Loss, Compensation and Authenticity in Architectural Conservation

Abstract

Loss and compensation have been central issues in the conservation of art and architecture at least since the sixteenth century as described by Vasari.1 In modern conservation practice, the term ‘compensation’ is now used to include all aspects of intervention designed to address visual and structural reintegration resulting from material loss.2 They are inextricably tied to conservation's primary objective, the protection of cultural resources from damage and depletion. Their consideration reveals much about past and present notions of cultural heritage including its meaning and significance across time, and the interventions that have been employed for its preservation and presentation. Discussions of material loss and its remedy, compensation, ultimately confront the larger questions concerning all artistic and historic works: authenticity, artistic intent, and value.For the student and experienced professional alike, issues of material loss and degradation and the oft-stated requirement of structural and visual reintegration can be among the most difficult problems encountered in conservation regardless of whether the work is a painting, sculpture, tapestry, or building. In considering such fundamental issues as loss and compensation, we bring conservation as a discipline, increasingly defined and separated by its specializations, back together to consider its essential and unifying issues and tenets.3