The conservation of historic buildings is an inherently complex and often contentious issue, especially when it comes to determining whether to preserve, reconstruct, or replicate specific elements. A central challenge in this process is the question of what constitutes “significance” in a building’s history and how we decide which aspects of that history should be preserved for future generations. The Venice Charter, which I consider an authoritative framework, provides us with some guidelines. However, it also underscores a key reality: at the end of the day, such decisions are ultimately subjective.
Article 11 of the Venice Charter emphasizes the importance of respecting “valid contributions of all periods” in a building’s development. It states:
“The valid contributions of all periods to the building of a monument must be respected, since unity of style is not the aim of a restoration. When a building includes the superimposed work of different periods, the revealing of the underlying state can only be justified in exceptional circumstances and when what is removed is of little interest and the material which is brought to light is of great historical, archaeological or aesthetic value, and its state of preservation is good enough to justify the action.
Evaluation of the importance of the elements involved and the decision as to what may be destroyed cannot rest solely on the individual in charge of the work.”
This provision acknowledges that modifications made at different periods contribute to the building’s overall significance. Yet, it also introduces the possibility of removing later additions if they are deemed “of little interest.” But defining what constitutes “little interest” is not a straightforward task—it is highly subjective. What one expert or historian may consider insignificant, another might view as an essential part of the building’s historical narrative. This difference in perspective is not merely an academic debate; it is the central issue in the ongoing conversation around conservation. What is deemed “worthy” of preservation can vary widely depending on personal interpretation, historical context, and professional expertise.
Moreover, Article 9 of the Venice Charter stresses the importance of basing restoration efforts on “respect for original material and authentic documents.” It states:
“The process of restoration is a highly specialized operation. Its aim is to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the monument and is based on respect for original material and authentic documents. It must stop at the point where conjecture begins, and in this case moreover any extra work which is indispensable must be distinct from the architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp. The restoration in any case must be preceded and followed by an archaeological and historical study of the monument.”
However, the question of what is “authentic” can often be more complicated than it seems. Buildings undergo changes across multiple periods, each modification reflecting the needs and values of the time it was made. While some may prioritize preserving the original design, others might argue that later alterations—driven by evolving cultural or social needs—are just as crucial for understanding the building’s full historical context. The definition of “authenticity” itself can be a matter of interpretation, and this subjective judgment can significantly influence conservation decisions.
Moreover, the aforementioned Article 11 further reinforces the subjectivity in conservation decisions, noting that the removal of later additions should be carefully evaluated in terms of their historical, archaeological, or aesthetic value. It highlights that the decision-making process cannot rest with a single individual but should involve input from various experts.
Thus, decisions about what to preserve or restore are always made in the context of expert judgments, but these experts are not operating with a singular, objective truth. Rather, each expert brings their own experience, preferences, and priorities to the table. One expert may emphasize the preservation of the building’s original architectural elements, while another may believe that later additions are equally important for telling the building’s full story. To complicate matters further, the views of the public can diverge from those of experts, particularly when local communities value later modifications that reflect their memories or cultural identity.
At its core, conservation is therefore not a purely technical exercise, but a process driven by subjective judgment. Even when decisions are based on expert opinions, these opinions are shaped by personal interpretation, professional backgrounds, and cultural perspectives. In the end, the question of what to preserve and how to restore is never a matter of objective truth but of negotiation.
