| تبليغات | X |
|
حفاظت و مرمت
|
||
|
مرمت آثار فرهنگی - تاریخی |
Conservation Movement in
Restoration of St Mark’s in
During the Austrian rule in
till 1866, many large undertakings were initiated
including the building of the railway bridge from
the mainland and the improvement of the harbour.
In 1818 the Commission of Artistic Property had
been established. In 1843, a long term restoration
programme was started in St. Mark’s, and in the same
period also in the Ducal Palace. The restoration of St.
Mark’s dealt with the renewal of the marble panels
on the north side, and the works continued here until
1865.
In 1856 the Emperor formed a special fund for
this restoration, and Professor Selvatico was invited
to report on the building and its further repairs.
His ‘proposals for the conservation and care’ of
the building were published as a part of the report
of 1859. (29) The proposals included a radical
consolidation and reinforcement of the structure
with iron chains, however, “without removing its
architectural character”; (30) the sixteenth-century
Zeno Chapel was considered ‘discordant’ with
the rest of the building, and was suggested to be
demolished. He also proposed the restoration of
the old decayed mosaics, capitals and column bases.
These indications formed the basis for the restorations
that followed.
From 1860 the responsability was entrusted to
Giovan Battista Meduna (1810-80), who had restored
the Fenice Theatre in
after a fire in 1836, and who had been attached to
the Fabric of St. Mark’s since 1836. He continued
working on the north side until 1865, and then on the
south side until 1875; after that works were foreseen
on the west front and the mosaic pavement. (31)
Reaction by Viollet-le-Duc to St Mark’s
These restorations were approved by many.
Viollet-le-Duc, who had visited
described how the whole structure was moving and
cracking, and how it looked like “an old pontoon
destined to founder back in the lagoon from where
it had come.” (32) Seeing the church again in 1871
during the works, he complimented the Venetians,
who had not let themselves be discouraged, but had
started working on the building. He considered that
the works on the north side as well as the on-going
works on the south side were essential in order to
provide the building with two solid walls, and thus
give it a longer life.
Reaction by Ruskin
Ruskin, who visited
when the scaffolding had been removed from the
south side, had a completely different reaction; he
was in despair. And when, during his visit in January
1877, Count A.P.Zorzi (1846-1922) approached him
with the proposal to publish a protest, he agreed to
write a preface and even to provide funds for the
printing of the text. (33) He remembered the earlier
“happy and ardent days” when he had passed his time
in the Piazzetta.
“No such scene existed elsewhere in
the world: so bright, so magically visionary... I
pass the same place now with averted eyes. There
is only the ghost, - nay, the corpse, - of all that I
so loved.” (34)
He further remembered the mosaics of the upper
facade, how these “were of such exquisite intricacy
of deep golden glow between the courses of small
pillars, that those two upper arches had an effect as
of peacock’s feathers in the sun, when their green and
purple glitters through and through with light. But
now they have the look of a peacock’s feather that has
been dipped in white paint!” (35)
Ruskin did recognize the necessity of consolidation,
but was against the current methods of doing this. He
considered the saving of this important building as a
religious reponsibility, and more than just for the sake
of
(36)
Reaction by Count Zorzi
In the Osservazioni intorno ai ristauri interni ed
esterni della Basilica di San Marco (1877), Zorzi
conceived St. Mark’s not so much as an ‘architectural
monument’, but as a ‘museum of architecture’, and
consequently it needed special treatment from the
artistic and archaeological point of view. He insisted
on the fundamental difference between ‘restoration’
and ‘conservation’:
“Restoration presupposes innovations according to
needs; Conser vation excludes them completely.
Restoration is applicable to anything that has no
archaeological importance, but purely artistical;
Conservation aims at the safeguarding from decay
of what, for its antiquity and for historic reasons,
has a special merit superior to art, symmetry,
architectural orders, and good taste. Even more
necessary will this conservation be, when to the
archaeological interest is added the artistic value,
and when the object, in its whole and its details,
has such a mark of his tory that this would be
completely destroyed in a restoration carried out
in the modern fashion.” (37)
He maintained that St. Mark’s, in all respects,
fulfilled perfectly all the requisites to make it the
most interesting monument in
the whole Occident. In the current restoration, he
insisted, these requirements had not been considered,
and many serious errors had been made which he
grouped in seven categories (like the Seven Lamps
of Ruskin!).
- One: the restorers had scraped off the precious
stain that time had given the marble columns;
- two: had replaced old marble panels with new
ones that had a different pattern;
- three: had changed the form and scale of certain
string courses and details;
- four: had been excessively abusive in the
replacement of original capitals and other carved
marbles;
- five: had removed the altar from the Cappella
Zeno and replaced it with inappropriate new
marbles;
- six: they had restored mosaic figures with glass
tesserae in places where the use of stone would
have been more correct; and
- seven: they had executed poor workmanship in
the repair of the floors.
Zorzi further referred to the problems of
stabilization through renewal of brickwork, which
often caused the demolition and rebuilding of larger
areas; instead, he recommended ‘consolidation’ of the
existing structures with modern methods even though
these might be somewhat more expensive, in order to
conserve the original material of the building. He also
pointed out that in any case the cost of the restoration
had so far been two or three times the estimate.
The Observations, dedicated to Ruskin, “English by
birth, Venetian by heart”, were distributed abroad, and
in 1879, when news arrived of the intented rebuilding
of the west front and restoration of the mosaic floors,
the SPAB and Morris reacted, sending a protest to the
Italian Government. In the same year, G.E. Street and
J.J. Stevenson came to Venice to inspect the building
in order to have a first-hand understanding of the
situation. In 1880, Street published an article in the
Times, confirming that the only problems he could
detect were those caused by the previous restoration,
and that no ‘rebuilding’ was necessary. (38)
The Italian reaction to the involvement of foreigners
in this restoration was not altogether positive;
especially those responsible felt hurt. This was seen
in an article by Pietro Saccardo, one of Meduna’s
assistants, in late 1879. (39) As a result of protests,
however, the works were interrupted, Meduna was
removed from this task, and the work was entrusted
to Saccardo and F.Berchet. Berchet was the architect
who had restored the thirteenth-century Byzantine
palace, Fondaco dei Turchi, on the
much criticized rebuilding in hypothetical form in
1860 to 1869. (40)
Giacomo Boni
One of the Venetians who remained in continuous
correspondance with the English about the repairs
to
archaeologist and architect, whom Ruskin had met
in 1876. He was such an excellent draughtsman that
Ruskin employed him to measure and draw historic
buildings for him. (41) He was well read in classical
literature and languages, and had learnt English
specifically to read Ruskin.
In 1879, Boni was employed in the restoration of
the Ducal Palace in Venice, and was so in a position to
influence the works, even if not to take decisions. The
restoration dealt with the colonnade, where certain
capitals had to be replaced with new, and where
the south side was freed from seventeenth-century
fillings. In St. Mark’s, he was later able to report that
certain demolitions had been avoided, and the use of a
mechanical saw had been forbidden in the restoration
of the mosaic floors; all original tesserae had to be
put back in their original position, and broken areas
repaired in harmony with their surroundings without
levelling the undulations of the floor. Marbles had to
be cleaned with pure water and sponge; regilding was
forbidden. (42)
Boni seems to have been involved in promoting a
letter on Venetian monuments, signed by some fifty
artists, and sent to the Government in 1882. The
document referred to Ruskin’s words, and announced:
“The artists of Venice and the whole Italy watch over
these famous monuments in the same manner as
one would watch over the glory and honour of the
nation.” (43)
Boni made careful studies of Venetian monuments,
including Ca’ d’Oro, and he prepared a detailed
historical survey of St. Mark’s, documenting damages
and studying the chromatic variations of its marbles.
In these studies he collaborated with the English
architect, William Douglas Caroe, who worked in
Italy. In the Ducal Palace he could still find and
document gilding and colours, found to be lead white
and red painted over the marble surface. (44) He
made a particular study of irregularities in buildings
considering them to have been made on purpose, not
resulting from structural deformations - and thus not
to be corrected in a restoration. (45) In the case of the
Porta della Carta, where the intention was to put back
the figures of the Doge and the Lion, Boni wrote to
Caroe that even if he also thought the gate would look
better with these statues, he considered it a historic
fact that the group was there no longer. (46)
In 1885, he made a stratigraphic excavation around
the foundations of the Campanile of St. Mark’s. (47)
In the same year, he wrote to Philip Webb, with whom
he had become a close friend, about his trip to
to prepare “the ground for our new law of protection
of those monuments which, being the property of
private people or separate communities, have been
under no control whatever until now.” (48) In 1888,
he was called to Rome to prepare regulations for
conservation of antiquities. Later, he was appointed
the first architect for conservation of historic buildings
at the General Direction of Antiquities. (49)
Boni was an active writer, and he wanted to do for
(50) he fought against demolitions in the historic
fabric of
he wanted to improve the hygienic conditions of
the houses, at least to provide a dry floor. He was
worried about the lack of official initiatives to provide
Venice with an economic basis for its survival. He
also defended the lagoon area, understanding that
the existence of Venice depended on its functioning;
he criticized certain fillings to make harbour
enlargements, and pointed out that keeping the canals
sufficiently deep for the water to flow contributed
to making the city a more hygienic place in which
to live. (51) Boni was actively involved in various
schemes to develop modern technology for use in
the conservation of ancient monuments. He had an
interest in the consolidation of stone, and in the use
of stainless steel.
In his general philosophy, and his concepts of the
picturesque, Boni was much influenced by Ruskin.
However, he did not limit himself only to the Middle
Ages, but had a great admiration of classical antiquity
as well. (52) In his work for the conservation of
ancient monuments, his main concern was to defend
their authenticity. Like Winckelmann and the Neo-
Platonic philosophers, he conceived a work of art as
a reflection of the ‘Godly Idea’ of an immortal origin.
To destroy such a work was to commit an act of
offence against the Divinity. (53)
Boni was too involved in his research to be able to
collaborate in the preparation of the new legislation;
being a Government architect, his influence was felt,
however, in many restorations around the whole
country and especially in the south. In the last phase
of his life he concentrated on the major excavation
campaign in
the
.developed the principles of stratigraphic method of excavation
منبع: تاریخ حفاظت معماری
A History of Architectural Conservation
اثر : یوکا یوکیلتو
J. Jokilehto
18.1 Stylistic Restoration in Italy
Italy has a long history of protection of ancient
monuments, including legislation to control
excavations and export of works of art. This,
however, varied depending on the part of the
country; the Papal States had established the post
of a Commissioner for Antiquities since the time
of Raphael, and although the main attention had
been given to classical antiquities, there were papal
measures for the protection of churches and oratories
such as the Quam provida by Sixtus IV in 1474. In
the edict of 1802 this order is again confirmed, but
Carlo Fea, who was responsible for surveillance, had
great difficulties in seeing that it would actually be
respected. (1) In 1820, Cardinal Pacca renewed the
same orders, and in 1821 the office of Commissioner
of Antiquities was reinforced, as had been done by
the Austrian Government in Venice in 1818, when the
Commissione artistica per la tutela delle opere d’arte
di interesse pubblico had been established. (2) Also
in Lombardy a provision was made for the protection
of works of art in churches. (3) In Tuscany, instead,
edicts for similar purposes were abolished in 1780.
The situation was extremely variable in different
parts of the country, and even after the unification
of Italy in 1860-70, old laws were reconfirmed for
each particular region until a unified administration
had been established and a new legislation confirmed
over the turn of the century.
Although Italians were in contact with Central Europe
and England through numerous cultural tourists from
Chateaubriand to Viollet-le-Duc and Ruskin, it took
relatively long before deeper interest was shown in
the protection and conservation of mediaeval or later
buildings. Due to this relative lateness, the Italians
were able to draw from the experience of other
countries, England, France and Germany, which had
preceded them. As a result, different attitudes were
introduced more or less at the same time, causing a
continuous debate on these questions. It is out of
this debate that an Italian approach then emerged,
being based partly on the principles established in the
restoration of archaeological monuments, in part on
German romanticism, on the principles of the French
Government, and on the approach shown in England
by John Ruskin and the SPAB.
J. Jokilehto ................... A History of Architectural Conservation