A FLASHBACK of RESTORATION CONCEPT

An Introduction: Historical Times

“Restoration is not architecture proper; it situates itself on the periphery of

architecture.” (Arrhenius, 2002, p.69).

Understanding the history of the ‘restoration concept’ goes years back in the history. The

studies for the restoration has deep knowledge of history and the heritages of the nations. In

other words, if we frame of the restoration with the architectural discourse, the restoration of

the historical buildings and its reflections needs the knowledge of the culture. Ruff (2012)

discussed that the ruin, the restoration, and the destruction of the architectural monuments

saying something about the social, political, and aesthetic hierarchies. He gave the special

example of Rome in fourth and fifth century corresponding a critical component of the

political spectrum of architecture. Therefore, history and its need to understand has the direct

relation with the heritage. Graham and Howard discuss that in the present context, we are

very selective with the past materials like artefacts, natural landscapes, mythologies,

memories and traditions where that becoming cultural, political and economic resources for

now (2008). This idea of heritage with the new times has an interaction of different layers.
Lowenthal (1998, p.5. as cited in Graham & Howard, 2008) suggests ‘in domesticating the

past we enlist [heritage] for present causes … [it] clarifies pasts so as to infuse them with

present purposes’, one result being that, ‘heritage vice becomes inseparable from heritage

virtue while under the aegis of national patrimony looms a multinational enterprise’. This

visible stand of heritage can be one of the insight for correlating the architecture and

restoration concept.

In 1964, ICOMOS declared that people are becoming more conscious of ancient monuments

as a common heritage. They thought to reflect the age-old traditions in present day. As well,

it is discussed that the principals of guiding the preservation and restoration of ancient

buildings should be applied in each country's own culture. On the other hand all applies the

framework of the general knowledge of ancient buildings (ICOMOS, 1964). This general

identification of the restoration is pure connection with the heritage indeed. Lowethall

clarifies that heritage is a realm of immediately global concern like identity (1998). He

analysed heritage as family history, buildings and landmarks, prehistory and antiques, music

and paintings, plants and animals, language and folklore combinations.

"Indeed, the term celebrates every conceivable thing and theme: anchorites

and anoraks, Berlin and Bengal, conkers and castles, dog breeds and dental

fillings, finials and fax machines, gorgonzola and goalposts are topics

typical of a thousand recent books entitled Heritage of _______. Pervading

life and thought as never before, heritage suffuses attitudes toward

everything" (Lowenthal 1998: 42)

This everything can be recognized as a cultural production in the other times that has appeal

to the resources of the past. As Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (1998, as cited in Anheier &

Isar, 2011) has argued, there is really ‘no there, there’ prior to what somebody has to do to

identify, evaluate, conserve and celebrate therefore the implementation of preservation,

restoration, reclamation recovery, re-creation, recuperation, revitalization and regeneration

need to be seen against the reality.

What does it mean "to restore”?

What does it mean to restore? First of all, the clarification of different theories of restoration

should be discussed in terms of cultural heritage. Often European cultural heritages had the

approach towards restoration. Jackson (2004) argued that in ancient and in medieval times

restoration declared "to renew". People used their contemporary styles when Jackson (2004)

issued that when people restored buildings, saying to renewing, they want their idea of

contemporary by medium of construction and modify the original structure in ancient and

medieval times. This restore term is however, in eighteenth century England meant returning

a building to a specific period by removing all details from other periods. Passing this

removing times, in the nineteenth century, restoration architect Viollet-Le-Duc termed

restoration as “reinstating building in a condition of completeness that could never have

existed at any given time.” His contemporary, John Ruskin, called restoration “a lie from

beginning to end.” (Jackson, 2004). Moreover this ideas today constitutes the base of

definitions. In the United States Secretary of the Interior defines restoration as “the process of

returning a building to a distinct point of time, usually to its original condition, based on

historical evidence”.
However, the International Committee for Monuments and Sites has a more limited definition

of “to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the monument with the

representation of all periods.” (Jackson, 2004, p.5). In this manner, if we are looking not only

the thoughts, it is possible to see origin of the “restore”. In his article, Pesci declared that

restore is from Old French ‘restorer’ and from Latin ‘restaurare’ has the meanings of bringing

back or re-establish or returning something to a former condition, place, or position and

repairing or renovating so as to return it to its original condition (2013, p.22).

As the meanings has the base relation of making something in physical manner give the

impression of De Marco’s thoughts about the restoration. He says that the concept of the

restoration has deep relation with the interpretation (2005). The most interesting of this idea

of interpretation is the relationships that individuals and societies have established with

monuments. Jackson discussed that history of heritage conversation directly connects with

the history of materialization of interpretation of ‘monuments’, which have influenced their

physical existence and duration (2004). Moreover, he clarifies the restoration in types like

stylistic and philological by looking them as their processes. The latter, the backbone of the

building in the process of stratifications and in the image of the monument in a consultative

perspective. The former, Stylistic restoration has focused on the construction of a history of

styles by selecting parts of the monument, considered consistent with the leading

architectural concepts applied in the building, and reconstructing what was missing to

complete the image of the building, on the base of comparative studies (2004). This

separation becoming more meaningful when all parameters coming in the area of viewpoints

of two important figures of history.

Additionally, if restoration has the name then as Ruskin analysed, the conservation concept

has the potential relations with it. The conceptual differences of restoration and conservation.

He suggests that conservation is a process of planning to conserve historic buildings, areas

and monuments for connecting the historical background of a place to its culture (as cited in

Niglio, 2013).

Restoration and beyond

Restoration concept has two main contributors in mostly architecture but also the other

disciplines named Viollet-le-Duc, John Ruskin and William Morris. Their notion of

restoration studying throughout the years in special monuments and researches. Restoration

by studying Viollet-le-Duc’s theories of restoration and Ruskin’s polemic against restoration

using his comments is the idea of the “beyond”. As Johnson (2004) clarifies, the definitions

of the restoration evolved since the nineteenth century however, the basis of modern historic

preservation resulted from the principles of three nineteenth century men: Eugène-Emmanuel

Viollet-Le Duc, John Ruskin, and William Morris (2004). Viollet and Ruskin were

contemporaries with divergent views on restoration, and Morris built upon Ruskin’s

principles.
Kalcic (2014) narrated the aim of restoration is values of all periods have to be respected and

replacements or missing parts have to be integrated with the existing monument or structure

and then we called the style combination of all. Especially, looking for the historical periods,

Petzet discussed that many monuments and historical centres of towns were left in ruins, their

authenticity was preserved through reconstruction After the Second World War (1994, as

cited in Kalcic, 2014). Apart from these processes, by the 1964 Venice Charter, called for

protecting ancient monuments for future generations in words “in the full richness of their

authenticity” failed to clearly define this authenticity in the post-war stylistic reconstruction

(Stovel, 1994, as cited in Kalcic, 2014). For this reason, in Venice Charter an entire chapter is

dedicated to restoration, which should be based on respect for original material and authentic

documents; restoration must stop at the point where conjecture begins in addition to

guidelines on monument maintenance and conservation. From this point of view, going

deeply to the mid-nineteenth century defined processes of restoration, Viollet-le-Duc is the

first coming. He was French architect and theorist who was engaged in the restoration of

medieval buildings, particularly in France. Pesci (2013) discuss that according to Viollet-le-

Duc, restoration was modern in a way that the development and accumulation of knowledge

of the nineteenth century give the chance people for getting more and more concerned with

their old building care and heritage. “Our age has wished to analyse the past, classify it,

compare it, and write its complete history, following step by step the procession, the progress

and the various transformations of humanity” (Viollet-le-Duc, 1854, as cited in Pesci, 2013).
This restoration view can also be seen in the Pierrefonds Castle before and after restoration

drawings.

Figure 1: Pierrefonds Castle before restoration, http://www.raybishophistory.co.uk/

Figure 2: Pierrefonds Castle after restoration, watercolour by Viollet-le-Duc,

http://corbuscave.blogspot.com.tr/

Apart from this, restoration has a link with the conservation indeed. Jokilehto described this

approaches by their common and different properties like born in the modern sense with the

new cultural attitudes of era (1986). He made the connection with the Age of Enlightenment

in the eighteenth century with the concepts of humanism, philosophy and science of the
seventeenth century. Then, there is a development of thought freedom for the aim of

understanding the matter origin, world discovery.

The statement that Viollet is most known for in regards to restoration is “to restore a building

is not to preserve it, to repair, or rebuild it; it is to reinstate it in a condition of completeness

that could never have existed at any given time”. According to Johnson (2004) this statement

implies that Viollet’s ideas of restoration were hypothetical and created different from the

original, moreover Viollet warned against unsearched Restorations and insisted that restorers

know every aspect of the building before going on execution. On the other hand, with his

book Seven Lamps of Architecture, Ruskin considered the growth of materialism and

decreasing in morality. Ruskin wanted to preserve the core principles of architecture before

the materialism of the modern age destroyed them and viewed architecture as “art which so

disposes and adorns the edifices raised by man for whatsoever uses that the sight of them

contributes to his mental health, power and pleasure.” (Ruskin, 1981, as cited in Johnson,

2004).

"Neither by the public, nor by those who have the care of public

monuments, is the true meaning of restoration understood. It means the

most total destruction which a building can suffer: a destruction out of

which no remnants can be gathered: a destruction accompanied with false

description of the thing destroyed. Do not let us deceive ourselves in this

important matter: it is impossible, as impossible as to raise the dead, to

 restore anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture."

(Niglio, 2013, p.5).

Jackson (2004) defines John Ruskin, a contemporary of Viollet, differed from Viollet on the

process of restoration and preservation. Ruskin travelled broadly with his father during his

youth. In his early ages, he developed a compatibility for drawing and writing.

In Ruskin’s theory of restoration the authenticity of the monument is guaranteed by signs of

time rather than by any ‘ideal’ historical form” (Arrhenius, 2005, p.4). He adds that that kind

of restoration thinking was an act from destruction to be condemned. Besides, as mentioned

in becoming different views, it is true that Viollet’s theories of restoration differed greatly

from Ruskin and Morris. For Viollet, Johnson clarifies that restoration was appropriate if a

building served a modern purpose. For instance this type of restoration can be create a

“completeness that could never have existed at any given time.” Whereas, Ruskin and Morris

feels the restoration as the destruction of a building since it lost the original feelings and

beauty and replaced it with a modern imitations (Johnson, 2004).

Price, Talley and Vaccaro (1996) discuss the idea of 19th century as a complex environment

that current trends of conservation are descended. They clarify Viollet-le-Duc is thought to be

a greatest leader that corresponds the idea of restoration as imitation and therefore,

reconstruction as style of the original. He believes that studying past is something detailed

documentation of characteristics of the style as well the building construction details an

methods, therefore, the rebuilding phase has the property of accurate restore of entire parts of

the buildings. The buildings are defined by them as monuments of the past, especially great
gothic cathedrals. Ruskin together with Morris came up with the Anti-Restoration movement.

They noticed their aim with the Manifesto of the Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings.

They defined that many people encored by the anti-restoration movement, that opposing to

move their monuments and sculptures into museums. On the other hand, the Anti-Restoration

called times intrinsically slows down. Viollet-le-Duc (1854) clarified the restoration concept

as a modern thing and a modern word.

He defines restoration as "Both the word and the thing are modern. To restore an edifice

means neither to maintain it, nor to repair it; it means to re-establish it in a finished state,

which may in fact never have actually existed at any given time." (p.314). He especially

emphasized the process of buildings. He asked the main question also to the buildings. When

they want to be restored it is a way to restored simply that doesn’t take consideration into the

later modifications or the real style, with the modifications in original style. He clarified this

with an example of a building constructed in the twelfth century without gutters for its roof

drains and then restored in the thirteenth century equipped with gutters producing combined

drainage. In this case it’s not a question because of the necessary improvement of the

building part (Price et. al., 1996). Viollet-le-Duc's main issue is that the adaptation of

principles of restoration is not possible as it makes absurd conclusion for different historical

buildings. He discussed the architect's task is to make building live therefore architect has to

know the structure, temperament and analogy of the building that is going to be restored.

Morris (1877) discuss mainly the process of restoration. Its aim is to preserve the aesthetic

and historic value of the monument and is based on respect for original material and authentic

documents. Then he clarifies where supposition 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.

"Therefore, when we build, let us think that we build for ever. Let it not be

for present delight, nor for present use alone; let it be such work as our

descendants will thank us for, and let us think, as we lay stone on stone, that

a time is to come when those stones will be held sacred because our hands

have touched them, and that men will say as they look upon the labour and

wrought substance of them, " See! This our fathers did for us.” For, indeed,

the greatest glory of a building is not in its stones, or in its gold." (Ruskin,

1981, p.233)

Giving an example matches the ideas of the properties of restorations. For instance Jokilehto

(1986) mentions the restoration process of Durham Cathedral. As the great cathedrals and

their restoration has the potential of development in the conservation concepts in England in

the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. John Ruskin and William Morris were the

primary identities in the opposition to rebuilding development which conceived the Society

for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. Towards the turn of the century, in England as in
most other European legislation was additionally created to give state security to aged

landmarks and noteworthy structures (Jokilehto, 1986).

A conclusion: Let Restore

"But, in any case, whatever may be the future of architecture, in whatever

manner our young architects may one day solve the question of their art, let

us, while waiting for new monument, preserve the ancient monuments. Let

us, if possible, inspire the nation with a love for national architecture.”

(Hugo, 1831, p.355).

It’s interesting to make connections with the ancient monuments with regards to the

prospective of architecture. As Kalcic (2014) described, the manner of protecting heritage has
been developed throughout history that consequently influenced the development of modern

Protection methodologies. Moreover, many principles connected with the every period

evaluating heritage in a specific way, and having a view towards protecting monument

heritage. This relation of specific heritage values and their restoration needs has the main

potential discussion of the old and new times. In this point of view, preservation projects fall

somewhere in between the two extremes of the restoration spectrum discussed Lorusso

(2012). He related that whether the main goal is to restore an old monument or building or

cultural heritage for urban environment, the ultimate goal is changing for the restoration

project that charges.

To sum up, main issue in restoration is point of the purpose either relating to heritage or not.

If is to bring tourists to a site and encouraging economic growth in an area, Viollet-le-Duc’s

methods of accounts aesthetics over specific historical truthfulness can be

followed. Additionally, if the historical importance goes for the details surrounding the last

person to inhabit a space, then it may be left as it was bequeathed (Lorusso, 2012). The value

of the flashback of restoration concept stays in the heart of the thinking process of history and

what we want from its development.

References

Anheier H.K. Isar Y.R. (2011). Heritage, Memory and Identity. SAGE Publications, London.

Arrhenius T. (2004). The Cult of Age in Mass-Society: Alois Riegl’s Theory of

Conservation. Future Anterior, Volume 1 Number 1

Arrhenius T. (2005). John Ruskin’s Daguerreotypes of Venice. Retrieved from

www.ep.liu.se/ecp/015/

Arrhenius T. (2002). Restoration and Modernity: The Enigma of the Old in the Era of the

New. Nordisk Arkitekturforskning 2

Bakhtin, M. M. The Dialogic Imagination. In M. Holquist (Ed.). Austin: University of Texas

Press, 1981.

De Marco L. (2005). Heritage Interpretation and Authenticity in the Perspective of the

flowing of Time. 8th US/ICOMOS International Symposium Heritage Interpretation,

Charleston, South Carolina

Graham B.J., Howard P. (2008). Heritage and Identity. Ashgate Publishing

Hugo V. (1831). The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Barnes & Noble

ICOMOS (1964). The Venice Charter.

Retrieved from http://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf

Jackson M.L. (2004). The Principles of Preservation: the Influences of Viollet, Ruskin and

Morris on historic preservation. Bachelor of Arts Southwestern Oklahoma State University.

Jokilehto, J. (1986). A History of Architectural Conversation: The Contribution of English,

French, German and Italian Thought towards an International Approach to the Conservation

of Cultural Property. D.Phil. Thesis the University of York, England .

Kalcic H. (2014). Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc and monument protection: A case study.

Urbani izziv, volume 25, no. 2

Lorusso L. (2012). To Restore or Not to Restore. Florida Historical Society. Retrieved from

http://preservation.myfloridahistory.org/to-restore-or-not-to-restore/

Lowenthal, D. (1985) The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Morris W. (1877). Manifesto of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. In Price

N. C., Talley Jr. M. K., Vaccaro A. M. (Eds.), Historical and Philosophical Issues in the

Conservation of Cultural Heritage (pp. 314-318). United States of America: Science Press.

Niglio O. (2013). John Ruskin: The Conversation of the Cultural Heritage. Lecture in Kyoto

University Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies

Pesci, J. (2013). Of Clutter In Architecture: History without memory. London.

Price N. C., Talley Jr. M. K., Vaccaro A. M. (1996). Restoration and Anti-Restoration. In

Price N. C., Talley Jr. M. K., Vaccaro A. M. (Eds.), Historical and Philosophical Issues in the

Conservation of Cultural Heritage (pp. 308-313). United States of America: Science Press.
Ruff A. (2012). Time, Space, Memory: Chronotopic Views of Architectural Restorations in

the Late Roman Empire. The Journal of Undergraduate Research at the University of

Tennessee. Vol. 3:2

Ruskin, John. Seven Lamps of Architecture. 8ed. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux,

1981.

Violet-le-Duc E. (1854). Restoration. In Price N. C., Talley Jr. M. K., Vaccaro A. M. (Eds.),

Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage (pp. 314-318).

United States of America: Science Press.

Viollet-le-Duc, Eugene-Emmanuel. The Architectural Theory of Viollet-le-Duc. Ed. by M.F.

Hearn Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1990.