 300 words including a short biography is 11 April. They should be sent to cosmin.minea@phil.muni.cz Selected participants will be notified by 22 April. Some travel and accommodation costs may be covered for participants without access to institutional funding.
This conference is hosted by the Masaryk University, Department of Art History and it is part of the project The First Histories of Architecture and the Creation of National Heritage in South- Eastern Europe (1860-1930). A Transnational Approach (GN22-19492I) led by Dr Cosmin Minea.
Book Reviews by Cosmin Minea
Patrimonialization on the Ruins of Empire. Islamic Heritage
and the Modern State in Post-Ottoman Europe, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2024. 282 pages. ISBN 978-3-8394-7104-3.
Conference Presentations by Cosmin Minea
This conference explores the debates, conflicts and role of local communities in the heritage politics starting from the mid-19th century and focusing especially but not exclusively on Central and Eastern Europe. It also seeks to understand the role of non-human actors, such as plants, animals, natural formations, weather and the different, more-than-human perspectives, they bring to the process of heritage making. The conference is based on the premise that local communities played an unrecognized role in official heritage policies, through resistance, negotiations, adaptations, and the use of traditions and knowledge. Architects and commissions frequently relied on the knowledge and testimonies of these communities, acted in accordance with their desires and employed them on works of restoration or preservation. At the same time there was often a sense of struggle over the heritage. For example, communities opposed the modifications to their monuments while architects and state institutions had to also prevent transformations, replacements or demolition by the locals.
The institutions, actors and ideologies underpinning the process of heritage building have been thoroughly analysed in groundbreaking studies (Jukka Jokilehto, Miles Glendinning, Brenda Schildgen) as well as more recent works that focus on Central and Eastern Europe (Maria Couroucli and Tchavdar Marinov, Dragan Damjanović and Aleksander Łupienko, Maximilian Hartmuth and Ayse Dilsiz Hartmuth). They have revealed a wealth of case studies that explain how national ideologies shaped a specific vision of the past with the help of historical monuments. These are seen as “living witnesses” of the past, as states the Venice International Charter of 1964, still a reference in the management of architectural heritage today.
However, in the processes of restoration and preservation, other types of “living witnesses” were silenced, namely the local communities and non-human entities. They have been legally and symbolically dispossessed of their monuments, which were placed in the custody of the state. Legitimized by national narratives, “heritage experts” emerged, holding the “authorized heritage discourse” as Laurajane Smith famously noted.
This conference seeks to balance the disproportionate attention that state actors and elites have received and analyse what has been the role as well as the influence on those for whom the monuments were part of their daily lives.
Proposals for 20-minute papers are invited on topics such as:
- Attitudes, reactions, reflections on the state-led restoration activities from the local communities as well as their influential role in the process.
- Grassroots preservation practices. How local communities took care of their historical buildings?
- Local notions of “architectural heritage”. Beyond the dichotomy “bad taste” of locals and the “expertise” of professionals, how did the local population see historical architecture?
- How can we configure a more-than-human perspective on the heritage-making process? What was the role of non-human actors such as insects, rivers, snow, trees, etc.?
- Marginalised communities, minorities, alternative official voices, including responses to quasi-colonial attitudes of the elites of Central and Eastern Europe.
- Discussion of sources. How can we study local voices and what kind of sources did they produce?
- Displaced and destroyed heritage. Responses to the disappearance of the heritage through decay, destruction or relocation to ethnographic museums or other sites.
- Definitions and inquiries into notions of heritage, patrimony, possession, ownership, communities, etc.
The deadline for submission of abstracts of up to 300 words including a short biography is 22 April. They should be sent to cosmin.minea@phil.muni.cz Selected participants will be notified by 28 April. Some travel and accommodation costs may be covered for participants without access to institutional funding.
This conference is hosted by the Masaryk University, Department of Art History and it is part of the project The First Histories of Architecture and the Creation of National Heritage in South- Eastern Europe (1860-1930). A Transnational Approach (GN22-19492I) led by Dr Cosmin Minea.