Six Dresdens - A Visual Journey
Up at 7 for the hens as usual, and then back to bed, again now as usual. Though I am not at all a morning person and arise from bed each day with the sole desire of returning (or indeed of not rising at all), by the time I return having been exposed to movement and the outdoor world my desire is only for a little extended comfort rather than sleep. Today I watch a film on Dresden, of footage shot in 1990-91, only a year before I was first there, un-narrated except for occasional lines from Baudelaire's 'Fleurs de Mal' displayed in French but read in German.
Dresden is a difficult city to truly capture photographically, whether still or moving. Old paintings perhaps come closest, but they depict one Dresden, whereas during the course of the film I consider at least 6 Dresdens, each a different entity on its own.
The first is the old city, the baroque city of art and culture, the city of Augustus The Strong that stood with Prague and Vienna. This is the city of the paintings, the bridge under moonlight, the Florence on the Elbe, the romantic city beneath the hill.
The second Dresden is the destroyed city, the fire bombs of Vonnegut and the hollow ruins. You could even say this Dresden was foreshadowed in painting, the ruined Kreuzkirche pulled down by Prussian assault in the Seven Years War.
The third Dresden is the reconstructed city, the old-new buildings that seek to recreate the first Dresden, yet they are not strictly the same. It is an old philosophical debate, Theseus' ship. If Theseus has a ship, the question goes, and over time every part of it is replaced as it becomes worn down, so that eventually every plank, every nail is no longer that of the original - is it still the same ship? If Augustus The Strong walked across the castle floor and the building later reduced to hollow ruin, can we still stand on the new floor and say "the footsteps of Augustus The Strong fell here"?
That which unites these first 3 Dresdens is the two-tone Frauenkirche. For 200 years it was, then suddenly in 1945 it wasn't. By 1992 when I first visited, it was still largely this way, my overriding memory of the city the pile of rubble by a wide open car park. Now it is again, bright new sandstone mixing with as much of the original stonework as could be recovered, blackened by fire and the life of the city, and so naturally for many the Frauenkirche is Dresden and vice versa.
The fourth Dresden is the East German city, the panelak housing, the now-faded modernism. It's easy to fall into the trap of dismissing this fourth Dresden, most architectural tastes (including mine) are against it, it speaks of an era of occupation, of an oppressive political system and the eyes of the Stasi, and its construction is of poor quality besides. But people lived in this Dresden, made fond memories and happy homes; are they not Dresden as much as any other? Who are we to invalidate their lives and memories, their laughter and joy? It has been a difficult line to walk since reunification, the West must be careful of coming into the East and saying we in the correct world will now erase the incorrect world you have known for 45 years.
The fifth Dresden is the modern city, shopping malls, glass offices, the places that could be and are in any other city in the world, the nondescript, yet lives go on in and around them all the same. To many residents this Dresden might be the real Dresden, the first three are for the tourists, perhaps even the fourth to some extent.
The sixth Dresden is one I have only experienced through the film, and that is the declined city. I have not witnessed this Dresden, but have experienced it in Edinburgh almost two decades ago, photographed it extensively while first enchanted by urban decay. It is a temporary state soon rendered unrecognisable, yet can develop again anywhere at any time, and surprisingly quickly. This final, ephemeral Dresden we can be glad of the film for capturing, along with the shadows of all the other Dresdens that have come before and stand alongside yet.
Whichever Dresden you choose to walk through it is now, like Berlin, a place of complex legacies not easily captured.
Dresden is a difficult city to truly capture photographically, whether still or moving. Old paintings perhaps come closest, but they depict one Dresden, whereas during the course of the film I consider at least 6 Dresdens, each a different entity on its own.
The first is the old city, the baroque city of art and culture, the city of Augustus The Strong that stood with Prague and Vienna. This is the city of the paintings, the bridge under moonlight, the Florence on the Elbe, the romantic city beneath the hill.
The second Dresden is the destroyed city, the fire bombs of Vonnegut and the hollow ruins. You could even say this Dresden was foreshadowed in painting, the ruined Kreuzkirche pulled down by Prussian assault in the Seven Years War.
The third Dresden is the reconstructed city, the old-new buildings that seek to recreate the first Dresden, yet they are not strictly the same. It is an old philosophical debate, Theseus' ship. If Theseus has a ship, the question goes, and over time every part of it is replaced as it becomes worn down, so that eventually every plank, every nail is no longer that of the original - is it still the same ship? If Augustus The Strong walked across the castle floor and the building later reduced to hollow ruin, can we still stand on the new floor and say "the footsteps of Augustus The Strong fell here"?
That which unites these first 3 Dresdens is the two-tone Frauenkirche. For 200 years it was, then suddenly in 1945 it wasn't. By 1992 when I first visited, it was still largely this way, my overriding memory of the city the pile of rubble by a wide open car park. Now it is again, bright new sandstone mixing with as much of the original stonework as could be recovered, blackened by fire and the life of the city, and so naturally for many the Frauenkirche is Dresden and vice versa.
The fourth Dresden is the East German city, the panelak housing, the now-faded modernism. It's easy to fall into the trap of dismissing this fourth Dresden, most architectural tastes (including mine) are against it, it speaks of an era of occupation, of an oppressive political system and the eyes of the Stasi, and its construction is of poor quality besides. But people lived in this Dresden, made fond memories and happy homes; are they not Dresden as much as any other? Who are we to invalidate their lives and memories, their laughter and joy? It has been a difficult line to walk since reunification, the West must be careful of coming into the East and saying we in the correct world will now erase the incorrect world you have known for 45 years.
The fifth Dresden is the modern city, shopping malls, glass offices, the places that could be and are in any other city in the world, the nondescript, yet lives go on in and around them all the same. To many residents this Dresden might be the real Dresden, the first three are for the tourists, perhaps even the fourth to some extent.
The sixth Dresden is one I have only experienced through the film, and that is the declined city. I have not witnessed this Dresden, but have experienced it in Edinburgh almost two decades ago, photographed it extensively while first enchanted by urban decay. It is a temporary state soon rendered unrecognisable, yet can develop again anywhere at any time, and surprisingly quickly. This final, ephemeral Dresden we can be glad of the film for capturing, along with the shadows of all the other Dresdens that have come before and stand alongside yet.
Whichever Dresden you choose to walk through it is now, like Berlin, a place of complex legacies not easily captured.