Charter Of Venice Research Articles

Europocentryczne i dalekowschodnie spojrzenie na wartość autentyzmu zabytku – dokument z Nara jako próba pogodzenia odmiennych poglądów

The Nara Document of Authenticity was drawn up in 1994 during Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention, held at Nara (Japan). The purpose of the final version of the Nara Document was an attempt to reconcile principles thinking in the conservation field. In the first part of the article European understanding of the authenticity of historic buildings, which can be analyzed based on the Charter of Venice was presented. Definitions approved in this charter were not acceptable for East Asian countries (including Japan). Internationalization of the problem of protection of heritage caused that they began to pay attention to the cultural diversity and heritage diversity. In the second part of the article Japanese understanding of authenticity related to traditional Japanese timber join design, Japanese culture, maintenance, repair and dismantling, preservation politics and traditional attitudes to preservation monuments was characterized. The Nara Document developed concept that “authenticity” should take into consideration the compounds that exist between the material and intangible heritage, drew attention to diversity of cultures (cultural context) and heritage in our world. The content presented in The Nara Document was important for the protection of World Heritage problem of authenticity and possible solutions.

The Restoration of Kidane Mehret Church in Sen'afe

The Church of Kidane Mehret stands at 2,450 m above sea level, close to the village of Sen'afe, on the border between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Probably built in the fifteenth or sixteenth century, the church gradually became a ruin in the middle of the last century. Following the intervention of the monks of this church, a restoration program was set up in 2006. With the agreement of the National Museum in Asmara and the World Monuments Fund, funding was collected together by the German Embassy, the French Embassy, and the Alliance Francaise of Asmara, which made it possible to restore the church, between 2006 and 2008. Teams of workmen and women were created to this end. Only traditional techniques were employed for the masonry of the walls, the wooden roofing, the plastering, and the interior paintwork. This project, which conforms to the Charter of Venice, could serve as an example for similar restorations in the region and as a model for professional training. Finally, a trilingual article (English, German, and Tigrinya) was published in the Collection Cultures et Patrimoines d'Erythree , 2009.

Projetos para museus educativos-prédio da FOP UNICAMP em Piracicaba

Este trabalho tem a proposta de requalificar o prédio central da Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba, e projetar anexo um museu e laboratório que acolha uma coleção de ossos para que possam ser estudados e pesquisados em trabalhos com o corpo humano. Este museu será aberto para estudos de outras Universidade (do mundo todo) que tiverem interesse em tal assunto. Metodologia utilizada: pesquisa sobre o programa de necessidades para o projeto do museu de ossos, elaboração do diagnóstico do prédio antigo central da FOP, identificação de elementos históricos, levantamentos com medições e fotográficos, elaboração da proposta de criação do museu de ossos com projeto do edifício anexo, plantas, cortes e fachadas, levantamento da área central na cidade de Piracicaba, referências projetuais. Resultando na criação do projeto do museu de ossos e proposta da restauração do prédio central da FOP mantendo o museu da odontologia "Dra. Grace H. Alvarez". Considerações finais: Este trabalho partiu do princípio da implantação do museu de ossos e laboratório, ambos faziam parte do desejo de alguns professores, a partir daí foi iniciado o projeto de requalificação do prédio antigo. Usou-se como referência teórica para a requalificação a Carta de Veneza e o Historiador Camilo Boito. Não foram modificados os usos do prédio antigo, apenas adequados. O conceito do museu de ossos foi estabelecido através das referências projetuais estudadas, e o jardim foi criado para desfrute da população. A função para a qual ele foi desejado delineou suas formas.

« Reconstruction scientifique » ou « nouvelle construction d’ancien » : les dilemmes de la reconstruction dans le Pétersbourg postsoviétique

This article addresses the history of attitudes to reconstruction among professional restorers and interested public in Russia. It argues that, in the second half of the twentieth century, an ingrained tendency to disparage reconstruction went alongside an extensive history of highly interventionist projects that, for example, aimed to return a building to its supposed appearance at the so-called ‘optimal date’ (sometimes, but not always, the date when it was completed by the original architect). During the post-war years, this process acquired an ideological overlay because of its association with the drive to put right war damage, and particularly that caused by the invading German forces. ‘Liberation’ of buildings from ‘laters layers’ was accepted policy. This ‘moderated historicism’ was in notable contrast to the treatment of war-damaged historic buildings in some other European countries, for instance Britain (e.g. Coventry Cathedral), though the extensive replanning of entire urban areas in order to reduce density and clear away slums was found in the Soviet Union as well. Remodelling continued to be the professional standard until at least the 1970s, but by the early 1980s, with increasing impact of the Charter of Venice on Soviet practice, it was no longer automatically accepted as best practice. The conflicts continued into the postSoviet period too, with the word ‘reconstruction’ applied both to pastiche newbuild (attacked by some for its flimsiness in historical terms) and to carefully-researched work by professional restorers. The article concludes with material on some particularly controversial recent rekonstruktsii, such as the House of Leningrad Trade department store and the Eliseev Delicatessen.

The Venice Charter: A Bibliography

The Venice Charter:A Bibliography Alyssa Lozupone and Frank Frank “The Actuality of the Venice Charter.” Scientific Journal: The Venice Charter 1964–2004: ICOMOS 4 (ICOMOS, 1994). This article is a summary of the commentaries made during the 1990 International Symposium. It reviews the praises and critiques of the Venice Charter identified by the national committees, as well as the recommendation for the creation of a “parallel text” that would remedy the charter’s shortcomings. Adam, Robert. “Does Heritage Dogma Destroy Living History?” Context: Institute of Historic Building Conservation 79 (2003): 7–11. In this article Robert Adam criticizes the Athens, Venice, and Krakow Charters for only reinforcing the “principles of the previous document,” a phenomena he refers to as “mission creep.” To explain this concept, he compares the three charters. Ahmad, Yahaya. “The Scope and Definitions of Heritage: From Tangible to Intangible.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 12, no. 3 (2006): 292–300. This article compares the Venice Charter with subsequent charters adopted by UNESCO and ICOMOS and discusses how the definitions and principles of the charter have been reinterpreted over time. Apell, Robert. “The Charter of Venice and the Conservation of Monuments of the Modern Movement.” First International DOCOMOMO Conference: Conference Proceedings, DOCOMOMO, 1991. This article discusses the need for the Venice Charter and the historical context surrounding its creation. The author also discusses the Modern Movement and the preservation challenges modern architecture presents to the charter’s principles. The author pinpoints articles from within the charter and how they are compatible (or not) with modern architecture. “The Application of the Venice Charter.” Scientific Journal: The Venice Charter 1964–2004, ICOMOS 5 (2004): 59. [End Page 477] This short article discusses the translation of the Venice Charter and “complementary charters” that have been created since the 1964 document. Araoz, Gustavo F. Jr., and Brian L. Schmuecker. Discrepancies Between U.S. National Preservation Policy and the Charter of Venice. ICOMOS, 1987. The catalyst for this paper was the growing concern within the field that preservation in the United States was diverging from the restoration norms and practices of the Venice Charter. The authors compare the history and contents of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation with the charter to support or disprove this concern. Bouras, Charalambos. “Strict and Less Strict Adherence to the Principles of Anastylosis of the Ancient Monuments in Greece.” The Acropolis Restoration News 9 (2009): 2–8. In this article the author briefly discusses the history of the Venice Charter. He mentions that while nothing within the charter has changed, “discussions on bringing it up to date have been held two times.” The remainder of the document discusses the principles of the Venice Charter and how they have been applied to the restoration of ancient monuments throughout Greece. Chalturin, A. G. “The Fifth General Assembly of ICOMOS—1978.” Scientific Journal: Thirty Years of ICOMOS 5 (1995): 38–39. This publication summarizes the Fifth General Assembly, held in Moscow and Suzdal in 1978. The summary mentions the assembly’s proposed amendments to the Venice Charter and the motivation for suggested changes. Chung, Seung-Jin. “Architectural Conservation in the East Asian Cultural Context with Special Reference to Korea.” Ph.D. Diss., University of New South Wales, 1998. [End Page 478] Dalibard, Jacques. “The Next 20 Years.” APT Bulletin 21, no. 1 (1989): 4–8. This article provides a brief history of the Venice Charter and outlines the main criticisms of the document. The publication also discusses the ICOMOS Assembly in Moscow in which a revised version of the charter was proposed. The author discusses his opposition to the proposed changes as well as his criticisms of the original charter. Erder, Cevat. “The Venice Charter Under Review.” Scientific Journal: The Venice Charter 1964–2004: ICOMOS 4 (ICOMOS, 1994). This article summarizes some of the criticisms of the Venice Charter, specifically those that “led some experts to propose that the Venice Charter might well be expanded or changed further to reflect the broader interests in historic conservation.” The author also discusses “the pros and cons of this argument by conducting a critical review of the Venice Charter in order to point out why and in what respects the...

Architectural and structural analysis of Souli's wells

This paper presents the history, analysis and preservation of wells at Souli, a significant heritage asset of Greece. The importance of preserving these historic monuments is explained by examining the history of the wells and the role they played in the survival of Souli's residents. Plans and sections of two representative Souli wells are presented in detail, providing an overall picture of the heritage asset. The potential areas of damage to the wells are identified by performing structural analysis of representative wells using the finite element method. A restoration and strengthening technique that satisfies the principles of the Charter of Venice is examined for establishing proper support of the wells. Recommendations are given for preserving and promoting these important historical structures.

Values and Heritage Conservation

The notion of heritage and the practice of conservation have changed significantly since the 1964 Charter of Venice stipulated that the intent of conservation was “to safeguard…[monuments]… no less as works of art than as historical evidence” and that the aim of restoration was “to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the monument … based on respect for original material and authentic documents.” Since then the scope of heritage has expanded, both in terms of type and scale, and in relation to the time interval between creation and preservation. The characteristics and contexts of different types of heritage places have necessitated the revision of conservation principles and guidelines.Today conservation is understood to encompass any action designed to maintain the cultural significance of a heritage object or place, and is a process that starts at the moment a place is attributed cultural values and singled out for protection. In this complex environment, the protection of values and significance has been seen as a unifying principle of practice. These values are attributed, not intrinsic; mutable, not static; multiple and often incommensurable or in conflict – can challenge established conservation principles. The nature of cultural values has serious implications for the impact of conservation on the values of a place, the universality of conservation principles, and the protection of the heritage for future generations.

Review: Neo-historical East Berlin: Architecture and Urban Design in the German Democratic Republic, 1970–1990 by Florian Urban

Florian Urban. Neo-historical East Berlin: Architecture and Urban Design in the German Democratic Republic, 1970–1990 . Farnham, England, and Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate Publishing, 2009, x + 294 pp., 94 b/w illus., and 3 diagrams. $124.95, ISBN 9780754676164 For most of its existence, the German Democratic Republic was committed to mass-produced housing, pragmatic modernism, and socialist universalism. Having built a sea of prefab high-rises and slabs, during the 1970s the government turned to neohistorical architecture and the renovation of historical neighborhoods, especially in the capital, Berlin. In Neo-historical East Berlin: Architecture and Urban Design in the German Democratic Republic, 1970–1990 , Florian Urban offers the first systematic exploration of this paradox.1 The explanation, he suggests, lies in a mixture of pragmatism, provisional decisions that were later amplified into lasting policy, and shifting cultural attitudes. The paradox might have been only apparent, as Urban argues that neohistoricism was not always antipodal to modernism. What Urban calls neohistorical architecture comprises refurbishment, reconstruction, and new structures. His examples are showcase projects located in the center of the city, all somehow exceptional: spaces aimed at tourism, or at representing the GDR to an international public, or located in areas famous for their vibrant alternative culture. The resulting buildings and neighborhoods do not necessarily abide by visual or material authenticity, but rather evoke a “historical character” or “feel” through the use of past architectural forms and the staging of history “in period shops and restaurants”(74). The most notorious example is the Nikolaiviertel, a patch of winding streets and old-looking buildings, which Urban calls a “prefab old town” in reference to the concrete plates used in a large portion of the reconstruction. The area was at the heart of medieval Berlin, but most of it lay in ruins in the postwar era—including the Nikolaikirche, one of Berlin’s oldest structures. The Nikolaiviertel’s central location and history made it attractive to the GDR government not only as a site for tourism, but also to boost claims to German national …