From the 1820s the cultural-political sphere in Hungary was increasingly characterized by a struggle for extending constitutional rights and a search for national identity. Following the more dynamic literary endeavours, the architectural field mirrored these developments.
As in other parts of Europe, architecture in the second half of the century was characterized by historicism. A strong mark of transition from classicism was the (privately commissioned) construction of the parish church of Fót (1845-55) by architect Miklós Ybl (1814–1891), in Rundbogenstil with rich Romanesque and Eastern ornaments; the interior with its polychromy recalling an early Christian basilica makes it an early historicist Gesamtkunstwerk.
Despite the failed 1848-49 revolution, the following decades witnessed a rapid urbanization and economic development. The growth of the Jewish population necessitated the building of synagogues. The Pest synagogue (1853-59) was designed by the Viennese architect Ludwig Förster (1797–1863) in Moorish style with polychrome brick façade and domed towers.
The first attempt to devise a characteristically Hungarian national style was the Vigadó (Concert Hall, Assembly Rooms) designed and built by Frigyes Feszl (1821–1884) on the Danube shore in Pest between 1859 and 1865. The Rundbogenstil building contains numerous elements that were considered Hungarian, for example, the so-called “Hungarian knots” decorating uniforms and gala dresses. Feszl also devised some – never implemented – decorative designs adopted from folk culture, like capitals formed of animal heads, peasant girls, etc. The mural decorations in the interior, by Károly Lotz and Mór Thán, displayed historical and legendary scenes, including The feast of Attila.
The drawing teacher József Huszka (1854–1943) was the earliest proponent of nationalizing Hungarian architecture by systematically integrating folk ornaments. In his programmatic treatise Past and present of our national architecture (1892) Huszka, an adherent of Turanism, connected Transylvanian folk motifs and oriental (Sassanian or Persian) art. The components of his stylistic language also included the textile decorations on the so-called cifraszűr (an elaborate leather cloak worn by shepherds) that would later be applied to decorate various architectural surfaces.
Architectural debates about what should be taken as characteristically Hungarian took place mainly when large public constructions were planned. The first of these, around the building of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (1861), was led by Imre Henszlmann (1813–1888), an advocate of French Gothic and an admirer of Viollet-le-Duc. Henszlmann argued for French-style Neo-Gothic on the basis that a national school would truly flourish only if connected to international developments. In the event, the chosen design by the German architect Friedrich August Stüler (1800–1865) was in Venetian Neo-Renaissance design.
The establishment of the Dual Monarchy in 1867 led to an unparalleled economic upsurge, with new buildings mushrooming in Budapest and in other cities. The new institutional buildings in the capital showed a remarkable diversity in historicist styles: the Opera House (1876-84, by Ybl) was built in Italian Neo-Renaissance, the Parliament (1885-1902, by Imre Steindl) in Gothic Revival style. The Parliament invoked Hungary’s golden past, but due to its similarity to the British Parliament it also symbolized modern parliamentary liberalism. The expansion of the Royal Castle in Buda was completed in neo-baroque style (1896-1903, by Alajos Hauszmann), while the St Stephen’s Basilica was built in neoclassical style. As the list illustrates, the historicist approach was creatively used and appropriated for the specific needs of national representation.
Gothic Romanticism of the 1840s was represented mainly by private apartment buildings (the Unger House in Pest, 1852-53, by Ybl) and country houses (the Zichy-Ferraris country house in Oroszvár, today Rusovce in Slovakia, 1841-44, by Franz Beer). Its Romantic interest in a picturesque medieval past differed from the Gothic historicism of the late 19th century, which was linked to monument protection, historical and archeological authenticity and the stylistic purity of individual buildings.
The rising interest in Gothic architecture was tied to a systematic survey by the newly founded Committee for the Protection of Monuments in 1872. Registering, conserving and restoring historical monuments formed the core part of the awakening national consciousness, because these monuments were taken to symbolize national dignity and independence. Steindl’s restoration and reconstruction of the medieval cathedral of Kassa (1878-1900; today Košice, Slovakia) and Frigyes Schulek’s Church of Our Lady (commonly known as the Matthias Church) in Buda (1874-96) were carried out in this Viollet-le-Duc-inspired spirit of stylistic idealism. As a result, most monuments looked more medieval after the restoration than they originally had been.
In the euphoric political atmosphere of the Millennial Celebrations, historicist architecture had a central function. The central building-complex (called the Historical Main Group), designed by Ignác Alpár (1855–1928), represented a Romantically-driven national enthusiasm with a selection of copies of the most important Hungarian historical monuments. Part of the project was the erection of the Millennial Monument incorporating a curved colonnade with the statues of Hungarian kings and Transylvanian princes and a Corinthian column, topped by the archangel Gabriel and surrounded by the equestrian statues of the seven Magyar chieftains. This monument, the work of Albert Schickedanz (1846–1915) and Fülöp Herzog (1860–1925), was completed between 1898 and 1902.
Artistic and political independence became a key factor at the turn of the century. A movement around Ödön Lechner tried to redefine Hungarian national architecture. In his 1906 programme entitled There has not been a Hungarian language of form but there will be, Lechner drew on Huszka’s Turanism; accordingly, Lechner extensively used oriental motifs, e.g. in his Museum of Applied Arts (1892-96). His Postal Savings Bank (1899-1901) is a more mature form of architecture parlante with many references to Hungarian folklore, clothing, pottery, etc. Lechner had many followers, and the decorative design he developed provided the basis of Hungarian Secessionist architecture. Most of the buildings drawing on his style were regional administrative buildings (county centres, town halls, cultural centres), and their architecture also functioned as statements of national cultural policy in the east and south of the country: Kecskemét Town Hall (1890-97) by Lechner and Gyula Pártos; the Szabadka (Subotica, today Serbia) Town Hall (1907) by Marcell Komor and Dezső Jakab; the Town Hall and Culture Palace in Marosvásárhely (today Târgu Mureș, Romania) (1911-13); etc.
The generation of architects who came after Lechner (the Fiatalok) continued to work on redefining Hungarian national architecture until World War I. Béla Lajta (1873–1920), István Medgyaszay (1877–1959) and Károly Kós (1883–1977) had access to much wider and deeper ethnographic research, and in the spirit of modernism they felt unconstricted by the rigid historicism or vernacularism of the previous generation. Lechner’s legacy of native-historicist themes in Art Nouveau style was picked up after the fall of Communism by Imre Markovecz.
