Heritage Protection in a Changing World
Heritage Protection in a Changing World

Author(s): Áron Tóth
Subject(s): Architecture
Published by: Pécsi Tudományegyetem Művészeti Kar Művészettörténet Tanszék
Summary/Abstract: The study discusses the problem of monument reconstruction in an international context, in relation to the emergence of postmodernism, the ever-spreading pluralism of values ​​and the accelerating globalization. In the practice that has been spreading in Hungary in the past two decades, not only the search for identity after the regime change, not only the reassessment of the national past, and not only the raw assertion of economic interests, but also the aforementioned effects play a role. The ethical foundations of monument protection laid at the beginning of the 20th century, after several precedents, were most clearly manifested in the 1964 Venice Charter. However, the fundamental principles of the Venice Charter regarding reconstruction have been increasingly challenged since the last decade of the 20th century. It is true that we find examples of reconstructions after both world wars as a result of the losses in the world wars, but it still seems that in recent decades, compared to the middle of the last century, they have multiplied due to the above-mentioned global processes, and the monument protection profession itself has become more lenient towards them. However, it seems that in Hungary the concept of reconstruction is used imprecisely. On the one hand, we extend it to concepts that only form part of the reconstruction activity, such as restoration, renovation, or rebuilding. On the other hand, we also consider architectural activities as reconstruction that cannot necessarily be called such. Such an example is a “copy” that is intended to be a copy, but only superficially resembles the original, not in all details, and does not exactly follow the original architectural and spatial system. In my opinion, we should limit the word reconstruction to those cases when we rebuild destroyed parts faithfully following accurate visual and written sources, and these rebuilt parts are connected to the surviving originals by restoring the original system of connections. In other cases, we should use the words copy, replica, imitation or afterthought. In my opinion, the latter no longer fall into the field of monument protection, but into the field of contemporary architecture. In light of this, interventions such as the reconstruction following the fire of Uppark House in England, the restoration of the castle in Lunéville, or the Alexander Palace in Budapest can be considered monument protection interventions, but the reconstruction of the Stadtschloss in Berlin, the royal stables in Buda Castle, or the castles of Vígľaš (Slovakia) and Füzér cannot be mentioned on a single page.

• Details
• Contents