European Roots of Heritage Conservation PDF

HERITAGE CONSERVATION PART 1. EUROPEAN ROOTS OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION The meaning of “restoration” varied over the centuries, and some of its definitions openly contradicted each other, making it impossible to give a univocal definition. The gems of what we call “restoration” nowadays can be dated...

HERITAGE CONSERVATION PART 1. EUROPEAN ROOTS OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION The meaning of “restoration” varied over the centuries, and some of its definitions openly contradicted each other, making it impossible to give a univocal definition. The gems of what we call “restoration” nowadays can be dated back to the early 19th century, with the works and the ideas of the ones who are considered the fathers of modern restoration. RAFFAELE STERN AND GIUSEPPE VALADIER The restoration works carried out by Raffaele Stern and Giuseppe Valadier in Rome can be considered the first modern restoration works, because they open up some important themes for the discipline, like: - The use of distinguishable materials - The simplification of the shapes That fell under the general debate on whether it is more important to preserve the historical look of the building or to make the restoration clearly distinguishable. 1806-1807 RESTORATION OF THE COLOSSEUM BY RAFFAELE STERN For this intervention, he needed to build a buttress to sustain the last arches on the east side of the ruins after an earthquake. The decision to maintain the look of the ruins highlights the new trend of the century, that consisted in a newly found interest in ruins and in the ancient world in general, as we can see in the works of some artists like Piranesi (1720- 1778). Stern built a brick buttress and used bricks to close some of the arches that were dangerously damaged. The intervention is recognizable by the use of different materials. Moreover, Stern placed a plaque on the buttress that stated the date and the types of interventions that were carried out. 1817-1820 GIUSEPPE VALADIER (+ STERN) RESTORATION OF THE ARCH OF TITUS Stern started the intervention, but he died in 1820, and Valadier took his place. This intervention became a canon for modern restoration, because it set some important principles: - Use of similar materials, but still distinguishable (he used Travertino instead of marble) - The lost parts were reconstructed but with simpler shapes, so that the unity of the monument was restored, but the intervention was still identifiable 1822 GIUSEPPE VALADIER RESTORATION OF THE COLOSSEUM In 1822 Valadier had to build a buttress on the west part of the ruins. Differently from Stern’s intervention, he built the buttress maintaining the shape of the arches and their architectural styles, but still used different materials (a mix of travertino and bricks). EUGÈNE EMMANUEL VIOLLET-LE-DUC (STYLISTIC RESTORATION) Viollet-le-Duc is one of the fathers of stylistic restoration, which is a school of thought that originated in France after the French revolution. During that period, they wanted to restore the monuments damaged after the revolution, because of the sense of “national pride” that was born during those years, but also for the interest for Medieval times that was growing, both in literature and archeology. Viollet-le-Duc wrote his definition of restoration in his “Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française” “Restoring a building in not preserving it, repairing it or remaking it, it is giving it back a state of completeness that may never have existed at a given time” This completeness must be achieved by understanding and reproposing the style of the building (hence the name “stylistic” restoration). The concept of style is a focal point in Viollet’s work, he distinguishes between: - The styles = the different languages produced in different ages - The style = the manifestation of an ideal based on a principle (base of all the styles) To understand what is the style to follow you should deduct it by observing the building and buildings similar to yours, and by studying the historical documents also to understand and try to use the historical construction systems, putting yourself in the shoes of the original architect. In this way, he tries to create a sort of scientific method to restore the unity of style of the buildings. The evolution of his doctrine can be seen through his works: the first ones are more conservative, while in the last ones he tends to be less respectful of the original aspect of the building by adding non existing elements  CHURCH OF THE MADELEINE IN VÉZLAY Mostly structural interventions. He did some works on the façade, but it was left incomplete. He is more conservative and less stylistic in his first works. NOTRE-DAME CATHEDRAL IN PARIS This intervention is considered the manifest of stylistic restoration. The church had a lot of damage from the Napoleonic war and Viollet did some restoration interventions, but also modified the look of the space that surrounded the building. He demolished some nearby buildings to create a square on each side and emphasize the church. This was a common approach at the time, to isolate the building in order to emphasize its value. From the architectural point of view, he based his interventions on the drawings that pictured the cathedral before the revolution, some examples are the restoration of the King’s gallery and the pinnacle. CITÉ OF CARCASSONEE For the stylistic renovation works in this city he performed accurate historical research, in particular about the historical building techniques. PIERREFONDS CASTLE The first project for this restoration consisted in the stylistic restoration of the castle, while the perimetral walls were left as ruins. Napoleon II didn’t like the project because he wanted the castle to be as complete as possible. For this reason Viollet “got a bit carried away” and completely restored the castle, the walls and also the internal decorations of the castle, to the point in which it was impossible to distinguish the original building. JOHN RUSKIN (ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION) On one hand, proponents of the so-called “stylistic restoration” studied and cataloged decorations and construction techniques, almost “freezing” them in space and time. On the other hand, Ruskin embraced a romantic sentiment, seeing in history and nature a continuous sequence of marks and efforts, which makes objects appear beautiful precisely because they have endured through time. THE OPENING OF THE CRYSTAL PALACE While Ruskin was alive, England was facing the consequences of the first industrial revolution: on the positive side, fast progress in the industrial and technological fields, on the other hand, many negative consequences like pollution, worse hygienic conditions in the cities and child labor. In 1851 the inauguration of the Crystal Palace was an important milestone for the history of architecture: with its modern materials, the modular system and its function, the Crystal Palace was really a symbol of the industrial revolution. John Ruskin visited the building and wrote the text “the opening of the Crystal Palace”, in which he criticized it saying that it was a symbol of the degradation of art and architecture. THE NATURE OF THE GOTHIC (THE STONES OF VENICE) While opposing this modern vision of architecture, Ruskin was a supporter of gothic architecture: his work “The stones of Venice” is considered one of the most important works of the neogothic movement in England. The title is actually an allegory: The Stones of Venice certainly refers to the components of the city's architecture, but it also represents the values upon which the Republic was founded: the worth of its citizens, the industriousness of its merchants, and the goodness of its laws. According to Ruskin, architecture cannot be separated from the society that produced it. In the chapter titled The Nature of Gothic, Ruskin describes architecture not in terms of aesthetic categories but through qualities such as the character, soul, and sentiment of those who created the buildings of Venice. The equation that a healthy society produces good architecture leads to the belief that returning to the Gothic style could have beneficial effects on contemporary society. THE CONCEPT OF SUBLIME In the 18th century, the survival of Gothic merged with its rediscovery (revival), supported by a new aesthetic sensibility tied to the concept of the sublime. Inspired by Edmund Burke's treatise “A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful”, the sublime valued wild, irregular, and dramatic elements in art, architecture, and landscapes, moving away from classical harmony and proportion. Gothic architecture, with its towering verticality, gained appreciation alongside melancholic themes like ruins and decay, seen as beautiful and evocative of the passage of time. MODERN PAINTERS AND THE VISIONARY ARTIST Interest in the Middle Ages grew also in literature and art, for example, Ruskin supported the work of the Pre-Raphaelites (a group of painters that referenced medieval painters, opposed to the perfect representations of Renaissance painters). He wrote about the Pre-Raphaelites in his work “Modern Painters”, in particular defending the work of Turner. In this work he explains the figure of the artist as a visionary, combining the theoretical and imaginative faculty. The theoretical faculty pertains to the intellectual capacity to perceive truth in nature and art, while the imaginative faculty is the creative and emotional power that transforms truth into something transcendent. Ruskin believed that true artistic greatness arises when the theoretical and imaginative faculties work in harmony. Ruskin held that J.M.W. Turner exemplified this balance, for his scientific precision in depicting light, atmosphere, and landscapes, which he believed were based on rigorous observation, combined with landscapes that were profoundly moving. THE ELEMENTS OF DRAWING Ruskin himself was a skilled draftsman, both of landscapes and natural elements, as well as buildings. Unlike the rational and geometric representations of Viollet, Ruskin’s drawings always show partial or angled views; complete elevations rarely appear, and his attention is more focused on architectural details, the materials they are made of, and the color that time has bestowed upon them. THE SEVEN LAMPS OF ARCHITECTURE The concepts expressed in The Stones of Venice are revisited in Ruskin’s most important work on architecture: The Seven Lamps of Architecture (first published in 1848). Here, the term "lamps" symbolizes torches or guiding lights, representing the principles that should direct every architect's work. This book is not intended for restoration but aims to inspire architectural design based on seven valid principles. One of these, the "Lamp of Truth", emphasizes the need for truth in architecture, meaning the use of authentic materials in construction. For example, marble and stone should be used instead of materials that imitate them, such as industrially produced substitutes, which were very popular at the time. Ruskin specifically criticizes 19th-century English architecture, which relied heavily on mass-produced elements. Portland stone, for instance, was often replaced with its cheaper substitute, cement, which had just been invented. Similarly, cast iron, molded to imitate classical orders, was regularly used in new buildings and sold through catalogs. Ruskin condemned this false and industrialized architecture. His advocacy for authentic materials later became a cornerstone of modern architecture. THE LAMP OF MEMORY (HIS VIEW ON RESTORATION) A chapter closely related to restoration is the sixth lamp, the "Lamp of Memory," in which Ruskin argues for architecture to preserve and convey the memory of the past, embracing the passage of time. He calls for respect for the marks of time on monuments, as they help transmit the memory of history. The Lamp of Memory Aphorism 31 "Neither by the public, nor by those who have the care of public monuments, is the true meaning of the word restoration understood. It means the most total destruction which a building can suffer: a destruction out of which no remnants can be gathered: a destruction accompanied with false description of the thing destroyed. Do not let us deceive ourselves in this important matter;  it is impossible, as impossible as to raise the dead, to restore anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture." Based on this chapter, Ruskin is considered the founder of architectural conservation, in opposition to Viollet-le-Duc's stylistic restoration. However, there was never a direct conflict between the two figures, as they operated in very different contexts. WILLIAM MORRIS Ruskin’s ideas deeply influenced William Morris (1834–1896), one of the key founders of the British Arts and Crafts movement. Believing in the need for political and social renewal, Morris saw a return to craftsmanship as a way to oppose industrial production, combining neo-medieval aesthetic ideals with his socialist political beliefs. He also opposed the restorers of his time. In response, he founded the S.P.A.B. (Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings). The association, which included writers and intellectuals of the time, including Ruskin himself, still exists today. Its mission is to protect “ancient buildings” (notably avoiding the term “monuments”), not from decay or the effects of time but from restorations, which were seen as major causes of damage and alteration. The association worked particularly to protect buildings from the removal of their original patinas and plaster, opposing renewal interventions that would “scrape” away ancient surfaces. For this reason, the S.P.A.B. earned the nickname “anti-scrape society.” CAMILLO BOITO (PHILOLOGICAL RESTORATION) ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES IN ITALY Following the unification of Italy in 1861, there arose a dual problem: defining a unified architectural style for the entire nation and addressing the significant differences in architectural traditions and heritage preservation approaches among the pre-unification states. Boito recommended adopting the Romanesque style, as it reflected ethical and spiritual truth. He saw Romanesque architecture as the style of the Italian communes that rebelled against both the Church and the German Empire, freeing themselves from their control. In a unified Italy, liberated from both the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Papacy, the Romanesque Middle Ages appeared to him as the only historical reference point worth emulating—not by imitation or reproduction, but as a model. PHILOLOGICAL METHOD In the field of restoration, Boito held an "intermediate" position between John Ruskin (1819– 1900) and Eugène Viollet-le-Duc (1814–1879). While rejecting the idea of letting a monument decay without intervention, he also opposed arbitrary and false reconstructions. He encouraged contemporary architects to complete buildings in need of care while preserving their authenticity, ensuring that the work would not deceive observers. Boito’s proposed solution drew upon philology, a discipline focused on reconstructing and interpreting texts or documents through linguistic analysis and textual criticism. He argued that ancient buildings should be restored using new elements in a way that made the overall composition clear. However, these new elements should be marked with diacritical signs—symbols that, in writing, distinguish a word within its context (e.g., parentheses, quotation marks, italics). He suggested applying diacritical signs to restoration by adopting a philological method based on two key principles: 1. Distinguishability of the intervention: Any reconstruction of stylistic unity must ensure that new parts are distinguishable from the old. 2. Notoriety of the intervention: Restoration work must be clearly communicated to avoid deceiving observers. 4 T H CONGRESS OF ITALIAN ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, ROME 1883 Boito first presented these ideas in 1879, later refining them for the National Congress of Engineers and Architects in 1883, where he outlined an eight-point program on restoration. These principles formed a sort of preliminary "Charter of Italian Restoration", providing clear guidelines for late 19th- and much of 20th-century Italian restoration practices. He referenced the restoration of the Arch of Titus by Valadier in the early 19th century as an example. The principles approved by the Congress were: 1. Architectural monuments should be consolidated rather than repaired, repaired rather than restored. 2. Additions or renovations should be executed in a different character from that of the monument. 3. It would be advisable anyhow that the additional or renewed blocks, whilst taking the original form, should still be made of obviously different material. In monuments of Antiquity and in others of particular archaeological interest, any parts which must be completed for structural or conservation purposes should only be built with plain surfaces and using only the outlines of solid geometry. 4. In monuments, which derive their beauty, their uniqueness and the poetry of their appearance from a variety of marbles, mosaics and painted decoration, or from the patina of their age, or from their picturesque setting, or even from their ruinous condition, the works of consolidation should be strictly limited to the essential.  5. Any additions or alterations which have been made to the first structure in different periods of time will be considered as monuments and treated as such. 6. A clear and methodical report on the reasons for the works and their progress should accompany the drawings and photographs. 7. An inscription should be fixed on the building to record the date of the restoration and the main works undertaken. PRACTICAL QUESTIONS OF FINE ARTS Boito's book “Questioni pratiche di Belle Arti” (1893) compiles numerous writings on art and architecture, offering practical guidance for working on ancient buildings. Depending on the type of monument, he identifies three types of restoration: 1. Archaeological restoration: Focused on buildings with no functional purpose, prioritizing the preservation of ruins. This includes anastylosis (the reassembly of structures using existing pieces, with minimal additions). 2. Picturesque restoration: Aimed at preserving the picturesque character of buildings (e.g., their decayed appearance and patina), suitable for medieval structures where reintegration and additions are allowed as long as they do not alter the picturesque value. 3. Architectural restoration: Applied to Renaissance and later buildings, which Boito felt closer to. These buildings, often retaining functional use, lack the patina of older structures and are not overgrown with vegetation. For these, completing the structure in its original style is legitimate. RESTORATION INTERVENTIONS CHURCH OF SANTA MARIA AND DONATO He just created the project for this restoration PORTA TICINESE An emblematic example in Milan is Boito’s restoration of Porta Ticinese, part of the city's ancient walls. Following 19th-century practices of demolishing old city walls to isolate access gates, Boito removed later additions to the structure. Besides restoring the central gateway, he added two lateral arches, possibly never part of the original structure. He also inserted two brick towers—one completed, the other left unfinished—and restored pointed arch windows and sections of the curtain wall. CAVALLI FRANCHETTI PALACE Boito's work often followed a stylistic approach, as seen in Palazzo Cavalli Franchetti in Venice. He did important restoration interventions on the façade, following the gothic venetian style. He also created a monumental staircase with medieval elements and fine marbles. ALFONSO RUBBIANI Between the late 19th century and the early 20th century, Bologna became the protagonist of one of the most dramatic cases of radical intervention on the city's architecture: Alfonso Rubbiani (1848-1913) systematically redesigned its appearance in a medieval style, considering restoration as a catalyst for its modernization. The plan devised by Rubbiani for the central area and Piazza Maggiore, where the Church of San Petronio and the Palazzo del Podestà are located, involved the removal of all additions to the buildings made after the late Middle Ages, bringing the city back to the end of the 15th century, its peak moment of political and cultural splendor. In an operation similar to that carried out by Viollet-le-Duc for individual monuments, Rubbiani brought the entire city back to the style of the late 15th century. But by demolishing the parts of buildings added after the 15th century, Rubbiani, in fact, opened spaces for traffic and commerce, modernizing the city center and adapting it to the needs of the late 19th- century life. PALAZZO RE ENZO The restoration project for the Palazzo di Re Enzo included the addition of crenellations and the restoration of the triforiums, replacing previously rectangular windows. Another testimony to the instrumental value of this operation is evident in Rubbiani’s involving the citizens, who were asked to express their opinion on the style to be adopted for the windows to be restored on a corner of the facade of an important building. The three options were displayed, also through the city’s press, for public judgment: the people of Bologna could thus choose, like in a sample case, between a Lombard Renaissance style and an Emilian one, deciding how to reconstruct their city. It is clear that the strictly stylistic concept of Viollet-le-Duc was far surpassed. CHURCH OF SAN DOMENICO The appearance of the medieval Church of San Domenico, before Rubbiani’s restoration, was that of the transformations made in the 16th-17th centuries, which included the creation of a large window in the façade to bring light to the nave and the addition of porticoes. Rubbiani’s intervention aimed to bring the church back to the medieval era: the removal of the porticoes and the large window on the front revealed the medieval rose window, behind which the line of the medieval monocuspid facade could be read. The church was restored by bringing to light all the medieval elements, with the monocuspid facade completed, and the entire masonry curtain deeply reintegrated, effectively erasing the authentic stratification of different periods and projects on the original building. Other interventons by Rubbiani include: Palazzo del Podestà, Palazzo dei Notai, Loggia della Mercanzia and Church of San Francesco LUCA BELTRAMI (HISTORICAL RESORATION) Among Boito's students, Luca Beltrami (1854-1933) stands out as the leader of the so-called "historical restoration" movement, according to whose principles interventions on buildings must be supported by documentary evidence. According to Beltrami, the foundation of restoration should be a rich and detailed collection of archival documents, acts, drawings, and plans that can guide the architect toward a historically accurate solution. His role as Director of the Technical Regional Office for the Conservation of Monuments of Lombardy allowed him to intervene on important buildings. Beltrami is known for developing a method based on the scientific approach of the documents that form the basis of the restoration project. The goal was to overcome the uncertainties caused by Viollet-le-Duc's "principle of analogy" used to reintegrate past buildings. This use of documents as a certain source of history is typically 19th-century and fits within the positivist mindset. In reality, any document (a notarial act, a drawing, a historical view, etc.) offers only a partial view of reality, functional to the purpose for which the document was created. INTERVENTION ON THE SFORZA CASTLE The most significant restoration intervention by Beltrami was on the Sforza Castle in Milan (1893-1905). Since the Napoleonic period, the castle was at the center of a heated debate: many proposed demolishing it to build a residential neighborhood. Beltrami was among the opponents of this intervention and began studying its restoration, based on extensive documentary research. The problem was that what Beltrami considered "documents" (drawings by Filarete, old views, etc.) could only offer generic indications. In fact, the restoration focused on reconstructing the tower aligned with the road connecting the center of Milan, the so- called Filarete Tower, of which only a few traces remained. The tower was reconstructed based on the model of the Vigevano tower, contemporary to the Milanese one, thus returning to the principle of analogy that was initially intended to be rejected. The main reason for the intervention was the need to create a scenic backdrop for a new urban arrangement in the 19th-century city. ST. MARK’S BELL TOWER Luca Beltrami was also involved in the reconstruction of the bell tower of St. Mark's in Venice, which suddenly collapsed in 1902; the collapse also damaged the Loggetta del Sansovino (16th century). After the first interventions by Giacomo Boni (1859-1925), aimed at recovering the materials from the collapse, there was much debate about the reconstruction: whether to follow the traditional forms, use modern ones – as it was the era of Art Nouveau – or move it to the left of the basilica. The reconstruction was entrusted to a group of experts led by Beltrami, who decisively chose the "as it was, where it was" reconstruction of the bell tower, considering that in this case, the building was a document of itself. Beltrami resigned shortly after from his post due to the controversies surrounding the project, but his principle was respected, and the bell tower was inaugurated in 1913. TOWARDS IIWW ATHENS CHARTER 1931 The third decade of the 20th century was highly prolific in terms of regulations, with the development of a series of guiding principles and legislative frameworks. The Athens Charter is an international document signed in the Greek capital in 1931 by around one hundred representatives from approximately twenty European countries. The choice of Athens was not coincidental: during this period, one of the most significant restorations of the century was taking place there— namely, the restoration of the Acropolis, particularly the Parthenon. Engineer Nikolaos Balanos restored the temple using much of the material still on-site but with extensive reinforcements of reinforced concrete. Balanos reconstructed the southern colonnade and much of the northern one using reinforced concrete and iron clamps to connect the ancient drums to one another and to the new sections. At the time, reinforced concrete seemed the best solution for restoring the monument; however, over time, its effectiveness was disproven, as it aged faster than the stone. The Athens Charter was highly influenced by the theories of philological restoration promoted by Boito (but most importantly Giovannoni, one of his scholars), emphasizing the concepts of maintenance and restoration as exceptional interventions, the ethical nature of conservation, the collective right to demand it, and the promotion of modern techniques (with reinforced concrete being the foremost). Athens Charter 1931 I. DOCTRINES. GENERAL PRINCIPLES Whatever may be the variety of concrete cases, each of which are open to a different solution, the Conference noted that there predominates in the different countries represented a general tendency to abandon restorations in toto and to avoid the attendant dangers by initiating a system of regular and permanent maintenance calculated to ensure the preservation of the buildings. When, as the result of decay or destruction, restoration appears to be indispensable, it recommends that the historic and artistic work of the past should be respected, without excluding the style of any given period. The Conference recommends that the occupation of buildings, which ensures the continuity of their life, should be maintained but that they should be used for a purpose which respects their historic or artistic character. IV. RESTORATION OF MONUMENTS The experts heard various communications concerning the use of modern materials for the consolidation of ancient monuments. They approved the judicious use of all the resources at the disposal of modern technique and more especially of reinforced concrete. They specified that this work of consolidation should whenever possible be concealed in order that the aspect and character of the restored monument may be preserved. VI. THE TECHNIQUE OF CONSERVATION In the case of ruins, scrupulous conservation is necessary, and steps should be taken to reinstate any original fragments that may be recovered (anastylosis), whenever this is possible; the new materials used for this purpose should in all cases be recognisable. This charter inspired a series of documents tailored to the specific realities of individual countries. ITALIAN RESTORATION CHARTER 1932 In Italy, Gustavo Giovannoni was the principal creator of the Italian Restoration Charter, approved by the Directorate General of Antiquities and Fine Arts and enacted in 1932. The 1932 Charter also emphasized the primarily historical value of monuments: the purpose of restoration was thus to preserve monuments as documents of art and history rendered in stone. Consequently, restoration proposals aimed only to restore the unity of line (i.e., the overall shape and volume, but not stylistic details or specific features) of a building. The charter also highlighted the importance of maintenance, which could postpone the need for true restoration interventions as long as possible. To counter the risks of stylistic restoration (Article 5), it stated that all parts of a building, regardless of the period to which they belonged, must be preserved without prioritizing one phase over another at the expense of others. The Italian Charter reiterated the distinction, already established at the end of the 19th century and endorsed by Giovannoni, between "dead monuments" and "living monuments." Dead monuments (ruins, archaeological remains, etc.) cannot accommodate new uses, nor can they undergo new additions; only anastylosis (the reassembly of original pieces of a destroyed structure) can be employed to facilitate their reading. For living monuments, however, new uses could be required. If additions to these monuments were needed, interventions were allowed, provided that the new parts were distinct from the original in form or material and had a character of "bare simplicity." Giovannoni did not have faith in the potential of modern architecture, believing that in restoration, any meeting between the old and the new was precluded. When he considered additions, he envisioned neutral interventions, distinct from the original in material and craftsmanship. However, while skeptical of modern architecture, Giovannoni did not reject its tools, even advocating for the use of reinforced concrete in restoration. At the same time, he argued that modern structural reinforcement techniques should be entirely hidden from view. The use of reinforced concrete would become one of the most debated topics in recent discussions, as over time, it became evident that it could cause damage to buildings and was characterized by limited durability.