Book: Athens Charter 1931

Apart from working on planning issues, Giovannoni was a member of the Consiglio
superiore delle Belle Arti, and of various commissions, for over twenty-five years. He
collaborated with state authorities and muni- cipalities in the restoration of historic
build- ings. Giovannoni distinguished himself from the previous Italian theorists in his
approach to restoration as a cultural problem of evalu- ation, and the rehabilitation of
historic build- ings with respect to all significant periods – instead of reconstructing
them to their ideal form.

He placed emphasis on maintenance, repair and consolidation, and in the last case, if
necessary, could also accept the use of modern technology. The aim was essentially to
pre- serve the authenticity of the structure, and respect the whole ‘artistic life’ of the
monu- ment, not only the first phase. Any modern additions should be dated and
considered rather as an integration of the mass than an ornament, as well as being
based on abso- lutely sure data. He presented these principles at the International
Congress in Athens, in 1931, contributing to the formulation of the Conclusions of the
Congress, the so-called ‘Athens Charter’. Comparing the spirit of the principles with
those of Boito, where the monument was conceived primarily as a historic document,
he presented a much broader approach including architectural aspects, the historical
context, the environment and the use of the building. Later, looking back at the
Charter, he thought it comparable with a treatise of medicine and surgery facing clini-
cal cases.

Giovannoni identified four types of restora- tion (1936: xxix,127):

1. restoration by consolidation;2. restoration by recomposition (anastylosis); 3.

restoration by liberation; and4. restoration by completion or renovation.

He agreed with Boito that it would be best if restorations were not visible, and that
this could be achieved with modern methods and technology, grouting with cement, or
using metal or invisible reinforced concrete struc- tures as a safeguard against
earthquakes. He insisted, however, that modernity should not be so excessive as to
make the building suffer. While not approving stylistic restoration, he could accept the
removal of the bell towers from the Pantheon, the demolition of the later structures
from the Parthenon, the restoration of the Maison Carrée of Nîmes, and the res-
toration of the Curia in the Roman Forum as the significance of what was discovered
was far greater than what was lost.

Lecture SO2 p.3: Athens Charter 1931

P.5-P.7

Italian Post War Development:

Argan and Brandi developed these concepts:

1. ‘conservative restoration’ (restauro conservativo), giving priority to consolidation

of the material of the work of art, and prevention of decay; and

2. ‘artistic restoration’ (restauro artistico), as a series of operations based on the

historical critical evaluation of the work of art.

The first can be more generally identified as ‘conservation’; it includes prevention, as

well as the necessary operations to maintain the status quo of a historic object. The
aim of the second, the artistic restoration, is to re-establish the aesthetic qualities of
the object if disturbed or obscured by over-paintings, poor repairs or restorations,
oxidized varnishes, dirt, or losses (lacunae). Arbitrary integrations, addition of figures,
or new tonalities, even if ‘neutral’ are not permitted. The necessary tools for critical
analyses can include the scientific laboratory when this is requested. This second
definition for the restoration of works of art became the basis for the development of
modern restoration theory in Italy.

After WW2:

In 1948 Director General of Antiquities and Fine Arts, who divided war damage to
historic buildings into three categories:

1. limited damage, which could be repaired with reasonable efforts;

2. major damage;3. practically destroyed.

There were problems in the second category especially, and the opinions tended to go
in two directions: either reconstruction and restoration in the previous form as in the
case of the Loggia di Mercanzia in Bologna, or reconstruction in a form that did not
repeat but rather conserved what was left, allowing for reinterpretation of the lost part

Roberto Pane (1897–1987)

Pane laid the main emphasis on the aesthetic demands of restoration, though not in the
form of stylistic restoration. He disagreed with a ‘ripristino’ (rebuilding) on the basis
of analogy, and insisted on a specific and secure basis following the principles of
Giovannoni. In principle, he saw it as legitimate to conserve all elements of historic or
artistic character whatever period they belonged to, but there was also a need for a
critical choice of what to conserve, considering that each monument was unique as a
work of art. Restoration should, therefore, help to free hidden aesthetic qualities from
insignifi- cant obstructing additions. Here, to be a critic was not enough, and in every
restoration there was always a moment when the solution could only be found through
a creative act. In such a moment, the restorer could only have confi- dence in himself,
and not look for guidance from the ghost of the first architect.

(Slides P.33) Venice Charter, 1964

It also reflected the current debate about conservation vs. restoration, taking note of
the theory of Cesare Brandi, published the previous year.
Training and Education: The Venice Charter has been one of the principal references
in terms of conservation principles. Care for environment:

(slides p.38) Cesare Brandi’s theory of restoration

Brandi sustained the speci- ficity of a work of art, claiming that it was the result of a
unique, creative process.

Restoration can then be contemplated, but every time it is undertaken, it must be based
on a singular recognition of the work as a work of art, as a special product of
humanity.

EXTRA:

DEFINITION OF CONSERVATION HERE:

Conservation is the action taken to prevent decay. It embraces all acts that prolong the life of
our cultural and natural heritage, the object being to present to those who use and look at
historic buildings with wonder the artistic and human messages that such buildings possess.
The minimum effective action is always the best; if possible, the action should be reversible
and not prejudice possible future interventions. The basis of historic building conservation is
established by legislation through listing and scheduling build- ings and ruins, through
regular inspections and documentation, and through town planning and conservative action.
(Feilden, 1982:3)