The Harruckern–Wenckheim–Almásy Mansion in Gyula
Exhibition and/or Visitor Centre?
Békéscounty was geographically in the centre of the country when the then reigning Charles III granted the estate to JánosGyörgyHarruckern (1664–1742) the county’s largest landowner. In 1729 he received the title of baron and later was appointed Lord Lieutenant. However, after the Ottoman occupation the area became almost depopulated. In 1695 the county came under the authority of the Imperial Chamber. During the Turkish wars Harruckern directed the supply of military provisions. The son of aScheckenfeld weaver, who became a councillor to the Chamber, later a baron and Lord Lieutenant, utilised the hidden potentialities of his estate. Around 1740, in the first period of today’s mansion, Harruckern had the central part of the main wing constructed – a two-storey rather simple building. The interior arrangement satisfied all requirements – salaterrena, kitchen, service rooms and guest rooms on the ground floor, with rooms for the owner and his family above. In the early 1760s the building was enlarged, the plans being attributed to Franz Anton Hillebrandt (1719–1797), architect of the Royal Chamber. Count GyulaWenckheim, the deputy county clerk, didn’t found a family dynasty. His daughter, Countess StefániaMáriaWenckheim, married Count KálmánAlmásy. In 1888 their oldest son, DénesAlmásy (186–1940), married Countess Gabriella Károlyi of Nagykároly and they moved into the mansion, which had stood empty for a decade. In 2011 the Gyula municipal council took over management of the state-owned mansion. In 2012 there was a successful tender for EU funds for development as a tourist attraction. The building was renovated in 2014-15 and in spring this year Gyula’sAlmásy Mansion Visitor Centre opened. The tasks associated with the exhibition were not, or only partly realised. The reason is the concept of presenting the invisible domestic staff as main players. That may well work in itself, yet it should be followed consistently throughout the exhibition, which did not happen here. The other basic problem involves inconsistency. Some interiors were furnished as if they really recalled the original furnishing of the mansion (or at least one of its periods), yet other spaces were fashioned with contemporary visual elements and are rather alienating. The problem isn’t why everything is not authentic. An avant-garde “as if” historical exhibition could have been staged with humour, framed with irony. Yet it only happened in some cases. After all, traditions are traditions. A mansion exhibition needs an interior which is as it could have been. Conceptual fragmentation and inconsistency do not benefit the exhibition.