How far should one go?

The reconstruction of Charlottenburg Palace was an extraordinarily impressive achievement and one that was initiated and carried out by only a small number of highly committed men and women. In addition to the organizational challenges of coordinating all the persons and bodies involved, decisions regularly had to be made concerning the future appearance of individual sections of the building. To lay the ground for the reconstruction of the historical monument, the extant remains had to be examined and recorded, and documentary evidence – pre-war photographs, prints and drawings, plans and descriptions – had to be collected. Only after the significance of this source material for Charlottenburg as a historical monument had been assessed could the real discussion begin – and even then, as today, the decision-making process was influenced not only by the financial and technical possibilities and the artistic personnel available but also by interests in society at large, political pressure, the question of future utilizations and, not least, personal tastes. Another factor that played a role was the quantity of furnishings still in existence. Within these demanding parameters, the overriding priority was to preserve the dignity of the building and yet to create a new atmosphere through which to convey its value and identity as a historical monument. This is why the decades-long process of reconstruction did not involve the application of rigid methodology – on the contrary, whenever a new problem arose or a new section of the building was to be dealt with, the goal was always to find the best possible solution for the respective matter in hand. The following examples are intended to illustrate the variety of different approaches applied.

As a result of the air raids of 1943/1945, Charlottenburg Palace suffered massive destruction and damage through fire, explosions and water. Only after the statics had been checked, the remaining fabric made secure and weather protection put in place was it possible to examine the surfaces and safeguard the surviving materials and colours. In a few cases, rooms had survived in such a good state of preservation that the imperfections and traces of damage could be concealed by freshening up, partial reworking of surfaces, or small replacements – here, this process will be referred to as restoration. 

In certain rooms at Charlottenburg, the destruction of the decoration was so extensive that to restore just the surviving remains would not have given an impression of the room’s original appearance. If, however, there were photographs, descriptions and surviving material fragments to provide detailed information about forms, proportions, materials and colours, the persons responsible could consider the possibility of a reconstruction. In such cases, the process was not so much a strict re-enacting of the original craftsmanship as of a striving for an artistic approximation to the original.

One important initial step towards recovering the impression of a given room or space was to reconstruct its original structure and its most formative ornamental elements and wall hangings or painted surfaces. Then, in a series of steps, followed the parts demanding more elaborate work, such as chimney-pieces or ceiling paintings. Decisions regarding their reconstruction might not be taken for years and depended not least on the extent of documentation and of the availability of artists and financial means. When a conscious decision was made not to reconstruct such elements, the room in question is said to have undergone a partial reconstruction.

Palaces are not immutable stage sets but living organisms that have undergone repeated changes over the centuries. From the late nineteenth century onwards, art historians have regarded the first state as the original and thus of higher value than states featuring later additions. Even in the years immediately following the nationalization of the properties in 1918 and their subsequent opening to the public as museums, those responsible strove to restore rooms and gardens to their earlier state. Following the total destruction of Charlottenburg Palace, it was possible at various locations to pursue this goal on a larger scale through the free reconstruction of historical states.

Those responsible for the reconstruction of Charlottenburg Palace drew not only on photographs of the pre-war states but also on older pictorial sources such as Baroque engravings. In the latter case, they were aware that the artists often not only depicted the real state but also incorporated suggestions for improvements or plans that were subsequently not carried out. Pursuing the principle that the reconstruction was not simply to replicate the pre-war state but to realize an ideal of the Baroque palace, they were even prepared to make additions inspired by historical graphic sources but never actually implemented before.

The persons in charge of the reconstruction of Charlottenburg Palace and its garden were now and again confronted with gaps in the documentation of the pre-war state, so that free decisions had to be made concerning certain details. In doing this, however, they were always at pains to base their interpretations on the palace’s history and ‘spirit’. One notable exception to this was the case of the balustrade above the carp pond, which was in no sense a reconstruction but a free invention consciously intended to mark a dividing line in the garden. 

Click here for the story "The White Hall in focus"