C O N T E X T 1 3 8 : M A R C H 2 0 1 5 39 ATHERC conference, Vienna Fifty years of the Venice Charter The Association for Theory and Higher Education of Heritage Conservation, affiliated with the German National Committee for Heritage Conservation, brings together academics representing a wide range of professional subjects including architecture, building conservation, art history, town planning, landscape architecture, civil engineering, geography and law. The association consists of just over 100 members, mainly from the German-speaking countries Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Luxemburg, but also from Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, England, Slovakia, Croatia and Romania. Its annual conferences offer some of the most inspiring discussions in the field. The most recent was held at the Austrian Museum of Applied Arts/ Contemporary Art (MAK) in Vienna from 2 to 4 October 2014. In 2014 the Venice Charter was half a century old. Referred to (in German!) as the ‘Magna Carta’ of heritage conservation, this anniversary presented the opportunity to examine its history and impact, and attracted 180 delegates from a wide range of heritage professionals across Europe. It joined forces with the Austrian Federal Monuments Office in Vienna and ICOMOS and MAK. Despite using an anniversary to look back, the conference stated from the outset that it regarded the Venice Charter not as an historic artefact or even a fossil, but as something highly relevant to contemporary debates and future needs. This is particularly pertinent in the context of the current paradigm of ‘tolerance for change’, which has been advocated by ICOMOS, and could easily constitute a threat to the protection of heritage. Detailed analysis of historical documents referring to – among other sources – the archive of Piero Gazzola, one of the main instigators of the monumental Venice Congress in 1964 (which was the cradle of both the Venice Charter and ICOMOS), yielded new insights into the evolution of the Venice Charter. It explored a narrative which extended the post-second-world-war time frame of 1964 far back into the 19th century. Several speakers emphasised the close connection to Camillo Boito (1836– 1914) and his 1883 document later to be known as the Prima Carta del Restauro. Given the fact that the Venice Charter was the result of a conference for architects and heritage technicians, the question of the normative character of the charter was much debated. Through a closer examination of different national translations it became apparent that language is a powerful agent in the interpretation of guidelines with a claim to universality. The original French text reads rather like a philosophical pamphlet, while the English translation (characteristically?) aims to provide more practical guidance. One of the most blatant differences constitutes the wording of Article 9, which deals with the controversial question of restoration. The English version talks about a ‘highly specialized operation’, while the French original clearly emphasises the restoration as the exception in contrast to the rule: ‘… est une opération qui doit garder un caractère exceptionnel’. The same article stipulates that ‘any extra work which is indispensable must be distinct from the architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp’ – something which has been often interpreted as contrasting design for any changes and additions. Such a technique has also been questioned, especially in Britain, which for a long time followed its own conviction of ‘in keeping’. If one narrative of the Venice Charter is that of a child of modernism, it becomes clearer why TheVenice Charter Revisited, the publication of the 2006 annual conference of INTBAU (International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture and Urbanism), adopted its own Venice Declaration. That seeks ‘not to replace the Venice Charter, but to offer an interpretation which supports traditional architecture and urbanism in historic places’. It became evident in Vienna that the demands of heritage professionals often clash with the wider social context and the interests of other actors in heritage conservation, including the owners of listed building and monuments. That the whole question of contemporary interventions and additions appears to be dealt with insufficiently was emphasised, yet this equally raised concern of the necessary distinction between the treatment of fine art versus that of buildings and urban ensembles. The conference papers and discussions all had in mind the underlying question of whether the Venice Charter can still meet the demands of providing fundamental guidelines for heritage conservation today and in the future. There was a clear sense that, despite its shortcomings, the charter not only has the capacity to do so but it should do so. Supported by the wealth of charters and declarations which followed, it remains a tower of strength in this age of rapid change and loss, where not everybody has yet come to the realisation that heritage is a non-renewable cultural resource. Sabine Coady Schaebitz, director of the Collaborative Centre for the Built Environment, University of Northampton The conference venue: the Austrian Museum of Applied Arts and Contemporary Art (MAK) inVienna
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=