Heritage Conservation Part 1 PDF

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

HERITAGE CONSERVATION PART 1. EUROPEAN ROOTS OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION The meaning of “restoration” varied over the centuries, and some of its definitions openly contradicted each other, making it impossible to give a univocal definition. The gems of what we call “restoration” nowadays can be dated back to the early 19th century, with the works and the ideas of the ones who are considered the fathers of modern restoration. RAFFAELE STERN AND GIUSEPPE VALADIER The restoration works carried out by Raffaele Stern and Giuseppe Valadier in Rome can be considered the first modern restoration works, because they open up some important themes for the discipline, like: - The use of distinguishable materials - The simplification of the shapes That fell under the general debate on whether it is more important to preserve the historical look of the building or to make the restoration clearly distinguishable. 1806-1807 RESTORATION OF THE COLOSSEUM BY RAFFAELE STERN For this intervention, he needed to build a buttress to sustain the last arches on the east side of the ruins after an earthquake. The decision to maintain the look of the ruins highlights the new trend of the century, that consisted in a newly found interest in ruins and in the ancient world in general, as we can see in the works of some artists like Piranesi (1720- 1778). Stern built a brick buttress and used bricks to close some of the arches that were dangerously damaged. The intervention is recognizable by the use of different materials. Moreover, Stern placed a plaque on the buttress that stated the date and the types of interventions that were carried out. 1817-1820 GIUSEPPE VALADIER (+ STERN) RESTORATION OF THE ARCH OF TITUS Stern started the intervention, but he died in 1820, and Valadier took his place. This intervention became a canon for modern restoration, because it set some important principles: - Use of similar materials, but still distinguishable (he used Travertino instead of marble) - The lost parts were reconstructed but with simpler shapes, so that the unity of the monument was restored, but the intervention was still identifiable 1822 GIUSEPPE VALADIER RESTORATION OF THE COLOSSEUM In 1822 Valadier had to build a buttress on the west part of the ruins. Differently from Stern’s intervention, he built the buttress maintaining the shape of the arches and their architectural styles, but still used different materials (a mix of travertino and bricks). EUGÈNE EMMANUEL VIOLLET-LE-DUC (STYLISTIC RESTORATION) Viollet-le-Duc is one of the fathers of stylistic restoration, which is a school of thought that originated in France after the French revolution. During that period, they wanted to restore the monuments damaged after the revolution, because of the sense of “national pride” that was born during those years, but also for the interest for Medieval times that was growing, both in literature and archeology. Viollet-le-Duc wrote his definition of restoration in his “Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française” “Restoring a building in not preserving it, repairing it or remaking it, it is giving it back a state of completeness that may never have existed at a given time” This completeness must be achieved by understanding and reproposing the style of the building (hence the name “stylistic” restoration). The concept of style is a focal point in Viollet’s work, he distinguishes between: - The styles = the different languages produced in different ages - The style = the manifestation of an ideal based on a principle (base of all the styles) To understand what is the style to follow you should deduct it by observing the building and buildings similar to yours, and by studying the historical documents also to understand and try to use the historical construction systems, putting yourself in the shoes of the original architect. In this way, he tries to create a sort of scientific method to restore the unity of style of the buildings. The evolution of his doctrine can be seen through his works: the first ones are more conservative, while in the last ones he tends to be less respectful of the original aspect of the building by adding non existing elements  CHURCH OF THE MADELEINE IN VÉZLAY Mostly structural interventions. He did some works on the façade, but it was left incomplete. He is more conservative and less stylistic in his first works. NOTRE-DAME CATHEDRAL IN PARIS This intervention is considered the manifest of stylistic restoration. The church had a lot of damage from the Napoleonic war and Viollet did some restoration interventions, but also modified the look of the space that surrounded the building. He demolished some nearby buildings to create a square on each side and emphasize the church. This was a common approach at the time, to isolate the building in order to emphasize its value. From the architectural point of view, he based his interventions on the drawings that pictured the cathedral before the revolution, some examples are the restoration of the King’s gallery and the pinnacle. CITÉ OF CARCASSONEE For the stylistic renovation works in this city he performed accurate historical research, in particular about the historical building techniques. PIERREFONDS CASTLE The first project for this restoration consisted in the stylistic restoration of the castle, while the perimetral walls were left as ruins. Napoleon II didn’t like the project because he wanted the castle to be as complete as possible. For this reason Viollet “got a bit carried away” and completely restored the castle, the walls and also the internal decorations of the castle, to the point in which it was impossible to distinguish the original building. JOHN RUSKIN (ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION) On one hand, proponents of the so-called “stylistic restoration” studied and cataloged decorations and construction techniques, almost “freezing” them in space and time. On the other hand, Ruskin embraced a romantic sentiment, seeing in history and nature a continuous sequence of marks and efforts, which makes objects appear beautiful precisely because they have endured through time. THE OPENING OF THE CRYSTAL PALACE While Ruskin was alive, England was facing the consequences of the first industrial revolution: on the positive side, fast progress in the industrial and technological fields, on the other hand, many negative consequences like pollution, worse hygienic conditions in the cities and child labor. In 1851 the inauguration of the Crystal Palace was an important milestone for the history of architecture: with its modern materials, the modular system and its function, the Crystal Palace was really a symbol of the industrial revolution. John Ruskin visited the building and wrote the text “the opening of the Crystal Palace”, in which he criticized it saying that it was a symbol of the degradation of art and architecture. THE NATURE OF THE GOTHIC (THE STONES OF VENICE) While opposing this modern vision of architecture, Ruskin was a supporter of gothic architecture: his work “The stones of Venice” is considered one of the most important works of the neogothic movement in England. The title is actually an allegory: The Stones of Venice certainly refers to the components of the city's architecture, but it also represents the values upon which the Republic was founded: the worth of its citizens, the industriousness of its merchants, and the goodness of its laws. According to Ruskin, architecture cannot be separated from the society that produced it. In the chapter titled The Nature of Gothic, Ruskin describes architecture not in terms of aesthetic categories but through qualities such as the character, soul, and sentiment of those who created the buildings of Venice. The equation that a healthy society produces good architecture leads to the belief that returning to the Gothic style could have beneficial effects on contemporary society. THE CONCEPT OF SUBLIME In the 18th century, the survival of Gothic merged with its rediscovery (revival), supported by a new aesthetic sensibility tied to the concept of the sublime. Inspired by Edmund Burke's treatise “A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful”, the sublime valued wild, irregular, and dramatic elements in art, architecture, and landscapes, moving away from classical harmony and proportion. Gothic architecture, with its towering verticality, gained appreciation alongside melancholic themes like ruins and decay, seen as beautiful and evocative of the passage of time. MODERN PAINTERS AND THE VISIONARY ARTIST Interest in the Middle Ages grew also in literature and art, for example, Ruskin supported the work of the Pre-Raphaelites (a group of painters that referenced medieval painters, opposed to the perfect representations of Renaissance painters). He wrote about the Pre-Raphaelites in his work “Modern Painters”, in particular defending the work of Turner. In this work he explains the figure of the artist as a visionary, combining the theoretical and imaginative faculty. The theoretical faculty pertains to the intellectual capacity to perceive truth in nature and art, while the imaginative faculty is the creative and emotional power that transforms truth into something transcendent. Ruskin believed that true artistic greatness arises when the theoretical and imaginative faculties work in harmony. Ruskin held that J.M.W. Turner exemplified this balance, for his scientific precision in depicting light, atmosphere, and landscapes, which he believed were based on rigorous observation, combined with landscapes that were profoundly moving. THE ELEMENTS OF DRAWING Ruskin himself was a skilled draftsman, both of landscapes and natural elements, as well as buildings. Unlike the rational and geometric representations of Viollet, Ruskin’s drawings always show partial or angled views; complete elevations rarely appear, and his attention is more focused on architectural details, the materials they are made of, and the color that time has bestowed upon them. THE SEVEN LAMPS OF ARCHITECTURE The concepts expressed in The Stones of Venice are revisited in Ruskin’s most important work on architecture: The Seven Lamps of Architecture (first published in 1848). Here, the term "lamps" symbolizes torches or guiding lights, representing the principles that should direct every architect's work. This book is not intended for restoration but aims to inspire architectural design based on seven valid principles. One of these, the "Lamp of Truth", emphasizes the need for truth in architecture, meaning the use of authentic materials in construction. For example, marble and stone should be used instead of materials that imitate them, such as industrially produced substitutes, which were very popular at the time. Ruskin specifically criticizes 19th-century English architecture, which relied heavily on mass-produced elements. Portland stone, for instance, was often replaced with its cheaper substitute, cement, which had just been invented. Similarly, cast iron, molded to imitate classical orders, was regularly used in new buildings and sold through catalogs. Ruskin condemned this false and industrialized architecture. His advocacy for authentic materials later became a cornerstone of modern architecture. THE LAMP OF MEMORY (HIS VIEW ON RESTORATION) A chapter closely related to restoration is the sixth lamp, the "Lamp of Memory," in which Ruskin argues for architecture to preserve and convey the memory of the past, embracing the passage of time. He calls for respect for the marks of time on monuments, as they help transmit the memory of history. The Lamp of Memory Aphorism 31 "Neither by the public, nor by those who have the care of public monuments, is the true meaning of the word restoration understood. It means the most total destruction which a building can suffer: a destruction out of which no remnants can be gathered: a destruction accompanied with false description of the thing destroyed. Do not let us deceive ourselves in this important matter;  it is impossible, as impossible as to raise the dead, to restore anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture." Based on this chapter, Ruskin is considered the founder of architectural conservation, in opposition to Viollet-le-Duc's stylistic restoration. However, there was never a direct conflict between the two figures, as they operated in very different contexts. WILLIAM MORRIS Ruskin’s ideas deeply influenced William Morris (1834–1896), one of the key founders of the British Arts and Crafts movement. Believing in the need for political and social renewal, Morris saw a return to craftsmanship as a way to oppose industrial production, combining neo-medieval aesthetic ideals with his socialist political beliefs. He also opposed the restorers of his time. In response, he founded the S.P.A.B. (Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings). The association, which included writers and intellectuals of the time, including Ruskin himself, still exists today. Its mission is to protect “ancient buildings” (notably avoiding the term “monuments”), not from decay or the effects of time but from restorations, which were seen as major causes of damage and alteration. The association worked particularly to protect buildings from the removal of their original patinas and plaster, opposing renewal interventions that would “scrape” away ancient surfaces. For this reason, the S.P.A.B. earned the nickname “anti-scrape society.”