C O N T E X T 1 3 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 4 5 Periodically The combined summer edition of the Association of Preservation Technology Bulletin, the Journal of Preservation Technology (Vol XLV, No 2–3, 2014) is an important one. This is another themed issue concerned entirely with values-based preservation. A wide-ranging overview from the USA and Australia about the value of values (so to speak) is both timely and highly informative in view of the recent publication of the revised British Standard Guide BS7913: 2013, and the continuing UK debate about the application of conservation principles in practice, and the presence or absence of national frameworks. Pamela Jerome introduces the issues surrounding a valued-based approach with some observations about shifting perceptions from the Western-based doctrines of the Venice Charter (which associated cultural significance with monumentality in the 1960s) to the emergence of the need to consider the significance of sites that never had architectural remains, let alone monumental ones. Much of this thinking came by way of the work of Australia ICOMOS, attempting to rectify the imbalance by recognising the more intangible social and spiritual values of communities. This led in turn to the first Burra Charter in 1979 (most recently revised in 2013), which emerged from Australians’ desire to include in the heritage process the participation and values of their aboriginal population. Managing community engagement is, however, a complicated process, which inevitably tends to frame the emerging definition of values with professionals leading the process. The continuing development of valuesbased management therefore poses questions about whether community stakeholders should have more say in the identification of heritage values and the treatment of sites, or whether this should remain in the hands of experts and academics. The Burra Charter is strongly identified with its originators, Australia ICOMOS. It appears to be rarely cited in the UK, perhaps because of the paternalistic, centralised, top-down approach to defining how heritage should be managed. The concept of degrees of significance and statements of significance now underpin how heritage interventions are assessed even when the term plays no part in UK legislation. Meredith Walker’s explanation of how the Burra charter developed, how it has been reviewed, its publication and promotion is very informative. The use of statements of significance and the issues of the recognition of community values are explained. But Walker has concerns about translating theory into practice, and about the lack of the skills and resources required to ensure that more attention is given in future to passing on the meanings of places to the people who live, work and play there. The article has excellent source notes to further reading. The question of whether values-based management can be implemented at all heritage sites is addressed by a project entitled ‘The Agora’, explained by Marta De La Torre of the Getty Conservation Institute. The author highlights something that should be selfevident, but clearly is not. Values evolve when examining how heritage places have been valued over time; yet conservationists often act as if the values of a heritage place are static, having been identified long ago and never subsequently reviewed. Heritage values stem from the particular interests of the participants. A multiplicity of values attributed to any one heritage place creates the possibility of different priorities and approaches to conservation. This was recognised as long ago as 1903 by the Austrian art theoretician Aloïs Reigl. The US National Parks Service (NPS) celebrates its centennial in 2016, when the National Preservation Act will turn 50. Barbara Little uses this context to discuss how the tenets and application of valuesbased management apply to the work of the National Parks Service. She reflects on the work of the Getty on one of the NPS sites, Chaco Culture National Historical Park, in relation to the Burra Charter, and on the protection of heritage values and the commitments of the NPS to maintaining the relevancy of sites and promote diversity and inclusiveness. Sheridan Burke and Susan Macdonald consider the question of relative significance in the management of the Sydney Opera House. After the years of controversy surrounding the development of the building, a reengagement with its architect Jørn Utzon has been incorporated into the kind of conservation management approach that is now usual in Australia. The latest iteration of the Opera House Plan (its fourth), introduces the concept of sensitivity to change. While this makes the plan more robust, the authors note that this is already being tested on a daily basis. They conclude that such innovative conservation-planning approaches are essential to courageously (my emphasis) meet the needs of complex site management where heritage conservation is imperative. Bottom-up versus top-down conservation is perhaps best exemplified in the paper by Chris
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=