Conservation of Modern Architecture PDF

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,"...

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.