Change Over Time 4.2

ChangeOver Time4.2A N I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L

O F C O N S E R V A T I O N A N D

T H E B U I L T E N V I R O N M E N T

F A L L 2 0 1 4

Change O

ver Time

FA

LL

2

01

4

UPCOMING ISSUES

VandalismS P R I N G 2 0 1 5

Landscape and Climate ChangeF A L L 2 0 1 5

Ruskin ReduxS P R I N G 2 0 1 6

National Park Service CentenaryF A L L 2 0 1 6

Copyright © 2014 University of Pennsylvania Press.

All rights reserved.

Published by the University of Pennsylvania Press,

3905 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Printed in the U.S.A. on acid-free paper.

Change Over Time is currently seeking papers for the upcoming

themed issue Ruskin Redux (Spring 2016). Please visit cot.

pennpress.org for a more detailed discussion of upcoming topics

and deadlines for submission. Articles are generally restricted to

7,500 words or fewer. Guidelines for authors may be requested

from Kecia Fong ([email protected]).

None of the contents of this journal may be reproduced without

prior written consent of the University of Pennsylvania Press.

Authorization to photocopy is granted by the University of

Pennsylvania Press for individuals and for libraries or other users

registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transaction

Reporting Service, provided that all required fees are verified

with the CCC and payments are remitted directly to the CCC,

222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. This consent does

not extend to other kinds of copying for general distribution, for

advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective

works, for database retrieval, or for resale.

2015 Subscription Information (USD)

Print and electronic:

Individuals: $35.00; Students: $20.00; Institutions: $72.00.

Single Issues: $20.00.

International orders, please add $18.00 for shipping.

Electronic-only:

Individuals: $31.50; Institutions: $63.00.

Subscriptions are valid January 1 through December 31.

Subscriptions received after October 31 in any year become

effective the following January 1. Subscribers joining mid-year

will receive immediately copies of all issues of Change Over Time

already in print for that year.

Please direct all subscription orders, inquiries, requests for

single issues, and address changes to: Penn Press Journals,

3905 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Telephone:

215.573.1295. Fax. 215.746.3636. Email: journals@pobox.

upenn.edu. Prepayment is required. Orders may be charged to

MasterCard, Visa, American Express, and Discover credit cards.

Checks and money orders should be made payable to ‘‘University

of Pennsylvania Press,’’ and sent to the address immediately

above.

All address changes and other business correspondence may be

sent to the address immediately above.

Typographic cover artwork by Kerry Polite.

Visit Change Over Time on the web at cot.pennpress.org.

EDITOR IN CHIEF

Frank MateroUniversity of Pennsylvania

ASSOCIATE EDITORS

Kecia L. Fong Institute for Culture and Society,

University of Western Sydney

Meredith Keller University of Pennsylvania

Rosa Lowinger Rosa Lowinger & Associates,

Conservation of Art + Architecture, Inc.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Nur AkinIstanbul Kultur University, Turkey

Erica AvramiColumbia University

Luigia BindaPolitecnico di Milano, Italy

Daniel BluestoneUniversity of Virginia

Christine BoyerPrinceton University School of

Architecture

David G. De LongUniversity of Pennsylvania

John Dixon HuntUniversity of Pennsylvania

Jukka JokilehtoUniversity of Nova Gorica

David LowenthalUniversity College London

Randall Mason University of Pennsylvania

Robert MelnickUniversity of Oregon

Elizabeth MilroyPhiladelphia Museum of Art

Witold RybczynskiUniversity of Pennsylvania

Steven SemesUniversity of Notre Dame

Jeanne Marie TeutonicoGetty Conservation Institute

Ron Van OersWorld Heritage Institute of

Training and Research for Asia and the Pacific (WHITRAP)

Fernando VegasUniversitat Politècnica de València

F A L L 2 0 1 4

V O L U M E 4

N U M B E R 2

I S S N 2 1 5 3 - 0 5 3 X

Change Over Time

Change Over TimeRunning an ad or special announcement in Change Over Time is a great way to get publication, program, and meeting information out to those in your field. Change Over Time is a semiannual journal focused on publishing original, peer-reviewed research papers and review articles on the history, theory, and praxis of conservation and the built envi-ronment. Each issue is dedicated to a particular theme as a method to promote critical discourse on contemporary conservation issues from multiple perspectives both within the field and across disciplines. Forthcoming issues will address topics such as Landscape and Climate Change, Vandalism, and Ruskin Redux.

2015 Advertising Rates

Ads are inserted at the back of each issue and on cover 3 (inside back cover). Only cover 3 positioning is guaranteed.

Half Page: $200 Full Page: $300 Cover 3: $350

Issue Closing Dates

Mechanical Specifications

Half Page: 5¼” x 4” Full Page: 5¼” x 8¼” Cover 3: 6” x 8½”

All journals are black and white and printed offset on matte stock. Ads must be emailed as print-optimized PDF files.Images should be scanned at a resolution of 300 dpi.All fonts should be embedded (type I fonts recommended).Halftones are shot at 133-line screen. No bleeds.

Submission Address and Contact Info

Send reservations and materials, formatted according to specs, to:

Emily Stevens, Journals AssistantUniversity of Pennsylvania Press3905 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4112Email: [email protected]; Fax: 215-746-3636

A complete ad rate card may be downloaded at cot.pennpress.org by selecting the “Advertising” link from the right menu bar.

Artwork Deadline

3/27/15

9/25/15

ReservationDeadline

3/13/15

9/11/15

PublicationDate

4/30/15

10/30/15

Season & Theme

Spring 2015Vandalism

Fall 2015Landscape and

Climate Change

Copyright © 2014 University of Pennsylvania Press.

All rights reserved.

Published by the University of Pennsylvania Press,

3905 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Printed in the U.S.A. on acid-free paper.

Change Over Time is currently seeking papers for the upcoming

themed issue Ruskin Redux (Spring 2016). Please visit cot.

pennpress.org for a more detailed discussion of upcoming topics

and deadlines for submission. Articles are generally restricted to

7,500 words or fewer. Guidelines for authors may be requested

from Kecia Fong ([email protected]).

None of the contents of this journal may be reproduced without

prior written consent of the University of Pennsylvania Press.

Authorization to photocopy is granted by the University of

Pennsylvania Press for individuals and for libraries or other users

registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transaction

Reporting Service, provided that all required fees are verified

with the CCC and payments are remitted directly to the CCC,

222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. This consent does

not extend to other kinds of copying for general distribution, for

advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective

works, for database retrieval, or for resale.

2015 Subscription Information (USD)

Print and electronic:

Individuals: $35.00; Students: $20.00; Institutions: $72.00.

Single Issues: $20.00.

International orders, please add $18.00 for shipping.

Electronic-only:

Individuals: $31.50; Institutions: $63.00.

Subscriptions are valid January 1 through December 31.

Subscriptions received after October 31 in any year become

effective the following January 1. Subscribers joining mid-year

will receive immediately copies of all issues of Change Over Time

already in print for that year.

Please direct all subscription orders, inquiries, requests for

single issues, and address changes to: Penn Press Journals,

3905 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Telephone:

215.573.1295. Fax. 215.746.3636. Email: journals@pobox.

upenn.edu. Prepayment is required. Orders may be charged to

MasterCard, Visa, American Express, and Discover credit cards.

Checks and money orders should be made payable to ‘‘University

of Pennsylvania Press,’’ and sent to the address immediately

above.

All address changes and other business correspondence may be

sent to the address immediately above.

Typographic cover artwork by Kerry Polite.

Visit Change Over Time on the web at cot.pennpress.org.

EDITOR IN CHIEF

Frank MateroUniversity of Pennsylvania

ASSOCIATE EDITORS

Kecia L. Fong Institute for Culture and Society,

University of Western Sydney

Meredith Keller University of Pennsylvania

Rosa Lowinger Rosa Lowinger & Associates,

Conservation of Art + Architecture, Inc.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Nur AkinIstanbul Kultur University, Turkey

Erica AvramiColumbia University

Luigia BindaPolitecnico di Milano, Italy

Daniel BluestoneUniversity of Virginia

Christine BoyerPrinceton University School of

Architecture

David G. De LongUniversity of Pennsylvania

John Dixon HuntUniversity of Pennsylvania

Jukka JokilehtoUniversity of Nova Gorica

David LowenthalUniversity College London

Randall Mason University of Pennsylvania

Robert MelnickUniversity of Oregon

Elizabeth MilroyPhiladelphia Museum of Art

Witold RybczynskiUniversity of Pennsylvania

Steven SemesUniversity of Notre Dame

Jeanne Marie TeutonicoGetty Conservation Institute

Ron Van OersWorld Heritage Institute of

Training and Research for Asia and the Pacific (WHITRAP)

Fernando VegasUniversitat Politècnica de València

F A L L 2 0 1 4

V O L U M E 4

N U M B E R 2

I S S N 2 1 5 3 - 0 5 3 X

Change Over Time

Change Over TimeRunning an ad or special announcement in Change Over Time is a great way to get publication, program, and meeting information out to those in your field. Change Over Time is a semiannual journal focused on publishing original, peer-reviewed research papers and review articles on the history, theory, and praxis of conservation and the built envi-ronment. Each issue is dedicated to a particular theme as a method to promote critical discourse on contemporary conservation issues from multiple perspectives both within the field and across disciplines. Forthcoming issues will address topics such as Landscape and Climate Change, Vandalism, and Ruskin Redux.

2015 Advertising Rates

Ads are inserted at the back of each issue and on cover 3 (inside back cover). Only cover 3 positioning is guaranteed.

Half Page: $200 Full Page: $300 Cover 3: $350

Issue Closing Dates

Mechanical Specifications

Half Page: 5¼” x 4” Full Page: 5¼” x 8¼” Cover 3: 6” x 8½”

All journals are black and white and printed offset on matte stock. Ads must be emailed as print-optimized PDF files.Images should be scanned at a resolution of 300 dpi.All fonts should be embedded (type I fonts recommended).Halftones are shot at 133-line screen. No bleeds.

Submission Address and Contact Info

Send reservations and materials, formatted according to specs, to:

Emily Stevens, Journals AssistantUniversity of Pennsylvania Press3905 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4112Email: [email protected]; Fax: 215-746-3636

A complete ad rate card may be downloaded at cot.pennpress.org by selecting the “Advertising” link from the right menu bar.

Artwork Deadline

3/27/15

9/25/15

ReservationDeadline

3/13/15

9/11/15

PublicationDate

4/30/15

10/30/15

Season & Theme

Spring 2015Vandalism

Fall 2015Landscape and

Climate Change

ChangeOverTime

A N I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L

O F C O N S E R V A T I O N

A N D T H E B U I L T E N V I R O N M E N T

F A L L 2 0 1 4 4.2PAGE i................. 18640$ $$FM 09-26-14 15:21:57 PS

PAGE ii

CONTENTS

194 Foreword: The Venice Charter at FiftyF R A N K G . M AT E R O

E S S A Y S

196 Historic Cities and the Venice Charter:Contributions to the Sustainable Preservationof Urban HeritageE D U A R D O R O J A S

204 From International to Cosmopolitan: TakingThe Venice Charter Beyond the ‘‘State-Party’’Politics of ExpertsC H R I S T O P H E R K O Z I O L

218 Deconsecrating a Doctrinal Monument:Raymond M. Lemaire (1921–1997) and theRevisions of the Venice CharterC L A U D I N E H O U B A R T

244 Learning from a Legacy: Venice to VallettaL O E S V E L D PA U S A N D A N A P E R E I R A R O D E R S

264 Spain Under the Venice CharterC A M I L L A M I L E T O A N D F E R N A N D O V E G A S

286 The Place of the Venice Charter Principles inthe Context of National Cultural Revival inUkraine after 1991K A T E R Y N A G O N C H A R O VA

................. 18640$ CNTS 09-26-14 15:21:58 PS

196

204

264

286

322

308 European Industrial and EngineeringHeritage as an Illustration of CurrentChallenges in Defining Heritage and its UsesP I E R R E L A C O N T E

322 The Venice Charter Down Under: Its Legacyin Landscape PreservationJ A N E L E N N O N

338 The Venice Charter and Cultural Landscapes:Evolution of Heritage Concepts andConservation Over TimeC A R I G O E T C H E U S A N D N O R A M I T C H E L L

358 The Care and Management of Historic HinduTemples in India: An Examination ofPreservation Policies Influenced by theVenice Charter in Non-Judeo-ChristianContextsA S H I M A K R I S H N A

388 Civilization-Making and Its Discontents: TheVenice Charter and Heritage Policies inContemporary ChinaR O B E R T S H E P H E R D

404 The Concept of Historic Authenticity and ItsMethodology for the Preservation of HistoricUrban Areas in Chinese ContextsS H U J I E C H E N

PAGE iii................. 18640$ CNTS 09-26-14 15:22:07 PS

PAGE iv

338

358

388

404

418

418 Riegl’s ‘‘Modern Cult of Monuments’’ andthe Problem of ValueM I C H E L E L A M P R A K O S

436 Authenticity: Principles and NotionsT O S H I Y U K I K O N O

462 Is There a Need for a Charter on . . . theWise Use of Charters and Conventions?J E A N - L O U I S L U X E N

471 A U T H O R B I O G R A P H I E S

477 T H E V E N I C E C H A R T E R : A B I B L I O G R A P H Y

487 C A L L F O R P A P E R S

489 U P C O M I N G I S S U E S

................. 18640$ CNTS 09-26-14 15:22:15 PS

ChangeOverTime

PAGE 193................. 18640$ HFTL 09-26-14 15:40:12 PS

1 9 4

PAGE 194

FOREWORD: THE VENICE CHARTER AT FIF TY

FRANK G. MATEROUniversity of Pennsylvania

Attendees of the congress held at the Fondazione Cini, May 1964. (Giuseppe Fiengo through Andrea Pane)

................. 18640$ FRWD 09-26-14 15:22:22 PS

2014 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Second International Congress of Architects

and Technicians of Historic Monuments and the adoption of the International Charter for

the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, known today as the Venice

Charter. Thirty-three years earlier, the First International Congress met in 1931 in Athens

to rescue the field of heritage conservation from the inherited polarities of nineteenth-

century restoration and preservation to a mediated view of the past as series of discreet

histories, distinct from the present. It was, however, in 1964 at the Second Congress that

the concept of universal heritage was further refined as the totality of unique expressions

within each country’s own cultural traditions. Such complexities were no doubt amplified

in response to the wholesale destruction in postwar Europe and the increasing expansion

of heritage classifications.

Today, contemporary conservation still holds to the principles of the Venice Charter,

while also arguing that value and significance are culturally determined, a point clearly

stated in the preamble of the original Venice Charter. In recent decades a number of

principles and assumptions in the Venice Charter have been challenged as our definitions

of cultural heritage have changed and our relationship to that heritage has evolved. Social,

economic, technological, and cultural changes demand that we critically examine the Ven-

ice Charter and its influences. In 2006 scholars and practitioners returned to Venice to

redress the charter and its legacy on its fortieth anniversary. Now, ten years later, at its

centenary, it is time again to reconsider the inherited tenets of heritage conservation as

codified in the Venice Charter, especially given current postmodern challenges in not only

defining what heritage is, but how it has been used (and abused), interpreted, and dis-

played.

The papers presented in this special issue of Change Over Time are the final result of

a two-day international symposium held on April 2–3, 2014 and cosponsored by US/

ICOMOS and The Graduate Program in Historic Preservation, School of Design at the

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Frank Matero, Conference Co-Chair

M A T E R O F O R E W O R D 1 9 5

PAGE 195................. 18640$ FRWD 09-26-14 15:22:23 PS

1 9 6

PAGE 196

HISTORIC CITIES AND THE VENICE CHARTER

Contributions to The Sustainable Preservation of Urban Heritage

EDUARDO ROJASUniversity of Pennsylvania

Figure 1. San Francisco Square in Quito, Ecuador, on a Sunday. (Eduardo Rojas)

................. 18640$ $CH1 09-26-14 15:22:15 PS

The Preservation of Urban Heritage: An Idea from Modern Times

The opening statements of the International Charter for the Conservation and Restora-

tion of Monuments and Sites—commonly known as The Venice Charter 1964—tell us

about the scope and depth of its origins. They express the concern for history and its

material expressions, which is:

Imbued with a message from the past, the historic monuments of generations of people

remain to the present day as living witnesses of their age-old traditions.1

They articulate the universality of the values of this heritage.

People are becoming more and more conscious of the unity of human values and regard

ancient monuments as a common heritage.2

With these considerations in mind, the charter articulates the challenge for architects and

technicians of historic monuments gathered in 1964 in Venice as holding:

The common responsibility to safeguard . . . [the historic monuments] . . . for future

generations . . . [and] . . . to hand them on in the full richness of their authenticity.3

In its conceptual makeup, the charter is a product of its time. It is strongly influenced by

the ideals of the international movement in architecture and is the embodiment of a

reaction to the romantic reconstruction and improvement approach used by the conserva-

tors of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This is evident in the charter’s

call for the recourse to all the sciences in the practice of conservation and restoration in

Article 2, and it is also present in many of its detailed recommendations. A few are worth

mentioning: the monuments should be intervened with minimally, and any intervention

should show respect for the original materials (Article 9); and when interventions are

needed, each should bear a clear contemporary stamp so as to differentiate it from the

monument’s original material(s) and/or design (Article 9).

The charter also departed from the early tradition that focused on the preservation

of an individual monument and recognized in Articles 1, 6, 7, and 14 that the preservation

R O J A S H I S T O R I C C I T I E S A N D T H E V E N I C E C H A R T E R 1 9 7

PAGE 197................. 18640$ $CH1 09-26-14 15:22:16 PS

1 9 8 C H A N G E O V E R T I M E

PAGE 198

of a monument should also encompass the preservation of its setting. Moreover, it indi-

cates in Article 5 that the preservation of a monument is facilitated if it is put to ‘‘some

socially useful purpose.’’4 The Venice Charter provided scholars and practitioners with

internationally agreed upon principles to guide the preservation and restoration of ancient

buildings, but allowed each country to apply the established principles within the frame-

work of its own culture and traditions.

Much has happened in fifty years and it is most appropriate to take a fresh look at

the Venice charter. The focus here is to trace the charter’s contribution to the study and

practice of urban heritage preservation and the challenges that the profession currently

faces. This endeavor, however, would be incomplete if no proper consideration were given

to the different charters, norms, recommendations, conventions, resolutions, and other

documents approved by ICOMOS and UNESCO in the last fifty years that expanded the

scope of the international concern for our material and intangible heritage and provided

guidelines for its preservation. The list is long and varied, each making its unique contribu-

tion to expand the scope of the concern for material heritage. This is the case for the Nara

Document on Authenticity of 1994, which provides this broad perspective and stresses

that authenticity is the essential, qualifying factor concerning the values of heritage. It

specifies that authenticity includes the monument’s ‘‘form and design, materials and sub-

stance, use and function, traditions and techniques, location and setting, and spirit and

feeling.’’ Most of the other documents further expand the concepts of urban heritage

preservation from individual monuments to neighborhoods and towns.

The Preservation of Historic Neighborhoods and Towns: A Growing Concern

The recommendations of the Burra Charter of 1979 extend beyond the individual monu-

ment and include the preservation of ‘‘places of cultural significance.’’5 The Washington

Charter of 1987 further expanded the concern for historic towns and other historic urban

areas as an integral part of the social and economic development of urban communities.

The Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage of 1999 expanded the concern of the inter-

national community of conservators to the value of buildings. The latest international

document, the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape of 2011,

expanded the scope of the analysis and practice of urban heritage preservation beyond the

monuments and the physical components of towns and historic neighborhoods to encom-

pass the urban areas understood as the result of a historic layering of cultural and natural

values and attributes, extending beyond the notion of ‘‘historic center’’ or ‘‘ensemble’’ to

include the greater urban context and its geographical setting.

The expanding concerns of the international community of practitioners matched

the growing interest of cultural elites in advocating for the preservation of the historic

city beyond the monuments contained within city limits. Preservation specialists joined

town planners and architects in advocating and devising methods to preserve the vast

number of historic towns and centers. The movement that started in Europe in the second

half of the twentieth century had followers in Latin America in the late twentieth century

and later progressed in Asia and Africa in the early twenty-first century. Furthermore,

................. 18640$ $CH1 09-26-14 15:22:17 PS

local communities around the world show a strong determination to preserve their his-

toric neighborhoods and their ways of living, which are threatened by predatory real estate

investments in poorly regulated but rapidly growing globalized cities. Therefore, the con-

cern for urban heritage preservation that was initially focused on the historic monument

and the public spaces surrounding them evolved to encompass whole neighborhoods, his-

toric centers, and historic towns. The preservation of urban heritage areas has gradually

gained voice as a social concern in many countries and, more importantly, has also gained

political legitimacy as an area of government intervention in some.

The expansion of the international community’s concern for preserving urban heri-

tage sites runs parallel with the evolution of the concepts and principles guiding the prac-

tice and the institutions responsible for heritage preservation. Two aspects are worth

noting. First, today we have a more profound understanding of the variety of social and

cultural values held by urban heritage sites and a greater appreciation of the economic use

value of their buildings. The conceptualization of urban heritage as cultural capital that

provides a flow of sociocultural services and as an input for production allows a more

precise appreciation of its contribution to development and provides additional reasons

for their preservation. Second, we also have a better understanding of the factors behind

the functional and physical obsolescence of historic centers and urban heritage areas and

numerous urban rehabilitation experiences that have successfully reversed these processes

of obsolescence. These experiences provide a wealth of validated knowledge on the most

effective strategies to revert the deterioration processes affecting urban heritage sites.

What the Venice Charter Does Not Tell

The Venice Charter and subsequent documents provide a clear guide on how to preserve

urban heritage. However, they are less precise or even silent in defining what to preserve

and through which means. Determining the societal value of urban heritage sites remains

a difficult issue. What heritage means to experts in history or in the arts may not be so

important for other members of the community, and the appreciation for the continuation

of sociocultural services that heritage provides may vary significantly from community to

community. The relative importance of individual buildings or public spaces can differ

significantly—ranging from world-renowned monuments to regional or local heritage sites

known only within restricted territorial boundaries. Preservation advocates still struggle

with the thorny issues of what to preserve and to what extent those sites should be

preserved.

The response to this challenge varies from country to country and has evolved over

time. The initial top-down and mostly normative approach to listing urban heritage sites

is giving way to a more participative and open process that captures the interests and

objectives of numerous stakeholders. However, only rarely are the outcomes of this process

fully and effectively integrated into urban planning instruments, so that urban heritage

sites to be preserved (and the extent of preservation required) become part of the urban

plan that serves as the democratically approved social contract among citizens, defining

what landowners can or cannot do with their properties to preserve the community’s


PAGE 199................. 18640$ $CH1 09-26-14 15:22:17 PS


PAGE 200

interests. But for a handful of countries worldwide, the preservation community faces a

challenge in going beyond identifying urban heritage sites in national lists under the pur-

view of cultural institutions and making the preservation of their social and cultural values

part and parcel of the planning instruments regulating urban development.

The financial resources needed to preserve urban heritage are another area of conten-

tion, although the Venice Charter—and many of the other documents that followed it—

advocate principally for government intervention that implicity calls for the use of public

funds to preserve heritage. In the early stages of concern for preserving urban heritage,

the interest of cultural elites is usually matched by sporadic support from private philan-

thropy and, in some exceptional cases, by the direct support of governments. This is a

stage when the preservation of urban heritage is mostly a ‘‘concern of the elite.’’ As the

preservation of urban heritage gains political legitimacy, it becomes a concern of govern-

ments, thus giving rise to a new set of issues.

Initially most governments opt to support heritage as a merit good, making it an

object of public expenditure. Government funds are then invested in the preservation

of significant monuments—some public, and others in private hands. On occasion the

government spends public funds in the preservation of portions of historic centers. This

approach is expedient, but has many drawbacks that have been well documented. Two are

worth mentioning:

• First, it is known that the preservation and rehabilitation of urban heritage pro-

duces many private benefits that are mostly linked to its economic use values. It is

therefore unfair, inefficient, and unsustainable for the public sector to shoulder all

of the costs of preservation efforts. Unfairness stems from the possibility of public

expenditures subsidizing individual owners and users who might otherwise be capa-

ble of paying for the majority of the related costs. Because the public sector bearsthe costs of preservation—an inefficient and ineffective system—other stakehold-ers crowd out, and the system fails to mobilize the potential contributions of pri-vate stakeholders.

• The second drawback of this approach is that in extreme cases, a proactive publicsector not only prevents potential private investments but also undertakes theimpossible task of operating and maintaining, with limited resources, a vast arrayof heritage buildings and public spaces. Resources for the preservation of heritageare notoriously scarce. Total expenditures for heritage preservation are relativelysmall in almost all countries; thus, governments—even in the most advanced coun-tries—face severe budget constraints to pursue this approach to heritage preserva-tion.

Adaptive Rehabilitation as a Sustainable Approach to PreservingUrban Heritage

The conceptual and practical problems related to direct public expenditure on heritagepreservation led governments to begin guiding market forces toward the preservation of

................. 18640$ $CH1 09-26-14 15:22:18 PS

urban heritage. The public sector approach began to combine direct expenditure with taxa-

tion and regulations to attract private agents to preserve and make good use of urban

heritage sites. It also became common for governments to offer tax incentives to private

owners of heritage properties either as a stimulus for their preservation efforts or to

compensate for the extra expense of maintenance. Governments also provided subsidies

to individuals or organizations that preserved heritage. The use of these financial tools is

often contested in terms of the opportunity cost of public resources, particularly in low-

income countries.

Almost all countries use regulations to preserve urban heritage. Hard regulations

like land-use and building statutes impose restrictions on the activities of individuals or

corporations in order to align their behavior with the government’s policy objective of

preserving heritage. There are also soft regulations like design guidelines that are mostly

unenforceable. This non-monetary tool of government intervention effectively transfers

the costs of preservation to the owners of the buildings. Many urban development experts

criticize the regulations that modify the property rights of private owners of heritage

buildings, objecting to their potential rigidity and the distortions that they introduce into

markets, along with alleged subjectivity as they mostly represent the opinion of experts.

The combined effect of the use of these methods is that urban heritage is regarded as a

financial and urban planning liability for the development of the cities.

The limitations of these traditional instruments to guide markets toward well-

preserved urban heritage areas call for new approaches and intervention instruments. The

new goal is to preserve the socio-cultural values embodied in urban heritage areas by

turning them into well-functioning spaces of the city where buildings and public places

retain their characteristic heritage value as a result of being used and maintained to satisfy

contemporary needs of a wide variety of social actors. The key to achieving this sustainable

approach to heritage preservation is to allow the adaptive rehabilitation of heritage build-

ings and public spaces and to attract a wide variety of users and investors to the heritage

area. Realizing these objectives requires employing analytical methods and intervention

instruments of the preservation and urban planning disciplines.

The objective is to turn urban heritage into an asset for the development of the

city. Satisfying the needs of contemporary urban activities and real estate market demand

through adaptive rehabilitation requires regulations that are flexible and approved and

enforced with the concurrence of the community. The focus of historic preservation analy-

sis and regulation should be to determine the ‘‘carrying capacity’’ of heritage buildings and

public spaces. That is, determine a heritage building or site’s capacity to accommodate

contemporary uses without losing its heritage values. The focus of urban planning analyses

and interventions is to improve the infrastructure, accessibility, and quality of the public

spaces of heritage areas in order to create favorable conditions to attract new users and

investors. However, achieving the right combination of public interventions and incentives

to private investments poses a considerable governance problem.


PAGE 201................. 18640$ $CH1 09-26-14 15:22:19 PS


PAGE 202

The Good Governance of Urban Heritage Areas: A Key to TheirSustainable Preservation

Success in the governance of urban heritage areas under this approach means that a com-

munity manages to make adequate use of its institutions, structures of authority, and

collaboration among stakeholders to attain a sustained preservation of its urban heritage.

Successful governance of the urban heritage preservation process requires achieving a

delicate balance between preservation and development; between preserving sociocultural

values and allowing interventions that incorporate contemporary uses into heritage build-

ings and sites. As with any situation in which there are significant trade-offs, achieving

this balance requires reaching agreements among the stakeholders concerning the relative

importance of the social-cultural values of heritage, and the limits of the adaptive transfor-

mations allowed and the contributions made by the new users and stakeholders attracted

to the area. In other words, it requires the careful weighing of the trade-offs between

conservation, adaptation, and development.

To attain such a balance, several changes are needed in the institutions, structures of

authority, and means of collaboration among stakeholders. The regulations affecting the

use of urban heritage sites must progress from preventing au trance changes to its attri-

butes and uses to promoting the sensible adaptive rehabilitation of the buildings and

public spaces to satisfy contemporary needs.

Further, communities need to revise the role played by institutions caring for their

heritage. This needs to evolve from an overconcern for the preservation of monumental

heritage to a focus on sustainable use, conservation, and development of a wide array of

urban heritage assets that can be put to work to further the sustainable development of

the broader city. This implies that the position in the city government structure of the

institutions caring for urban heritage should move to the core of the group of agencies

promoting the social and economic development of the community.

The preservation of urban heritage should also cease to be the sole responsibility of

the local, state, or federal government. The procedures for managing urban heritage need

to move away from transferring all of the costs of preservation to the private owners of

monuments and buildings. They should evolve toward mechanisms that coordinate the

contributions of all interested stakeholders in preserving and developing heritage assets,

including the government, private philanthropy, and beneficiary communities.

In sum, the sustainability of the urban heritage preservation process is enhanced

when an urban heritage site becomes attractive for a wide variety of social actors inter-

ested in a diversity of values. The preservation efforts that rest on the adequate promotion

of the economic values of urban heritage provide a greater chance to preserve socioeco-

nomic values. This approach requires a flexible attitude to preservation to allow the adap-

tation of urban heritage sites—public and private—to new uses with social or market

demand. This process supports the principle that change is the essence of cities and that

the cities and their neighborhoods are constantly in transition. Freezing the physical char-

acteristics and uses of urban heritage sites precludes change and can easily turn the pros-

pects of a preservation process from being an engine of socioeconomic development

................. 18640$ $CH1 09-26-14 15:22:20 PS

through the sustained adaptive rehabilitation of heritage areas to accommodate new uses

to the cause of abandonment and physical decay. The arguments advanced here suggest

that avoiding the latter always requires accomplishing the former.

The drafters of the Venice Charter were wise in establishing principles for the preser-

vation and restoration of monuments and sites that are of universal and permanent valid-

ity. They were also right in calling for governments to play a significant role within their

own traditions and institutional arrangements. Their work was significantly comple-

mented by the drafters of subsequent charters and related documents that expanded the

concern for monuments and their surroundings to whole historic centers and neighbor-

hoods. Their contributions inspired generations of preservationists and town planners to

advocate for and ensure the preservation of the vast urban heritage of mankind.

The arguments advanced here suggest that the size and complexity of the task,

together with our new understanding of the expanded role of urban heritage assets in

the social and economic development of our communities, call for new management

approaches. The sustained preservation of heritage assets requires continuous use to sat-

isfy contemporary needs. The contribution of all stakeholders is required in order to

achieve this state of affairs, a situation that poses a significant governance problem that

can only be resolved by recognizing heritage as a central concern of the urban development

process as well as the institutions in charge of ensuring balanced social and economic

development in urban communities. The time has arrived for the preservation community

to agree on universally valid principles of urban heritage governance that complement the

preservation principles of the Venice Charter.

References1. ICOMOS, International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice

Charter) (Paris: ICOMOS, 1964), accessed August 15, 2014, http://www.icomos.org/en/component/content/article/179–articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/157–the-venice-charter.

2. Ibid.3. Ibid.4. Ibid., Article 5.5. Australia ICOMOS, The Burra Charter, (Australia ICOMOS, 1999), accessed August 15, 2014, http://

australia.icomos.org/publications/charters/.


PAGE 203................. 18640$ $CH1 09-26-14 15:22:20 PS

THE VENICE CHARTER: A BIBLIOGRAPHY

Complied by Alyssa Lozupone and Frank Matero

‘‘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 Sym-

posium. 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 ofHistoric 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 ‘‘mis-

sion 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 theModern Movement.’’ First International DOCOMOMO Conference: Conference Pro-ceedings, DOCOMOMO, 1991.

This article discusses the need for the Venice Charter and the historical context surround-

ing 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 archi-

tecture.

‘‘The Application of the Venice Charter.’’ Scientific Journal: The Venice Charter 1964–2004, ICOMOS 5 (2004): 59.

4 7 7

PAGE 477................. 18640$ CH17 09-26-14 15:30:56 PS


PAGE 478

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. NationalPreservation 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 Stan-

dards 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.

Abstract provided by AATA database:

Presents a brief history of the international charters for the preservation of monu-

ments. The restoration of several Greek monuments is discussed in terms of the

articles in the Venice Charter (1964). These include the Acropolis, the theater at

Epidauros, and houses on Delos. The reuse of ancient monuments, particularly as

theaters, is considered. Monuments that have undergone anastylosis in Greece,

including the stoa of Attalos in Athens, the Panathenaic Stadium in Athens, the Tem-

ple of Poseidon at Sounion, the odeion at Patras, the tholos at Delphi, the Temple of

Athena at Priene, the stoa at Brauron, and the odeion of Herodes Atticus in Athens,

are discussed. The problems encountered with the adoption of inappropriate materi-

als in past restorations and anastyloses—for example, cement reinforced with iron

bars—are highlighted. The principle of reversibility is considered in light of the Ven-

ice Charter. The relationship between nature, environment, and monument is empha-

sized.

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.

................. 18640$ CH17 09-26-14 15:30:57 PS

The following summary is extracted from the abstract provided by the author:

The Venice Charter has been viewed as a fundamental international document

reflecting the internationally accepted philosophy for the protection of architectural

heritage throughout the world. However, so strongly are European attitudes to archi-

tecture and its conservation embedded in the Venice Charter, that it has skewed all

conservation thinking towards the concept of the European-type monument which

emphasizes visual beauty through its material substance. Thus the Venice Charter

seems ill-suited to East Asian culture which has led to an attitude of placing more

emphasis on the inner meaning represented in a structure and on the natural envi-

ronment, than on the visual and material aspects of a structure. The purposes of

this dissertation are to redress a current Western bias, which has permeated global

conservation practice in the field of cultural heritage, particularly when applied to

architecture, and to make suggestions for developing new conservation policies more

suited to the unique values and aesthetic sense of Korea.

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 Charter1964–2004: 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 charter is now effective and

ineffective.’’ Ultimately, the author concludes that ‘‘the Charter should be preserved as it

stands, as an historic monument itself.’’

‘‘History of the Venice Charter.’’ Scientific Journal: The Venice Charter 1964–2004:ICOMOS 4 (ICOMOS, 1994).

This short article provides a brief history of the Venice Charter and a comparison between

the document and the earlier Athens Charter.

Horler, Miklos. ‘‘The Charter of Venice and the Restoration of Historical Monumentsin Hungary.’’ ICOMOS Bulletin 1 (1971): 53–125.This publication is intended to explain the influence of the Venice Charter on the protec-

tion of historic monuments in Hungary. The beginning of the document also explores,

briefly, the influence of World War II on the content of the Venice Charter.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y 4 7 9

PAGE 479................. 18640$ CH17 09-26-14 15:30:58 PS


PAGE 480

‘‘The INTABU Venice Declaration on the Conservation of Monuments and Sites in the

21st Century.’’ International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture and Urban-ism, 2007. http://www.intbau.org/archive/venicedeclaration.htm.The INTBAU Venice Declaration is an attempt to clarify the Venice Charter and its inter-

pretation. As an introduction to the declaration, the authors outline their criticisms of the

original charter. They then discuss each article within the original document and provide

comments, additions, and reinterpretations.

Jerome, Pamela. ‘‘An Introduction to Authenticity in Preservation.’’ APT Bulletin 39,no. 2/3 (2008): 3–7.

This short article explores the ongoing debate over the meaning of ‘‘authenticity.’’ The

author begins with the definition of authenticity as outlined by the Venice Charter and

provides examples of how the meaning has been challenged over time.

Jokilehto, Jukka. ‘‘Comments on the Venice Charter with Illustrations.’’ Scientific Jour-nal: The Venice Charter 1964–2004: ICOMOS 4 (ICOMOS, 1994).In this publication the author comments on each article within the Venice Charter. He

expands on the content of each article with a modern commentary and discusses how

concepts and meanings have changed since the creation of the Charter.

Jokilehto, Jukka. ‘‘International Trends in Historic Preservation: From Ancient Monu-

ments to Living Cultures.’’ APT Bulletin 29, no. 3/4 (1995): 17–19.This article briefly discusses the context surrounding the creation of the Venice Charter

and summarizes how the charter’s emphasis on original material has been a catalyst for

the development of new scientific tools for the survey, analysis, and conservation of his-

toric structures. Jokilehto also mentions the application of the Venice Charter in the pres-

ervation of historic urban areas and the implications of tourism development. The article

also briefly discusses how the Nara Document served as an expansion to the Venice

Charter.

Jokilehto, Jukka. ‘‘The Context of the Venice Charter (1964).’’ Conservation and Man-agement of Archaeological Sites 2 (1998): 229–33.In this short article Jokilehto reviews the catalysts for the Venice Charter’s creation as

well as initial criticisms of the document. The article also summarizes the 1964 Venice

congress by mentioning who was in attendance and what other resolutions were adopted.

Jokilehto, Jukka, and Joseph King. ‘‘Authenticity and Conservation: Reflections onthe Current State of Understanding.’’ Expert Meeting on Authenticity and Integrity inan African Context, UNESCO, May 26 and 29, 2000.This paper discusses the Venice Charter and how it applies to Africa’s built heritage. The

charter is related to topics of authenticity, historic towns, and cultural landscapes. Also

................. 18640$ CH17 09-26-14 15:30:59 PS

discussed is the emphasis on intangible heritage within African culture and the challenges

these ideals present to the values and methodology presented within the Venice Charter.

Krakow Charter 2000: Principles for Conservation and Restoration of Built Heritage. Kra-kow: The International Conference on Conservation, 2000.

The creation of the ‘‘Krakow Charter’’ may be considered an attempt to produce a substitu-

tion for the Venice Charter. The Krakow Charter was the result of the conference in Kra-

kow in 2000. (Szmygin, Boguslaw. ‘‘Venice Charter: The Universal Document or Burden of

the Past? A Conservator’s Point of View.’’ In The Venice Charter Revisited, edited by Mat-

thew Hardy, 71–81. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008.) The Krakow Char-

ter does not specifically discuss the Venice Charter but mentions that the principles

outlined are in response to it. The Krakow Charter states: ‘‘Conscious of the profound

values of the Charter and working towards the same aims, we propose the following princi-

ples for conservation and restoration of the built heritage in our time.’’

Larsen, Knut Einar. ‘‘A Comment Concerning the International Course on Wood Con-servation Technology in Relation to the Venice Charter.’’ In ICOMOS, A Quarter of aCentury, Achievements and Future Prospects. Lausanne: ICOMOS, 1990.This short article explores how ‘‘revitalization’’ (or reconstruction) practices are in line

with the goals of the Venice Charter, with specific attention paid to preservation practices

in Japan and Thailand.

Lewis, Miles. ‘‘The Conservation Analysis: An Australian Perspective.’’ APT Bulletin 28,no. 1 (1997): 48–53.This article summarizes the criticisms of the Venice Charter that led to efforts to revise

the document during the Fifth General Assembly of ICOMOS in 1978. The publication

focuses on the Australian viewpoint and the creation of the Burra Charter.

Menon, A. G. K. ‘‘Rethinking the Venice Charter: The Indian Experience.’’ South AsianStudies: Journal of the Society for South Asian Studies 10 (1994): 37–47.This article discusses architecture and preservation in India and the challenges they pres-

ent to the Venice Charter. India’s architecture is both inspired by Western culture as well

as representative of indigenous styles. While the sites inspired by Western culture can be

restored according to the Venice Charter, the indigenous architecture constructed by

India’s master masons requires different treatment. The author recommends the creation

of an India Charter in order to appropriately conserve indigenous architecture.

Mihelic, Breda. ‘‘Town Planners and Conservators: A Hundred Years of Disagreementand Co-operation.’’ Varstvo Spomenikov 39 (2001): 213–26.Within this article there is a subsection entitled, ‘‘The Venice Charter and the Venice

School of Architecture,’’ which discusses the relationship between the Venice Charter and

city planning. Included within this is also discussion of the charter’s emphasis on the


PAGE 481................. 18640$ CH17 09-26-14 15:30:59 PS


PAGE 482

significance of ‘‘monument ambience.’’ According to the author, this concept led to the

creation of measures for the protection and renovation of historic centers in Europe.

Miller, Hugh C. ‘‘Preservation Technology Comes of Age in North America.’’ APT Bulle-tin 37, no. 1 (2006): 55–59.

This article discusses the rejection of the Venice Charter by the U.S. delegation to the

Second International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments. The

article briefly reviews the delegation’s reasons for rejecting the document, highlighting

U.S. preservation practices at the time and the reasons the principles outlined in the

charter were not applicable.

Miller, Hugh C. ‘‘USA.’’ In ICOMOS, A Quarter of a Century, Achievements and FutureProspects. Lausanne: ICOMOS, 1990.This article summarizes the commentaries made by the U.S. Committee during the 1990

international symposium. The article discusses the U.S.’s initial reaction to the Venice

Charter and its influence on the nation’s ‘‘preservation system.’’ The document concludes

with suggestions for a ‘‘contemporary version of the Charter.’’

The Monument for the Man. Padova: Marsilio, 1972.This book was published seven years after the Second International Congress of Architects

and Specialists of Historic Buildings in 1964 and documents the Acts of the Congress of

Venice.

‘‘Monuments and Sites XI – The Venice Charter 1964–2004–2044?’’ ICOMOS: Monu-

ments and Sites XI (2005).

Ndoro, Webber. ‘‘The Question of Authenticity and Its Application to Cultural Heritagein Africa.’’ Scientific Journal 7 (ICOMOS, 1996).

This article provides a brief summary of the Venice Charter, including the context for its

creation and criticisms of its sole focus on European heritage and ideals. The emphasis of

the publication, however, is on the charter application to heritage sites in Africa. The

author emphasizes that in African culture, the emotional and religious value of heritage

sites are most important but that unfortunately these features are ignored in the charter.

The author includes a call to action, stating ‘‘if [the] ICOMOS operation guidelines are to

find a place in the conservation movement and heritage management in Africa they have

[to] take cognizance of the traditional values of the region into consideration.’’

Pecs Declaration on the Venice Charter. Pecs: ICOMOS, 2004.This declaration was created at the 2004 ICOMOS Conference dedicated to the fortieth

anniversary of the Venice Charter. The declaration outlines the conference participants’

suggestions and recommendations formulated about the Venice Charter.

................. 18640$ CH17 09-26-14 15:31:00 PS

Petzet, Michael. ‘‘Principles of Preservation.’’ In International Charters for Conservationand Restoration 40 Years after the Venice Charter. Paris: ICOMOS, 2004.The first half of this article discusses core preservation issues (e.g., authenticity, rehabilita-

tion, construction and relocation, reversibility, and so on) in light of the principles set out

by the Venice Charter, encouraging readers to understand the charter as a product of its

time.

Report on the 14th US/ICOMOS International Symposium. US/ICOMOS, 2011.The report discusses the theme of the 14th International Symposium: ‘‘The influence of

the Venice Charter and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards on the design of new

additions to historic buildings and new buildings in historic districts.’’ This document also

summarizes the presentations, discussions, and tours that took place at the symposium.

It does not, however, outline in detail the discussions that took place at the symposium.

Roman, Andras. ‘‘Reconstruction: From the Venice Charter to the Charter of Cracow

2000.’’ In Strategies for the World’s Cultural Heritage: Preservation in a Globalised World:Principles, Practices and Perspectives. Madrid: 13th ICOMOS General Assembly and Sci-entific Symposium, 2002.This short article discusses the principles regarding reconstruction outlined by both the

Venice Charter and the Charter of Cracow. The author then provides examples of recon-

struction projects and argues that they ‘‘can neither be approved of, nor justified on the

basis of one single document on monument protection.’’ At the end of the article he argues

that there is a need for a conference that will eliminate the ‘‘theoretical chaos’’ surrounding

reconstruction and support a more unified practice.

Silva, Roland. ‘‘The Significance of the Venice International Charter for the Conserva-tion and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, with Special Reference to Eastern Coun-tries.’’ Presentation at the First International Congress on Architectural Conservation,University of Basle, March 1983.

This article begins by discussing the impacts of the Venice Charter: what it achieved and

how it changed practice. The author then emphasizes that while the Venice Charter was a

significant document, it is not the ‘‘end of the road.’’ He discusses the limitations of the

charter and how Asian countries, specifically, have begun to correct or combat the short-

comings of the document.

A Study Report on Doctrinal Texts of Cultural Heritage Conservation. Japan: ICOMOS,1999.This publication is a compilation of ICOMOS charters. Important charters to note include:

The Florence Charter (Historic Gardens)

Adopted by ICOMOS in December 1982, this charter was created to serve as an


PAGE 483................. 18640$ CH17 09-26-14 15:31:01 PS


PAGE 484

‘‘addendum to the Venice Charter’’ and address the preservation and conservation of

historic gardens.

Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (Washington Charter)

Adopted by ICOMOS in October 1987, this charter was also drafted to ‘‘complement

the Venice Charter’’ and address the preservation and conservation of historic towns

and urban areas.

The Nara Document on Authenticity

Adopted in 1994, the Nara Document was ‘‘conceived in the spirit of the Charter of

Venice’’ and serves to broaden its application ‘‘in response to the expanding scope of

cultural heritage concerns and interests in our contemporary world.’’

Summary Report on the Vth General Assembly of ICOMOS. Moscow and Suzdal:

ICOMOS, 1978.This report summarizes the proceedings of the Fifth ICOMOS General Assembly. This

includes a summary of the Committee on the Revision of the Venice Charter and their

conclusions regarding the revision of the Venice Charter. This summary report also pro-

vides insight into the events preceding the assembly. It discusses the creation of an ad hoc

committee prior to 1978 to discuss the revision of the Venice Charter. The committee met

in Ditchley Park and created a revised charter, which was then distributed to the attendees

of the Fifth General Assembly in 1978.

Summary Report on the VIth ICOMOS General Assembly Roma, Bari, Firenze, Verona:ICOMOS, 1981.A new version of the charter was presented during the Sixth ICOMOS General Assembly

addressing Articles 1, 2, 14, and 15. The changes have not been made and the original

version of the Charter prevails. (Szmygin, Boguslaw. ‘‘Venice Charter: The Universal Docu-

ment or Burden of the Past? A Conservator’s Point of View.’’ In The Venice Charter Revis-

ited, edited by Matthew Hardy, 71–81. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008.)

This document summarizes the proceedings of the Sixth ICOMOS General Assembly in

Rome. It reflects on the recommendation of ICOMOS’s president that the Venice Charter

be updated, extended in scope, and translated more broadly for greater accessibility. The

report also summarizes the recommendations formulated at the symposium, which

include providing an analysis of the errors made in the application of the charter and

the formulation of an international committee (initiated by ICOMOS) to focus on the

doctrine.

Wilfried, Lipp. ‘‘The Charter of Venice as a Document of the Times.’’ Muemlekvedelem:Kulturalis orokesegvedelmi Folyoirat XLVIII (2004).This article briefly discusses the context surrounding both the creation of the Athens

Charter and the Venice Charter. Specifically, the author discusses the Venice Charter in

the context of historicism and modernism following World War II.

................. 18640$ CH17 09-26-14 15:31:01 PS

Wyss, Alfred. ‘‘General Synthesis.’’ In ICOMOS, a Quarter of a Century, Achievementsand Future Prospects. Lausanne: ICOMOS, 1990.This publication is a summary of the 1990 International Symposium. It reviews the

national committees’ discussions of the Venice Charter, summarizes the shortcomings

identified, and discusses the charters that have been adopted (including those that still

need to be created) in an attempt to compensate for the Venice Charter’s weaknesses.

Ylimaula, Anna-Maija A. ‘‘Application of the Venice Charter in the Restoration of theParthenon.’’ Nordic Journal of Architectural Research (1996): 21–34.

The author of this article discusses the application of the Venice Charter during the resto-

ration of the Parthenon (1986–96). The publication reviews each of the charter’s articles

and discusses how the Parthenon restoration adhered to the definitions and recommenda-

tions articulated in the document.


PAGE 485................. 18640$ CH17 09-26-14 15:31:01 PS

PAGE 486................. 18640$ CH17 09-26-14 15:31:02 PS

CALL FOR PAPERS

Ruskin Redux

Spring 2016

Guest Editor: John Dixon Hunt

The spring 2016 issue of Change Over Time is planned on the preservation ideas and

practice of John Ruskin. This is a preliminary call for two responses: (1) suggestions of

articles and topics that might be taken up; and (2) for an anthology of Ruskin’s relevant

writings which COT will offer. This last is intended as a collection of Ruskin’s remarks on

preservation, excluding the most obvious piece on ‘‘The Lamp of Memory’’: letters, diaries,

other writings, whether in fragments or larger passages (please provide references). The

editor will gather these and organize them, with proper acknowledgment of suggestions

made, in an effort to collect and present a compendium of Ruskin’s remarks on this topic

as an eminently usable tool for reference. This would complement not only the Cook and

Wedderburn edition of Ruskin’s writing, but of the considerable publication of materials

since his death. Submittal inquiries may be sent to John Dixon Hunt (jdhunt@design

.upenn.edu), guest editor.

Articles are generally restricted to 7,500 or fewer words (the approximate equivalent to

thirty pages of double-spaced, twelve-point type) and may include up to ten images. The

deadline for submission of manuscripts for the spring 2016 Ruskin Redux issue is Febru-

ary 15, 2015. Guidelines for authors may be requested from Kecia Fong (cot@design

.upenn.edu), to whom manuscripts should also be submitted. For further information

please visit cotjournal.com.

4 8 7

PAGE 487................. 18640$ CH18 09-26-14 15:30:57 PS

ChangeOver Time4.2A N I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L

O F C O N S E R V A T I O N A N D

T H E B U I L T E N V I R O N M E N T

F A L L 2 0 1 4

Change O

ver Time

FA

LL

2

01

4

UPCOMING ISSUES

VandalismS P R I N G 2 0 1 5

Landscape and Climate ChangeF A L L 2 0 1 5

Ruskin ReduxS P R I N G 2 0 1 6

National Park Service CentenaryF A L L 2 0 1 6

Change Over Time 4.2

Documents

n t e r n

t i o n

t e n v

e n t f

j o u r n

ruskin reduxs p r i

o f c o n s e r v

n d t h e b u i