212

Sección 3: Conservación Section 3: Conservation Section 3: Conservation

TOWARDS A PLURALISTIC PHILOSOPHY OF CONSERVATIONAndrzej Tomaszewski *

The magic date 2000 which not only closes the old and opensthe new centuries but also the millennia, places requires us - asconservators - to consider the position we have reached in ourdiscipline, and with what baggage of mistakes and what assetsof experience we enter the twenty-first century. This questionmust be - and is - asked above all by ICOMOS. This is witnessedby increasing discussion in recent years both at a regional andinternational level on the theoretical basis of conservation.Our first General Assembly this century should become a forumfor the summarising of the changes which have taken place inconservation doctrine. Let the thoughts presented below serveas a step in this direction.

In earlier millennia and centuries, from barely perceptible - andundocumented - beginnings, the populations of individual andseparate cultural milieux looked after their heritage for ideological,religious, or pragmatic reasons, creating in the process theirown traditions and experience. These were passed down fromgeneration to generation, though not as codified rules. Due tothis type of conservation (though not yet known by this name),the treasures of many cultures have survived to our times. Wemay see this as a period of an “initial pluralist approach” to theconservation of the cultural heritage.

Philosophical approaches to the conservation of the culturalheritage were first codified in Europe. Already early in thenineteenth century the first conservation doctrine wasbeginning to take shape, that of purism - romantic in itsphilosophical conception - and quickly came to dominate inthe whole of western Europe. This process was influencedby the publications and personal contacts of those involvedin the restoration of monuments, but also the creation ofnational conservation services based on similar premises.This was the first important stage of international co-operationin conservation, the exchange of information and theconsequent unification of concepts, though restricted withinthe bounds of one continent.

When at the turn of the century a new concept arose incentral Europe, that placing emphasis on the conservationand not the restoration of monuments, the ground wasprepared for its European reception. Its rapid and generalacceptation by European conservators resulted from the factthat its Austrian and Prussian protagonists formulated theirwritings around ideas which were maturing in the whole areanorth of the Alps. The damage which was being done to theEuropean cultural heritage by the purist doctrine wasbecoming increasingly recognised. The development of thehistorical sciences at this period demonstrated the need to

examine the written and material (architectural andarchaeological) sources together, and the authenticity of thesesources was the conditio sine qua non of the investigativeresults. At the same time there was also a reassessment ofconcepts in the historiography of art, which included theaesthetic acceptation of not only architecture and art of theMiddle Ages but also that of later periods, up to neoclassicism.As a consequence, all of the chronological layers of monumentshad to be taken into account by conservators. Against thebackground of such views, European exchange of views onconservation led to the formation of a philosophy ofconservation, the leading concept of which could besummarised by the famous words of the German conservatorGeorg Dehio: «konservieren nicht restaurieren».

The destruction of monuments caused by the First WorldWar created a fresh test for the new philosophy, though notto the degree that is often thought. The main canon, to payequal attention to the conservation of the differentdevelopmental periods of the monument, was maintained,the main casualty was a rigorous attitude against thereconstruction of destroyed monuments.

The years after the First World War saw the rise of the firstinternational organisations: the League of Nations, alongsidewhich functioned the International Commission of IntellectualCo-operation, and in the field of cultural property, theInternational Office of Museums. It was this which organisedin Athens in October 1931 a conference devoted toconservation. The final document of this conference,undeservedly seldom recalled today, is expertly-written and isone of the best of its type, after all these years retaining itsactuality. It covers an impressive wide field of conservation,from architectural, urbanistic and landscape (referring to theneed to preserve green spaces). It postulates the necessity forinterdisciplinary investigations and work, and approaches theeconomic, educational and social issues (such as equal valuesin a multicultural heritage) and appeals for international co-operation in the field of conservation. The document is primarilyaddressed however not to conservators, but to the League ofNations. After gaining positive opinions from the InternationalCommission of Intellectual Co-operation, in 1932 it wasapproved by the assembly of the League of Nations as arecommendation to the governments of member nations.Although there were not many years of peace left for theapplication of the recommendations of the Athens document,it played an important part in the creation of the awareness ofconservators.

213

Estrategias relativas al Patrimonio Cultural Mundial. La Salvaguarda en un Mundo Globalizado: Principios, Prácticas y PerspectivasStrategies for the World’s Cultural Heritage. Preservation in a globalised world: principles, practices and perspectives

Stratégies pour le Patrimoine culturel du monde. La conservation, dans un monde globalisé: principes, pratiques, perspectives

The post-War stage of the development of internationalintellectual co-operation in conservation - lasting until today- is also connected with international organisations. TheLeague of Nations has been replaced by the United Nations,and the development of the Commission on Intellectual Co-operation gave rise to UNESCO, and the International Officeof Museums changed into ICOM. The use by UNESCO of arepresentation of the facade of the Parthenon as its logo hadan ideological significance, it showed the classical ideal ofbeauty from which western civilisation developed as anuniversal value. Just as before the War, in the early post-Waryears there was in these international organisations a decideddomination of western culture, and in this eurocentrism. Itwas only with the passing of time and the passing ofcolonialism and the creation of the new developing countriesthat they gained a majority, and together with this a decisiveinfluence on the choice of leaders and their policies.

When UNESCO decided to intensify its activities in the fieldof the protection of the heritage, it led to the creation ofICCROM, a specialised international centre in Rome. Theformation of this first international conservation organisation,the members of which are states, had considerablesignificance for future developments. ICCROM became ascientific and didactic institution containing one hundredstates scattered on all continents. At the beginning however,with a limited number of members (mainly European), it didnot have the capacity for wider influence on the philosophyof conservation. The rise and animation of this organisationwere in the hands of Italian conservators, who regarded itslocation in Rome as an opportunity to raise the internationalprestige of Italian conservation. It was from the Italian milieuthat the idea arose of holding the «Second InternationalConference of Architects and Conservation Technicians» inVenice in May 1964. This meeting ended with the issuing of13 final documents, which have mostly been forgotten - withone exception, later called the «Venice Charter».

Many legends and false conceptions have arisen about thisdocument; a number of opinions current about its contentsdo not find support in the actual text. Although it is thoughtto have been written as a reaction against the mass rebuildingof monuments after the Second World War, the Charter itselfdoes not however mention the word “rebuilding”, anargumentum ex silentio implying that the rebuilding of adestroyed monument does not constitute “conservation”. Itis thought that the Charter established the meaning of theterm “authenticity” to refer only to the material substance ofa monument, while the document in fact refers only to theneed to conserve a monument in the “full richness of itsauthenticity”, leaving open the question of the definition ofthat concept, and even suggesting that there may be severalcomponents of that authenticity. It is difficult to compare theVenice Charter with the Athens Declaration. The latter was awide-ranging programmatic document addressed both to

conservators as well as to political leaders. The Venicedocument was a theoretical document addressed to anarrower audience, to conservators. It also addressed anarrower field, being restricted to individual monuments andarchaeological ruins, which even at that time - in a period ofrevalorisation of historic complexes and towns - was alreadyan archaic approach. Why then has the Charter had such adeep influence? It would seem that the secret of the VeniceCharter lies in the way it has been written. The restraint ofthe authors, who were mostly Europeans, allowed thecreation of an ‘open’ document, with universalcharacteristics. It rapidly came to lead a life of its own in thehands of its European adherents.

At the congress in Venice it was decided that there was aneed for the creation of an international (and - in contrast toICCROM - non-governmental) conservation organisation.This proposal was realised with the creation of ICOMOS inCracow in Poland in May 1965. Its inception was European,and only with time did states from other cultural regions join.At the beginning they were submissive disciples of theirsenior western colleagues, a dozen or so years were necessaryfor them to find their own identity in the field of the protectionof the cultural heritage.

The first years of ICOMOS were therefore Eurocentric inaspect, the main problems discussed were those of the oldcontinent. Although it was difficult to understand from theperspective of non-Europeans, the problem of the rebuildingof monuments destroyed by the War returned again andagain like a boomerang. The standard of ICOMOS becamethe Venice Charter, which it was attempted to adapt toEuropean needs, to fit it to the philosophy of theoreticiansof the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries such asRiegl and Dvorak. It was onto such a philosophical groundthat representatives of non-European regions stepped whenthey entered ICOMOS, or came as scholars to internationalconservation courses of ICCROM. In this manner some thirtyyears ago began the export to overseas regions of Europeanconservation philosophy from the beginning of our century,in which the Venice Charter was unwittingly involved.

The UNESCO World Heritage Convention of 1972 required astandardised regulation of the requirements for inclusion onthe List which was applicable in cultural regions all over theworld. Although multiculturalism had been included amongthe basic criteria for inclusion, the main problem lay in anothercriterion, that of authenticity formulated in its Europeanunderstanding. In this manner, monuments or their complexeswhich had been partially reconstructed were ‘punished’ bybeing deemed by the international document deemedineligible for inclusion on the World Heritage List. This stateof affairs was tolerated in the first period of creation of thisList as long as the majority of the objects included on it werefrom Europe (mostly its western regions). The first conflictsarose in the 1980s together with the entry of increasing

214

Sección 3: Conservación Section 3: Conservation Section 3: Conservation

numbers of countries from the Far East into the Conventionwhich began offering monuments on their territories forinclusion on the List. As a result, a deep divide became visiblebetween two philosophical-methodological approaches:

- the European conception of authenticity of the monument,seen entirely in terms of authenticity of substance andderived directly from the Roman-Christian cult of HolyRelics, and

- the Far Eastern conception seen in terms of authenticity of form,function and tradition, derived from a belief in reincarnation.

The first concept was reflected in the work of westernconservation theoreticians, the second reflected localbuilding traditions sometimes even codified in modernbuilding laws.

This controversy, having a concrete practical source in thecreation of the World Heritage List, caused - after decades ofsterility of conservation theorising - a great and livelyintellectual discussion, for the first time of trulyintercontinental dimensions. Gaining in power andsignificance in international organisations, non-Europeancountries increasingly stressed their points of view, whichstood in opposition to the European dictates and rejectingthe exportation by the Europeans of their own philosophies,claiming them as universal. A key moment was the generalassembly of ICOMOS in Colombo in 1993 where in the finaldocument (for which all the European delegates meeklyvoted, so as not to be accused of racism), we read “thewestern philosophy does not have an universal value”. Thesame document calls for the creation of regional charters ofmonuments protection. This haughty challenge came at atime when an international discussion on the concept of“authenticity” was in progress, culminating in the NaraConference held in Japan in November 1994. The finaldocument of that meeting, divergent however from the actualprogress of the discussions, does not satisfy, whilerepresenting a step forward. Attempts are still being madeby UNESCO to define the criteria of authenticity, and eventhe suggestion of replacing it by the somewhatuncommunicative concept of “integrity”.

The ongoing discussions, though containing much formalismand exhibiting bureaucratic tendencies have great intellectualsignificance. They stimulate the thinking of a wide range ofpeople involved in monument conservation in differentcultural regions. One can only hope that from this melting-pot will emerge a new (this time really universal) philosophyof conservation, with which we will enter the twenty-firstcentury. From which values contributed by individual culturalregions will it be formed? What contribution will be made byOld Europe? The key problem still remains the concept of“authenticity” in the understanding of “originalness”. Theword “authenticity” does not exist in the vocabularies of thelanguages of the Far East, nor indeed in Arabic, thus overhalf of the world’s population does not understand the

concept. It will be difficult to unite the two apparentlycontradictory conceptions: Western and Far Eastern, is itpossible at all while retaining mutual respect for theachievements of both of these great cultural regions andwithout a struggle and attempts to prove the superiority ofone philosophy over another?

Let us admit that each of these «opposing» philosophieshave universal elements and have contributed to theconservation of monuments, both have arisen not only onthe basis of religious and cultural conditions but also inspecific physical conditions.

- the Western tradition is related to the use of permanentbuilding materials and a temperate climate. Only in suchconditions can buildings survive (as long as properly cared-for) for several centuries and millennia in unchanged materialand structural form,

- the Far Eastern concept is determined by the non-permanentbuilding-materials used in the area (rammed earth, wood,wickerwork, bark) and a very aggressive climate. The survivalof structures is only possible due to the systematicreplacement of perished elements or entire parts of buildings.Only due to such techniques have the buildings of the FarEast, sometimes over a thousand years old, have survivedto our times in their original form. If these buildings had beensubjected to the western approach of monumentconservation, not a trace of them would remain today.

The western concept is fundamentalist in spirit (as opposedto the eastern one which is characterised by wise realism), it isin effect impossible to fully and consistently apply. Itsapplication requires continuous compromise, hypocrisy if notschizophrenia. It has however an ABSOLUTE VALUE from thepoint of view of modern science: only a monument preservedin its original material substance may constitute a reliablehistoric source (document of history) for the investigator ofthe history of architecture and art, above all for the heuristicsof those disciplines which are based on architectonic andarchaeological investigations. At the same time, a rebuiltmonument (however faithfully this has been done) remainsonly an iconographic source for the investigator! This scientificvalue of the Western philosophy, despite all the difficultiesand even impossibilities of its practical application, has beenincreasingly discerned by Far Eastern conservators. They alsodraw attention to the fact that while in the past, the replacementof material elements was the only means of assuring the survivalof the monuments, the availability of new materials andtechnologies has meant that to a greater degree it is possible toconserve the original material substance, and the developmentof investigative methods of the history of architecture and artcreate a powerful argument for this.

If in the discussion between East and West we stand in aposition of mutual respect for each other’s philosophy,acknowledging their great, though differing, contribution tothe preservation of cultural property, and if we demonstrate

215

Estrategias relativas al Patrimonio Cultural Mundial. La Salvaguarda en un Mundo Globalizado: Principios, Prácticas y PerspectivasStrategies for the World’s Cultural Heritage. Preservation in a globalised world: principles, practices and perspectives

Stratégies pour le Patrimoine culturel du monde. La conservation, dans un monde globalisé: principes, pratiques, perspectives

that the development of science and technology allows andencourages the preservation of the original substance of amonument wherever this is at all possible, we will have takenan important step towards an universal conception. Such aconception will have a pluralistic character. Local experienceand approaches to conservation - resulting both from thecultural and natural conditions of particular cultural regions- should be respected and encouraged. Some of thoseexperiences and approaches will be found to be common toall regions, and it is precisely these which will have a fullyuniversal value. A future global conservation philosophymay be represented in the form of a flower, the petals ofwhich will be the regional philosophies and approaches, whilethose aspects which they have in common will be representedby the shared centre. Common rules will be elastic, thepermanent flow of information (the import-export ofconservation experience) will not only be assured, but willalso be improved by increasingly more efficient systems ofintellectual communication. Already today the Internet isbecoming an indispensable tool!

If we re-examine the Venice charter, one may see that it fits inthe centre of the flower, with its reference to «the full richnessof authenticity», and «full» includes all its components:material, form, function, tradition, mutually complementaryand sometimes even - if need be - interchangeable. In thecentre of our flower we will find not a little of the thoughtsand experiences of the «Western philosophy». At the sametime in the European petal, we will find a similar degree ofimports from the Far East: an equal respect for all thecomponents of the concept of «authenticity» (and thus itfollows a reasonable attitude towards monumentsreconstructed after a cataclysm), and the wisdom of the East,discouraging extremes of thought, and encouraging theseeking of compromise and realistic resolution of problems,individually-applied in every particular case, and applied to.

all scales of activity, from the cultural landscape to individualmonuments. In a word - less dogmatism, more understandingand application of intelligence. This will make our disciplinehealthier, more honest and more humanistic

The pluralism of methodological approaches must be thebasic principle of our activities, based on understanding andnot dogmatism. This concerns all aspects of the work of theconservator. This will allow the better definition of where thereal division lies between what is regional (or applicable to agiven aspect of conservation), and what is common anduniversal. If at the beginning of the next century, by meansof exchange of methodological experiences between culturalregions and different branches of conservation, we create apluralistic-universal conservation philosophy, it will not meanthe rejection of previous local experience and traditions, butrather their integration with the experiences of other regionsand respect for them. Only then after a period of “initialpluralism” of cultural regions isolated from each other andafter decades of attempts to impose the domination of one ofthose regional philosophical traditions we will arrive at an“universal pluralism” of the cultural regions of the world,working together to protect the heritage of Mankind. Apluralism which takes the form of a flower. This is the greatchallenge for all of us united in ICOMOS in the twenty-firstcentury.

Andrzej Tomaszewski

Prof. Dr Andrzej TomaszewskiArt historian and architect. Full professor of history of architectureand preservation of cultural property at the Warsaw University ofTechnology. Former Director-General of ICCROM. FormerPresident od International Training Committee – CIF ICOMOS;currently Honorary President. Former Director-General od culturalproperty of Republic of Poland.