Heritage Conservation PDF

HERITAGE CONSERVATION SOMMARIO PART 1. EUROPEAN ROOTS OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION......................................................... 4 RAFFAELE STERN AND GIUSEPPE VALADIER.............................................................................. 4 1806-1807 RESTORATION OF THE COLOSSEUM BY RAFFAELE STERN................................... 4 1817-1820 GIUSEPPE VALADIER (+ STERN) RESTORATION OF THE ARCH OF TITUS.............. 4 1822 GIUSEPPE VALADIER RESTORATION OF THE COLOSSEUM........................................... 5 EUGÈNE EMMANUEL VIOLLET-LE-DUC (STYLISTIC RESTORATION)............................................ 5 CHURCH OF THE MADELEINE IN VÉZLAY............................................................................... 6 NOTRE-DAME CATHEDRAL IN PARIS...................................................................................... 6 CITÉ OF CARCASSONEE........................................................................................................ 6 PIERREFONDS CASTLE............................................................................................................ 6 JOHN RUSKIN (ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION)................................................................... 6 THE OPENING OF THE CRYSTAL PALACE............................................................................... 7 THE NATURE OF THE GOTHIC (THE STONES OF VENICE)....................................................... 7 THE CONCEPT OF SUBLIME.................................................................................................... 7 MODERN PAINTERS AND THE VISIONARY ARTIST.................................................................. 7 THE ELEMENTS OF DRAWING................................................................................................. 8 THE SEVEN LAMPS OF ARCHITECTURE................................................................................... 8 WILLIAM MORRIS........................................................................................................................ 9 CAMILLO BOITO (PHILOLOGICAL RESTORATION).................................................................... 9 ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES IN ITALY..................................................................... 9 PHILOLOGICAL METHOD..................................................................................................... 10 4TH CONGRESS OF ITALIAN ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, ROME 1883............................ 10 PRACTICAL QUESTIONS OF FINE ARTS................................................................................. 11 RESTORATION INTERVENTIONS............................................................................................. 11 ALFONSO RUBBIANI................................................................................................................. 12 PALAZZO RE ENZO................................................................................................................ 12 CHURCH OF SAN DOMENICO............................................................................................ 12 LUCA BELTRAMI (HISTORICAL RESORATION).......................................................................... 13 INTERVENTION ON THE SFORZA CASTLE.............................................................................. 13 ST. MARK’S BELL TOWER....................................................................................................... 14 TOWARDS IIWW........................................................................................................................ 14 ATHENS CHARTER 1931........................................................................................................ 14 ITALIAN RESTORATION CHARTER 1932................................................................................ 15 PART 2. 20TH CENTURY ISSUES ABOUT CONSERVATION............................................................ 17 MANAGING THE LOSSES OF WORLD WARS................................................................................ 17 THE DAMAGES OF WWII........................................................................................................... 17 THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGES................................................................................... 17 THE RECONSTRUCTION OF CITIES........................................................................................ 18 THE INFLUENCE OF BENEDETTO CROCE'S AESTHETICS....................................................... 18 CESARE BRANDI (CRITICAL RESTORATION)............................................................................. 19 PHYSICAL CONSISTENCY..................................................................................................... 20 POTENTIAL UNITY.................................................................................................................. 21 THE LACUNA......................................................................................................................... 21 TIME....................................................................................................................................... 22 HISTORICAL AND AESTHETIC INSTANTCES........................................................................... 23 THE LIVING PRESERVATION - JOSEF WIEDEMANN.................................................................. 24 CHAPTER I - JOSEF WIEDEMANN: EDUCATION, TEACHING, WORK................................... 24 CHAPTER II - WIEDERAUFBAU FOR MUNICH........................................................................ 27 PART 3. TOWARDS CONTEMPORARY ISSUES CONSERVATION OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE... 32 ALOIS RIEGL (1858 – 1905)...................................................................................................... 32 KUNSTWOLLEN...................................................................................................................... 32 THE MODERN CULT OF MONUMENTS – THEORY OF VALUE............................................... 32 PRESERVING 20TH CENTURY HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE IN DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES............................................................................................................................ 34 WEISSENHOFSIEDLUNG, STUTTGART, GERMANY (1927)...................................................... 35 TUGENDHAT HOUSE, BRNO, CZECHIA (1929–1930)............................................................ 35 BAUHAUS, DESSAU, GERMANY (1925–1926)....................................................................... 35 ANTI-TUBERCULOSIS DISPENSARY, ALESSANDRIA, ITALY (1937–1938)................................ 36 POST OFFICE ON VIA MARMORATA, ROME, ITALY (1933–1935)....................................... 36 OLIVETTI SHOWROOM, VENICE, ITALY (1957–1958)............................................................ 36 WAR MEMORIAL, MONUMENTAL CEMETERY, MILAN, ITALY (POST-WAR)......................... 36 PART 4. HERITAGE AND FUTURE CHALLENGES UPDATED SKILLS AND COMPETENCES FOR CONTEMPORARY RESTORERS...................................................................................................... 38 THE DEBATE BETWEEN 1970-1990............................................................................................. 38 PAOLO MARCONI: RESTORATION BY ANALOGY AND CONTINUOUS MAINTENANCE.... 39 MARCO DEZZI BARDESCHI: THE PURE CONSERVATION..................................................... 39 GIOVANNI CARBONARA: CRITICAL-CONSERVATIVE RESTORATION................................ 40 EXAMPLE OF INTEVENTIONS FROM 1972 TO 2009.................................................................. 41 CASTLE OF KOLDING (1972-1992)- JOHANNES AND INGER EXNER.................................. 41 ORATORY OF SAN FILIPPO NERI, BOLOGNA (1998-1999) – PIER LUIGI CERVELLATI......... 43 ST. MARTA BARRACKS, VERONA (2005-2014) – MASSIMO CARMASSI.............................. 43 OBLATE CONVENT, FLORENCE (2002-2007) – MARCO BALDINI AND DANIELE GUALANDI.............................................................................................................................................. 43 FIRMIANO CASTLE, BOLZANO (2001-2006) – WERNER TSCHOLL........................................ 44 REICHENBERG TOWER, TUBRE (2000) – WERNER TSCHOLL................................................. 44 COMPLEX OF SAN MICHELE IN BORGO, PISA (1979-2000) – MASSIMO CARMASSI......... 44 MANICA LUNGA OF RIVOLI CASTLE, TURIN (1979-1999) – ANDREA BRUNO.................... 44 LE MURATE, FLORENCE (2002-2004) – MARIO PITTALIS....................................................... 44 NEUES MUSEUM, BERLIN (1993-2009) – DAVID CHIPPERFIELD............................................ 45 ST. KOLUMBA CHIRCH, COLOGNE (1997-2007) – PETER ZUMTHOR................................... 45 COMPETENCE/SKILL/KNOWLEDGE.......................................................................................... 46 SOME USEFUL COMPETENCES FOR CONTEMPORARY RESTORERS.................................... 48 DISSONANT HERITAGE............................................................................................................. 49 NUREMBERG......................................................................................................................... 49 MUNICH................................................................................................................................ 49 PREDAPPIO........................................................................................................................... 49 BERLIN................................................................................................................................... 49 CHERNOBYL.......................................................................................................................... 50 MANAGING DISSONANT HERITAGE.................................................................................... 50 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. PART 2. 20TH CENTURY ISSUES ABOUT CONSERVATION MANAGING THE LOSSES OF WORLD WARS THE DAMAGES OF WWII Lived amidst countless contradictions, the principles developed in the early 20th century entered a crisis with the outbreak of World War II (1939-1945). Faced with a heritage and entire cities devastated, particularly by bombings, the "philological" restoration principles centered on minimal intervention and neutral additions—expressed by Gustavo Giovannoni in his writings on restoration and reiterated in both the Athens Charter and the Italian Restoration Charter—proved to lack any practical effectiveness. The task now was to rebuild entire portions of cities rather than merely consolidate or repair small parts of a monument. THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGES One emblematic example is the reconstruction of the historical bridges in Verona: The Ponte Pietra and Ponte Castelvecchio in Verona were reconstructed after their destruction during World War II, following the approach “As before, better than before”. Ponte Castelvecchio Destroyed on April 24, 1945, by retreating German troops, only fragments of two piers remained. Architect Piero Gazzola, superintendent of Verona's Monuments, had managed to have detailed surveys and photographs taken prior to the destruction. This documentation, along with debris recovered from the riverbed, enabled a faithful reconstruction. Methodology: Complete reconstruction using recovered historical materials, combined with new, compatible elements. Reinforced concrete structures were avoided to preserve historical authenticity. Techniques: Documentation and cataloging of collapsed materials, reinforcement of the piers with a concrete ring, reconstruction of the arches using wooden centering, and a faithful restoration of battlements and stone surfaces. Ponte Pietra Destroyed on April 25, 1945, the bridge retained only the first arch on the right bank. The complexity of the restoration required years of preliminary studies, led by Gazzola with the support of archaeological and structural experts. Methodology: The project focused exclusively on traditional techniques and original materials recovered from the Adige River. The interventions aimed to restore the bridge to its historic role without using invasive modern materials. Techniques: Recovery and cataloging of stone blocks (529 used out of a total of 808), consolidation of the surviving piers, and reconstruction of the four missing arches. Precision work was performed on each stone block, which was repositioned in its original location using pins and anchors. Both projects were emblematic examples of post-war restoration, highlighting the importance of historical documentation, philological reconstruction, and multidisciplinary collaboration. The methodologies used in Verona influenced subsequent interventions, such as the reconstruction of the Ponte Santa Trinita in Florence. THE RECONSTRUCTION OF CITIES In 1944, during their retreat, German troops destroyed several areas of Florence, particularly around the Ponte Vecchio, including Borgo San Jacopo and Por Santa Maria. This event sparked an intense debate on the city's reconstruction, involving prominent figures such as art historian Bernard Berenson and archaeologist Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli. In April 1945, Bernard Berenson published an article titled "How to Rebuild the Demolished Florence" in the journal Il Ponte. In this article, Berenson advocated for the necessity of reconstructing the destroyed areas "as they were and where they were", emphasizing the importance of preserving Florence's historical and artistic integrity. He believed that faithful reconstruction was essential to maintaining the cultural identity of the city. In response, Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli published an article titled "How Not to Rebuild the Demolished Florence" in the same journal. Bandinelli criticized Berenson's approach, arguing that a literal reconstruction could result in a sort of "historical fake." He instead proposed an intervention that, while respecting the historical context, would introduce elements of modernity, reflecting the evolution of society and contemporary architecture. This debate mirrored a broader discussion in Italy on how to approach post-war reconstruction: on one side, the desire to preserve historical heritage; on the other, the need to innovate and adapt to modern times. The issue concerned not only the aesthetic aspect but also the cultural identity and future direction of the country in the post-war context. Ultimately, the reconstruction of Florence sought a compromise between these positions, integrating traditional elements with modern architectural solutions. This approach aimed to respect the city's past while acknowledging the necessity of looking to the future. The debate between Berenson and Bianchi Bandinelli remains emblematic of the challenges faced by Italy in the post-war period, balancing preservation and innovation. THE INFLUENCE OF BENEDETTO CROCE'S AESTHETICS The situation in post-war Italy was also shaped by the influence of architectural culture and, consequently, restoration practices by the so-called Crocian aesthetics, tied to the philosophy of Benedetto Croce (Pescasseroli 1866 - Naples 1952), Italy's greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Croce's thought sought to highlight the uniqueness and exceptional nature of artistic works. As it focused on such uniquely conceived works of art, restoration itself became an autonomous, singular, and unique expression, just like the object it addressed. The principles established by Croce were adopted after the war by a new school of thought known as critical restoration. The term "critical" is used because, according to Crocian assumptions, it is criticism that identifies the work of art, qualifies it, and recognizes its values. The word "criticism" derives from Greek, meaning to judge, distinguish, select, thus referring to the analytical and verification activity that examines the work and establishes its meanings and values. Critical restoration is therefore "selective," meaning it identifies the values to be transmitted to the future—distinguishing them from what is not art—and bases the restoration intervention on this selection, presenting the recognized values of the work at their best. Restoration must also be conceived as a work of art itself; control over the process must ensure the artistic nature of the final product. Restoration is art because it acts on a work of art, relying on creativity and inventiveness, indispensable guarantees to ensure the success of the work. This aspect thus shows that critical restoration assigns great importance to the creative component, seen as an essential vehicle for deeply understanding the values of the work and transmitting them to the future. CESARE BRANDI (CRITICAL RESTORATION) Returning then to that 1939 the Central Institute of Restoration in Rome (Istituto Centrale del Restauro di Roma, I.C.R.) was founded with the young Cesare Brandi as its director. However, the war events made the early times of the I.C.R. difficult, but in the immediate post-war period, it still managed to make a fundamentally important contribution. None of this, however, would have been possible without Brandi's reflections organized in Theory of Restoration (Teoria del restauro, 1963, first edition). "Commonly, restoration is understood as any intervention aimed at restoring the efficiency of a product of human activity." Brandi opens his theory in this way, offering an initial—and clear—preconceptual definition of what restoration is. In progressing from the general to the particular, the author clarifies that the conceptualization depends on the "product of human activity" to be restored: on one hand, there are industrial artifacts which, as such, require restoration aiming at reestablishing their functionality; on the other hand, there is the work of art for which that reestablishment constitutes a secondary aspect. Before being able to operate with the activity of restoration, it indeed requires an additional step compared to the industrial product, which is the recognition of artistic value. "It will immediately become evident then that the special product of human activity to which the name 'work of art' is given is so because of a singular recognition that occurs in consciousness." Every work of art, therefore, is potentially such until it is man—in a time, in a place—who attributes that value to it; in turn, that value is susceptible to changes as it is conditioned by the historical and cultural context in which it is defined. Therefore, it is in the recognition of the work of art as such and its actualization in our consciousness that the idea of restoration is born. Delving deeper into this attribution of value, Brandi declares that "from that recognition, not only the material of which the work of art subsists will come into consideration, but [also] the bipolarity with which the work of art offers itself to consciousness"; by bipolarity, he means a dual aspect: "the aesthetic instance that corresponds to the fundamental fact of artistic quality for which the work of art is a work of art; the historical instance that pertains to it as a human product realized in a certain time and place and which is found in a certain time and place." Shortly, we will return to these two points. From here derives the first definition of restoration: "Restoration constitutes the methodological moment of recognizing the work of art, in its physical consistency and its dual aesthetic and historical polarity, with a view to its transmission to the future." PHYSICAL CONSISTENCY And what is meant by physical consistency? It is the very place of the manifestation of the image, the material on which the figure is born, existing then in the world. From here, the first methodological declaration: "Only the material of the work of art is restored." But what does Brandi mean by saying that only the material is restored? Let us then think of a painting, like the Madonna of the Pilgrims by Caravaggio in the Roman basilica of Sant’Agostino: the textile fibers of which the canvas is made and the stretcher on which it is tensioned are the material; the colors, the lines, the drawing that are above are instead the image or, as we will see shortly, the material-aspect. In fact, anticipating what will then be formulated in the second chapter—whose title is The Material of the Work of Art—Brandi specifies that the material itself is divided into two parts, structure and aspect, where—mind you—the latter has precedence over the former: in the case in which a work of art needed restoration, what would be "sacrificed" would be the material according to the structure—in the case of Caravaggio's canvas, all that is textile fiber, the stretcher—and not, therefore, the material according to the aspect—the image of the Madonna with Child, the earthy color of the background, the bare feet of one of the kneeling pilgrims. In light of this distinction, Brandi recalls that many errors have been committed in the past precisely because the fundamental difference between the material as structure and the material as aspect was never taken into consideration: the example of the reconstruction of an ancient monument, for which indeed an identical marble was used in order to repair it, is in this sense illuminating, because if from the point of view of material—or, to better say, of the material as structure—the marble is chemically identical, from the point of view instead of the material as aspect, it is not at all; this has created, according to the author, numerous errors in the past, errors to which he gives the name of "restorations of reintegration" that are to be condemned, as they give rise to historical and aesthetic falsifications. This type of intervention will be addressed shortly. POTENTIAL UNITY Therefore, we arrive at the second principle of restoration: "Restoration must aim at reestablishing the potential unity of the work of art, provided that this is possible without committing an artistic or historical forgery, and without erasing any trace of the passage of the work of art through time." In this second principle, Brandi anticipates two themes that constitute the third and fourth chapters of the Theory, respectively the potential unity of the work of art and time regarding the work of art and restoration. Starting from the first, the work must be thought of as a whole and not as a total, because it is unique and not a sum of parts. As is the author's custom, an example follows so that what has just been stated can be understood: a mosaic is a whole with respect to one of its tesserae which, if taken individually, has a partial value since the unity of which it was part is lost. Where the work thus results materially divided, one must try to develop the potential original unity that each of the fragments contains: in the case in which, therefore, we find ourselves in front of a lacuna on our Caravaggio—thus in front of a potentially such work of art—Brandi categorically states that "the integration must always and easily be recognizable" in order not to create a forgery—whether aesthetic or historical—and that the material "is irreplaceable only where it directly collaborates in the figurativity of the image," that is, in a few words, as anticipated, only the material as structure is restored and, therefore, the lacuna must be treated as such, otherwise, one would be performing a restoration on the image, which is inadmissible. THE LACUNA The concept of the lacuna—the gap—is a central issue in conservation. It involves determining how to complete and reintegrate a missing part of something while respecting its original integrity. The challenge is deciding how to act in a way that balances reintegration with differentiation. Brandi suggests avoiding the use of a single, uniform hue (tono) to fill gaps. Even if the chosen color matches the surviving decoration, the result often remains visually jarring. This is because the missing part becomes too evident, creating a stark contrast rather than achieving a harmonious integration. Consequently, the lacuna often draws more attention than the preserved original, disrupting the unity of the work. To address this, Brandi proposes techniques that aim to integrate the missing parts without overshadowing the original. He emphasizes methods that allow the observer to distinguish between the original and the reconstructed elements, ensuring authenticity and clarity. The Hatching Technique Brandi advocates for the hatching technique as a solution for reintegration. This involves: 1. Using Hue and Color: Selecting colors and hues that are harmonious with the surrounding area of the gap. 2. Applying Figurative Elements: Incorporating lines and geometries that echo the original design, thereby reestablishing the composition. When viewed from a distance, the gap appears visually unified with the original. However, upon closer inspection, the use of lighter lines makes the distinction between old and new clear. This method respects the integrity of the artwork while subtly addressing the lacuna. Architectural Application The principles of the hatching technique can also be adapted to architecture. In this context, lines, volumes, and geometries are used to reinterpret and reconstruct missing spaces. The goal is to evoke the original atmosphere and figurative idea without imitating it outright. An example of this approach is the restoration of San Filippo Neri in Bologna, where lines and forms were employed to recreate the essence of the lost architectural elements while ensuring their distinction from the original structure. This technique preserves the authenticity of the building while offering a respectful and harmonious solution to the lacuna. TIME Speaking now of the second theme, time, the author affirms that it is encountered in the work of art in three distinct moments: as "duration" in the manifestation of the work while it is being created by the artist; as "interval" between the end of the creative process and the moment in which the work of art is about to receive this seal of value; as "instant" in the awareness—in a given time and place—that a work is such. Brandi declares that the only moment in which restoration can truly insert itself into the time of a work of art is the latter, because it constitutes that human action aimed at ensuring the transmission of the work as it was found in the present: that is, we restore everything that has come down to us with the defined seal of artistic and historical value that the artist and time, years and years before, have infused; differently, if the intervention were to insert itself into the first time—thus in the "duration"—it would be called "restoration of fantasy" because it would have the presumption of inserting itself into the creative act, that is, into the mind and hands of the artist. Let us then return to the Madonna of the Pilgrims and imagine seeing a brown lacuna at the height of the Child's face: the restorer could never restore the original appearance because, in doing so, he would literally put himself in Caravaggio's shoes, without any certainty of reproducing the material-aspect that the artist had thought and then realized in the "duration" of his creative action. Finally, if the restoration attempted to insert itself into the second type of time—the "interval," thus between the realization and the conclusion—it would be considered "restoration of reintegration," which is equally wrong because it has pretended to forcibly restore the potential unity of a work of art, merging an image into another image that is not authentic either aesthetically or historically. HISTORICAL AND AESTHETIC INSTANTCES Thus, we arrive at the fifth and sixth chapters, in which Brandi explains in detail what the two instances are, the historical and the aesthetic, which here, for convenience, we will respectively nickname the historian and the artist. Both are analyzed through the examination of four elements that can appear in the field of restoration: the ruin, the addition, the patina, and the remaking. It will be noticed how, between one instance and the other, there are often opposing opinions, but it will still be the instance with greater weight, according to Brandi, that will determine the final decision. The Ruin: Both agree in believing that it must be maintained as such, so it can only be preserved and consolidated. The historian legitimizes its conservation because, although it is a mutilated testimony of a work of art, the ruin still preserves in nuce a recognizable trace of human activity; the artist expresses a similar judgment because it—let us now imagine the ruins of ancient Rome—has now been actualized in our consciousness as such, as an integral and qualifying part of the urban area or landscape in which it is located. The Addition: From the historian's point of view, it must be maintained because it is nothing but a new testimony of human activity and, therefore, of history; according to the artist, however, it must be removed because—as already observed—it has inserted itself between the creation and the definition of a work of art, moreover pretending to rediscover the original unity and not just the potential one. However, there are always exceptions: Brandi brings the example of the Holy Face of the Cathedral of San Martino in Lucca, a wooden sculpture that, over the centuries, has literally filled up with additions such as the crown, the skirt, etc.: "(...) it is certain that it is a work whose secular transmission has occurred in the additional iconography that it still preserves (...). It seems to us that the value of a work of art is not so prevalent in the Holy Face as to be able to erase the importance of its historical aspect, and therefore we would be of the opinion of maintaining this documentary aspect that it preserves and which in itself is a very important historical relic." In the field of restoration, therefore, it will be a judgment of value that will declare the prevalence of one instance over the other; in this case, for example, it was the historical instance that had greater weight. The Patina: It is a particular example of addition that, however, is not necessarily the product of human activity because, in most cases, it is a factor determined by time. Therefore, as is already intuitive, from the historian's point of view, it must be maintained, as it is a witness of one or more temporal passages in the life of the work, especially if it has been understood that the patinated effect was desired by the artist; likewise, the artist suggests maintaining it because, if one wanted to remove it, one would risk making the material prevail over the artistic expression, when—as observed—it is always the image that has precedence. The Remaking: Depending on its nature, the historian can decide what to do with it; in the case where the remaking aimed to backdate the work of art, thus committing a historical forgery, it would not be admissible and therefore should be removed; in the case where, instead, it managed to subsist in the work, transfusing into it, without thus creating any forgery, then it is perfectly legitimate because it is a historical testimony. According to the artist, instead, the remaking must absolutely not be maintained, except in the case where it should participate in the conservation of the work in its potential artistic unity. THE LIVING PRESERVATION - JOSEF WIEDEMANN CHAPTER I - JOSEF WIEDEMANN: EDUCATION, TEACHING, WORK 1.1 WIEDEMANN'S EDUCATION AND HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH RESTORATION CULTURE IN GERMANY BETWEEN THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES Josef Wiedemann's academic education occurred in the 1930s at the Technische Hochschule in Munich, during a time of significant political and cultural transformation in Germany. His career initially developed within the framework of the Nazi regime, with which he had to collaborate for work opportunities. However, this did not prevent him from cultivating an independent way of thinking. The German restoration culture, deeply rooted in the 19th century and associated with figures such as Alois Riegl and Max Dvorák, profoundly influenced his restoration approach. Wiedemann operated in a context where monument preservation was central to theoretical and practical debates involving both art historians and architects. 1.1.1 RESTORATION CULTURE IN GERMANY BETWEEN THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES The German tradition of restoration developed alongside the rediscovery of Gothic architecture as a national expression. It evolved through the theories of Alois Riegl, Max Dvorák, and Georg Dehio. These scholars promoted a critical perspective on conservation, opposing stylistic restoration in favor of preserving the authenticity of monuments. This debate established the methodological foundations Wiedemann would later apply in post-war reconstruction. 1.1.2 ARCHITECTURAL WORK AND ACTIVITY AS A FREELANCER After completing his studies, Wiedemann started his career in the studio of Roderick Fick, engaging in significant projects commissioned by the Nazi regime. However, the end of the war marked a turning point: during the post-war reconstruction, he emerged as an independent architect. He earned a strong reputation for his ability to merge tradition with modernity. His early projects included residential buildings and schools, reflecting a meticulous understanding of local contexts. 1.1.3 TEACHING AT THE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE IN MUNICH: THE CHAIR OF DENKMALPFLEGE UND SAKRALBAUTEN In 1955, Wiedemann was appointed as a professor at the Technische Hochschule in Munich, where he directed the chair of "Denkmalpflege und Sakralbauten" (Monument Preservation and Sacred Architecture). His teaching emphasized the need to reconcile respect for historical heritage with the demands of contemporary architecture. He was influenced by Italian experiences and the theoretical reflections of his mentor, Hans Döllgast. 1.2 HANS DÖLLGAST AND JOSEF WIEDEMANN: THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MASTER Wiedemann developed his methodological approach through an intense dialogue with his mentor, Hans Döllgast, a prominent figure in German restoration. 1.2.1 HANS DÖLLGAST AND A NEW WAY OF INTERVENING ON THE ANCIENT Hans Döllgast introduced an innovative approach based on the concept of "living conservation." This methodology preserved the historical traces of monuments while adapting them to contemporary needs. His vision would significantly influence Wiedemann's work, who reinterpreted these principles with originality. Alte Pinakothek, Munich, 1953 This intervention was the manifest of Döllgast ideas. The Alte Pinakothek, initially constructed in the 18th century, served as an art gallery where the king could display his collection. Designed by Leo von Klenze, one of the foremost neoclassical German architects, the building featured a simple rectangular layout with two wings. Its design emphasized a clear distinction between the southern loggia, which shielded artworks from sunlight, and the northern section, characterized by its classical symmetry. During World War II, the building sustained significant damage from bombings, leaving behind only ruins. The surrounding area was later cleared and used to collect gravel from the destruction across the city. Instead of demolishing the remains and building anew, a professor advocated for restoring the Alte Pinakothek, arguing that preserving heritage structures was more valuable and cost-effective than starting from scratch. Hans Döllgast, championed this approach and penned an article emphasizing that protecting the original structure is the first and foremost principle of heritage restoration. Döllgast began by designing a lightweight roof and a loggia supported by slender steel pillars. This structure protected both the ruins and the facade. Simultaneously, he incorporated a wall within the building to stabilize and preserve the remnants while keeping some of the original ruins visible. Döllgast revised the plan to reconstruct the central stairway, which had been lost in the bombing, and integrated it with the loggia. This ensured the building’s functionality while maintaining a respectful connection to its historic layout. The most challenging aspect was dealing with the "lacuna" or the missing portions of the building. Döllgast considered various solutions, including extending the original window design across the lower floor while constructing a contrasting solid wall above. Another concept explored was using a glass wall to bridge the gap between the old and new sections, creating a bold architectural contrast. Ultimately, Döllgast adopted a minimalist approach, drawing inspiration from the principles of the Athens Charter. He avoided ornamental additions and instead opted for a simple yet harmonious design. The gaps were filled using bricks, carefully matched in color to the original sandstone. This understated intervention preserved the geometric unity of the building while making the restoration distinguishable from the original. Döllgast’s design exemplified the "Potential Unity of the Work of Art." At first glance, the wall appears to restore the original form, but upon closer inspection, it reveals itself as a modern addition. This deliberate contrast highlights the fragmented history of the building while celebrating its preservation. In the 1980s, this stark differentiation was softened during further renovations, as public sentiment shifted to favor a more seamless blend of past and present. However, Döllgast’s work remains a powerful manifesto for continuity in architecture, demonstrating that restorations can honor both the legacy and evolution of historic structures. 1.2.2 THE RECONSTRUCTION OF ST. BONIFAZ (1956–1968/70): THE MEETING OF MASTER AND PUPIL The collaboration between Döllgast and Wiedemann on the reconstruction of the Basilica of St. Bonifaz marked a pivotal moment in both of their careers. This project exemplified their capacity to combine respect for historical ruins with the use of modern materials and techniques. It also established the methodological foundation that Wiedemann would later employ in his own architectural work. CHAPTER II - WIEDERAUFBAU FOR MUNICH 2.1 POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION: RUPTURE OR CONTINUITY? The post-war reconstruction of Munich, devastated by World War II bombings, presented a unique challenge in the European context. The city faced a fundamental question: should it preserve its ruins as historical memory or use reconstruction as an opportunity for radical transformation? This debate, oscillating between a rupture with the past and continuity, lies at the heart of Josef Wiedemann's work. The concept of Wiederaubau ("reconstruction") in Germany took on multiple meanings. On one hand, it symbolized the recovery of significant monuments to maintain national identity. On the other, it entailed creating modern spaces to address new social and urban needs. Influenced by the methodological approach of his mentor, Hans Döllgast, Wiedemann advocated a synthesis of these two goals. 2.1.1 THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND THE ACTIONS OF BAVARIAN HERITAGE OFFICES After the war, Bavarian legislation concerning the preservation of historical heritage played a critical role in defining how to intervene in the ruins. Bavarian heritage offices, tasked with overseeing reconstruction, developed guidelines aiming to balance conservation with the economic recovery requirements. However, these offices often encountered practical challenges, such as resource shortages and the pressure to quickly provide housing and infrastructure. Wiedemann interpreted these directives with sensitivity and creativity, adhering to the heritage offices' requests without compromising his vision. He was among the few architects of the time to perceive restoration not merely as a technical operation but as a cultural and symbolic process. 2.1.2 WAR DAMAGES: MUNICH'S STUNDE NULL (ZERO HOUR) Munich, like many other German cities, faced its Stunde Null (Zero Hour) at the end of World War II. Bombings had reduced much of the city to rubble, destroying not only residential buildings and infrastructure but also monuments of immense historical value. This situation demanded an immediate and complex response: how should one approach the ruins? Wiedemann saw this as an opportunity to rethink the relationship between the past and the present. He did not regard ruins as mere debris to be removed but as living witnesses of history and collective memory. In his projects, the scars of the past were not concealed but instead emphasized as integral to the new design. 2.1.3 THE PROTAGONISTS OF RECONSTRUCTION Munich's reconstruction was a collective effort, involving architects, art historians, public administrators, and citizens. Notable figures included Hans Döllgast, Sep Ruf, and Robert Vorhoelzer, as well as institutional leaders who promoted a balanced approach between tradition and innovation. Despite being one of the youngest architects in this group, Josef Wiedemann distinguished himself with his ability to engage with diverse stakeholders and propose solutions that addressed both practical and cultural needs. 2.2 JOSEF WIEDEMANN: THE "LIVING" PRESERVATION OF THE EXISTING Wiedemann's approach to reconstruction was based on the concept of "living" preservation. This methodology treated monuments not as static artifacts but as evolving entities. His interventions respected the historical integrity of buildings while adapting them to contemporary functional requirements. 2.2.1 WIEDERAUBAU: GENESIS AND MEANING The term Wiederaubau symbolized both the operational and philosophical underpinnings of Wiedemann’s work. It went beyond mere reconstruction, representing a process of rebirth in which architectural intervention became a tool to restore identity and vitality to war-torn communities. Wiedemann viewed restoration as an act of cultural responsibility, involving not just rebuilding what was lost but creating new connections between past and present. This concept was evident in his design philosophy, which emphasized the use of local materials, traditional techniques, and a clear distinction between historical and modern elements. For Wiedemann, restoration was not about imitating the past but about interpreting it respectfully and creatively. 2.2.2 WIEDEMANN AND WIEDERAUBAU: THEORY AND METHOD Wiedemann's methodology was built on a continuous dialogue between theory and practice. He integrated the theoretical principles of conservation—such as those outlined in the Athens Charter (1931) and the Italian Restoration Charter (1932)—with practical solutions tailored to the specific needs of the sites he worked on. His projects balanced meticulous attention to historical detail with innovative architectural practices. While he frequently employed modern materials like reinforced concrete, he ensured these interventions remained visibly linked to the original architecture. 2.3 CASE STUDIES IN MUNICH 2.3.3 SIEGSTOR (1956–1958) The Siegestor, designed by Friedrich von Gärtner and inspired by Rome's Arch of Constantine, was built between 1843 and 1847 as a key monument of Munich’s neoclassical era under King Ludwig I. It marked the northern end of Ludwigstrasse, symbolizing the city's cultural renaissance. Severely damaged during a 1944 air raid in World War II, it became a somber reminder of its association with Nazi ideology, especially due to its use during the 1935 commemoration of the failed 1923 Beer Hall Putsch. Debates on its reconstruction emerged post-war, with opinions divided between restoring it as an exact replica or incorporating its ruined state. Josef Wiedemann proposed a hybrid solution, preserving the scars of war while giving the monument a renewed form. He reconstructed the structure with a mix of original and new materials, distinguishing old elements from new ones to emphasize its layered history. The restored Siegestor included a steel staircase for public access and was clad in limestone to maintain aesthetic coherence. Wiedemann's approach reflected the philosophy of embracing ruins as reminders of the past, much like the castle of Heidelberg. The reconstructed monument bore an inscription summarizing its journey: "Dedicated to victory – destroyed by war – a reminder of peace." The Siegestor, transformed into a symbol of peace, transcends its original purpose, illustrating the evolution of its meaning through time and its enduring relevance to future generations. 2.3.4 GLYPTOTHEK (1961–1972) Context of the Reconstruction The Glyptothek concludes the analysis of Wiedemann's reconstruction projects for Munich's city center. The prolonged timeline for both design and construction (over a decade) indicates the extensive debate that began in 1961, the year the reconstruction was decided. This debate involved historians, professionals, and the public, with newspapers dedicating entire pages to the issue. Wiedemann’s project remains the most debated of his works and continues to resonate in contemporary discussions. Opinions diverge between those who see it as inattentive to the significance and richness of the original building and those who celebrate it as an attempt to balance memory preservation with belonging to the modern era. Historical Context The original Glyptothek was commissioned in 1816 by Prince Ludwig to Leo von Klenze, who was appointed Hofbaumeister (court architect) that same year. The King’s advisor, Martin von Wagner, raised objections to certain solutions in von Klenze’s design, which he considered unsuitable for a museum aspiring to be Germany’s largest and most prestigious repository of classical art. Wagner criticized the dense decorations, which he believed would distract from the artworks, and the lighting, which relied solely on lunette windows overlooking the courtyard, leaving the interiors dark. Despite these criticisms, von Klenze’s design prevailed due to his strong rapport with Ludwig, who pursued the vision of transforming Munich into a European cultural reference point. Von Klenze’s work perfectly encapsulated the aspirations of the future king. Wiedemann’s Reconstruction Approach Wiedemann was consulted by Hans Diepolder, the museum's director, regarding restoration efforts carried out by the Landesbauamt, which aimed to recreate the building “as it was, where it was.” Wiedemann rejected the idea of reproducing lost elements and argued for preserving existing fragments while integrating them into the reconstructed structure. He suggested cleaning the joints and applying a thin layer of plaster to unify the walls, creating a space that retained both its historical memory and architectural coherence. Design Philosophy and Outcomes Wiedemann envisioned an innovative project influenced by Hans Döllgast, moving beyond replication to create a new interpretation of the original building. His work on the Glyptothek can be described as an Innenaufbau (internal reconstruction), as the exterior had already been irreversibly altered by earlier interventions. Wiedemann’s design emphasizes the idea of a ruin: the unadorned brick surfaces and the orderliness of the treated walls evoke the grandeur of classical ruins, reminiscent of Piranesi’s engravings. The sparse inclusion of original decorative fragments encourages visitors to imagine the building's former state while appreciating its current form. Architectural Innovations Wiedemann tackled unresolved issues from von Klenze’s original design, particularly the inadequate natural lighting. He introduced vertical cuts extending from the lunette windows to the floor, framed by wall segments that suggest the original wall’s closure. This intervention is distinctly modern, with visible steel beams incorporated into the walls. Wiedemann’s choice to avoid fully mimicking the original structure results in a dynamic tension between past and present, making his solution innovative and contextually appropriate. Influences from Italian Architects Wiedemann’s work reflects inspiration from Italian architects such as Franco Albini and Carlo Scarpa. Albini’s design for the Museo del Tesoro di San Lorenzo (1956) influenced Wiedemann’s treatment of the Glyptothek’s lunette windows, with both projects showing a similar attention to detail and spatial tension. Scarpa’s restoration of Castelvecchio (1952–1964) also left a mark on Wiedemann’s approach, particularly in his use of steel for structural and display elements and his craftsmanship, which reveals a deep respect for the interplay between old and new. Impact and Legacy Wiedemann transformed the Glyptothek into a "living" building by reconfiguring its layout and emphasizing interaction between ancient and modern elements. By opening the internal courtyard, he redefined it as a central, visible space, enhancing the spatial experience and breaking away from von Klenze’s enclosed design. Wiedemann’s reconstruction prioritizes functionality and public accessibility, offering a bold reinterpretation of the museum's role within the city. In conclusion, Wiedemann’s Glyptothek embodies Ambrogio Annoni’s philosophy of post- war architectural restoration. Rather than artificially reconstructing damaged monuments, Wiedemann reimagined the structure as a harmonious and modern architectural ensemble. His approach successfully revitalized the building, restoring its significance while integrating it into the contemporary urban landscape. PART 3. TOWARDS CONTEMPORARY ISSUES CONSERVATION OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE ALOIS RIEGL (1858 – 1905) Alois Riegl (1858-1905) was a scholar of artistic forms that were not then considered as such, such as the serial artistic production of the late Roman imperial period ("Late Roman Artistic Industry," 1901), or the decorative motifs of Oriental carpets (1891). After a period of study in Rome, Riegl also wrote a fundamental essay on the origins of Baroque art, thus starting the reevaluation of an artistic period that had previously been considered marginal or decadent. Riegl’s attention did not focus on celebrated works or artists, but rather on artistic production, examining intentions, the diffusion of models, and variations in relation to established norms. His work represents a significant reflection on the values conveyed by works of art, which are analyzed based on innovative categories, such as the relationship between figure and background, spatial framing, the repetition of figurative patterns, etc. KUNSTWOLLEN It is in this context that the idea emerged that every artistic product corresponds to a perceptual, spiritual, and, more broadly, cultural context. Each work of art thus responds to an artistic intention (Kunstwollen in German) that passes through individual artists and craftsmen, and also concerns the patrons, users, and the audience who receive and accept a particular artistic expression. Artistic value is therefore relative to the context that produced, inspired, and consumed it. Attention shifts from an art history (Kunstgeschichte) to a “cultural history” (Kulturgeschichte) in which artistic production responds to particular mentalities that go beyond traditional concepts of beauty. In this way, Riegl aimed to overcome the positivistic view that style was conditioned by the material used, functional purpose, and technique employed. This view was already present in Viollet-le-Duc and was further developed in late 19th-century Germany, particularly by Gottfried Semper (1803-1879). THE MODERN CULT OF MONUMENTS – THEORY OF VALUE Riegl is also known in the field of restoration for his role as president of the Central Commission for the Preservation of Monuments in the Austro-Hungarian administration, which in 1903 passed a new law on the protection of works of art and monuments. Riegl himself wrote a presentation for the law, which was later published separately under the title The Modern Cult of Monuments (Der moderne Denkmalkultus, 1903). This is a complex text that should be read alongside the law to which it serves as a preface, and here it is summarized, focusing on some of its main points. The title itself highlights the author's position: he does not provide a practical guide on restoration, but instead sheds light on the values attributed to works we call "monuments" over time, up to the early 20th century, a time of intense social conflicts, demands for renewal in science, art, and technology, and groundbreaking developments in the study of the human psyche. Riegl notes that even the concept of a monument is fluid and changes depending on the era in which it is applied. In Greco-Roman antiquity, monuments were considered works erected specifically to commemorate an event or a person, thus carrying an intentional value, such as triumphal arches celebrating military victories, with inscriptions and the name of the victor prominently displayed. In Roman times, a functional building dedicated to entertainment, such as the Colosseum, would rarely be considered a "monument." During the Renaissance, the concept of monument was applied to works regarded as models of aesthetic perfection, worthy of imitation, such as baths, forums, and public buildings (including the Colosseum, which influenced many 16th-century structures). These works were recognized for their absolute artistic value, as exemplars for architects and artists of every era; Michelangelo's works and Raphael's paintings were also considered monuments. Only in the 19th century did the monument acquire value because it documented a past era, serving as a testimony from which to reconstruct the cultural and spiritual life of distant times; thus, it became primarily a historical value, used to document an evolutionary phase of humanity (monument/document). According to the intentional value, one would seek to maintain the monument in its original form, ensuring its communicative capacity by removing signs of decay. According to the absolute artistic value, the monument would be preserved as a model to be imitated, eliminating all later additions that would mar its purity. According to the historical value, the monument would be treated as a document to be restored for readability, without concern for its aesthetic outcome. However, during Riegl's time, another value was emerging, which he argued would dominate in the 20th century—the age of mass culture. This is the value of antiquity or age (Alteswert in German), recognized in a work simply because it belongs to the past and bears the marks of time. Examples include ruins, which fascinate regardless of the original value of the building, or stones aged by patina, which were highly appreciated in the picturesque taste. The Alteswert is thus an "emotional" value, easily understood by the general public, even the less cultured, but it often comes into conflict with other values. Other values are also attributed to a work, especially in architecture. The desire for buildings to meet contemporary aesthetic needs leads to a search for novelty value (or artistic value of novelty). Often, a work from the past is expected to conform to contemporary tastes; this was the case with the reconstruction of San Paolo fuori le mura, for example, which resulted in a new work rather than a conserved ancient building. Finally, it is important not to forget that each building survives only if it guarantees a functional value, i.e., a purpose that requires its maintenance and care, with its preservation being crucial for a certain community. Riegl emphasizes the importance of functional purpose in the protection of buildings and the need to evaluate case by case the function to be maintained or assigned to a building being restored. Use, in essence, ensures the life of a monument. A restoration intervention, Riegl asserts, may cause conflicts between the various values attached to a work, which explains the dissatisfaction often felt when facing a restored work. For example, the historical value demands respect for the document, i.e., respect for additions or changes that have occurred over time, while the novelty value seeks an aesthetically perfect building conforming to current standards. Meanwhile, the value of age demands that the marks of time not be erased. It is primarily the Alteswert that causes the most frequent conflicts with other values. How to proceed? Riegl proposes that restoration works avoid conflicts between the values conveyed by the monument, for example: Where there is a risk of altering the historical value, it is possible and desirable to create copies of the parts at risk of alteration to ensure the preservation of the original work. For instance, famous paintings can be reproduced and displayed to the public if environmental factors or other risks threaten the original. The legitimacy of the novelty value should be recognized, but it should be directed toward the production of contemporary works. It is futile to ask a medieval building to reflect contemporary tastes, which can be better represented by entirely new works. This is a highly debated point today when reactions against contemporary interventions in historic contexts are often motivated by the desire for fame among successful architects, rather than genuine conservation concerns for the monument. Efforts should be made to avoid conflicts with the value of age, which is significant to much of the modern public, by avoiding heavy restoration interventions that highlight, for example, the difference between new stonework and ancient masonry. This would spoil the "pleasure" derived from the Alteswert, and the restoration would not be appreciated. Thus, heavy restoration interventions replacing authentically aged materials should be limited to conservation and maintenance. In this way, Riegl joined the call to abandon stylistic restoration practices in favor of interventions focused solely on conserving materials, a trend that was spreading across Europe based on the thinking of John Ruskin. However, Riegl’s approach was entirely different, detached from the romantic and decadent stance found in Ruskin. For Riegl, restoration did not arise from nostalgic or retrogressive positions, but from a modern interpretation of past artistic production. It was not about entering the mind of the original creator, as with Viollet-le-Duc, but about responding to the needs of contemporary man. Austrian and German historians and architects were influenced by Riegl, following a trend favorable to maintenance. However, his views on restoration were not immediately known in other European countries (although it should be noted that the 1903 Austrian law was valid in the Italian regions then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), so his influence was primarily felt starting in the 1980s, when the first translations appeared, and mainly in theoretical debates. PRESERVING 20 T H CENTURY HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE IN DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES The bombings of World War II caused widespread destruction, leaving some buildings entirely ruined and others significantly damaged. By the 1950s, recognition of the cultural value of these structures led to the application of protective restrictions, even to buildings that were only 30 years old. This marked the first instance of juridical protection for such young architectural heritage. WEISSENHOFSIEDLUNG, STUTTGART, GERMANY (1927) The Weissenhofsiedlung was created as part of a 1927 exhibition in Stuttgart, showcasing avant-garde residential prototypes designed by architects like Walter Gropius, Le Corbusier, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Initially open to the public for a few months, the buildings were later used as housing until 1938. These experimental designs represented innovative solutions for modern living. In 1981, conservation efforts began, not to preserve the existing state but to restore the original architectural forms. The flat roofs, altered over time, were restored to their initial design, and later-added plaster layers were carefully removed to reveal the original. Sampling techniques were used to match the original plaster's color, though its appearance had changed over time. Disputes arose regarding the exterior color, as traces of a controversial blue paint were linked to the interior facades of the main doors. Despite minimal maintenance issues, this intervention marked one of the earliest restorations of modern architecture, focusing on recreating the original image rather than conserving aged materials. TUGENDHAT HOUSE, BRNO, CZECHIA (1929 –1930) The Tugendhat House, designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, was completed in 1930. Its original owners were forced to leave in 1938 due to the German occupation of Czechoslovakia. Over the decades, the house underwent expansions and began to show signs of deterioration by the 1980s. An initial intervention in the 1980s, led by the State Institute for Reconstruction of Historical Towns and Buildings, addressed structural degradation caused by water ingress and restored the house’s geometry to match the original design. Further restoration began in 2010 following the house's inclusion on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2001. This intervention prioritized the preservation of the building’s iconic geometry and materials. Layers of plaster were carefully removed to protect the original, while the kitchen surfaces were recreated using a mix of original and replicated tiles. Structural issues in the masonry walls were resolved using detachment techniques, ensuring authenticity. Flooring, stone materials, and metal supports wer

Heritage Conservation PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue