This article was downloaded by: [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok]

On: 23 December 2014, At: 18:16

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Architectural Conservation

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raco20

Docomomo International
Anne-Laure Guillet
Published online: 16 Jan 2014.

To cite this article: Anne-Laure Guillet (2007) Docomomo International, Journal of Architectural Conservation, 13:2,
151-156, DOI: 10.1080/13556207.2007.10785002

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13556207.2007.10785002

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
JAC July 07-Final 29/6/07 1:08 pm Page 151

Docomomo International
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 18:16 23 December 2014

Modernity as Heritage

Anne-Laure Guillet

Abstract
Over the past few decades, the architectural heritage of the Modern
Movement has appeared more at risk than that of any other period. This
built inheritance, which glorifies the dynamic spirit of the Machine Age,
employed advanced technology that has not always endured long-term
stresses; and the functions which the buildings originally met have changed
substantially. Docomomo aims at acting as watchdog whenever important
Modern Movement buildings anywhere are under threat in various ways,
including by exchanging ideas relating to conservation technology, history
and education; fostering interest in the ideas and heritage of the Modern
Movement beyond their own circle; and reminding those in power of their
responsibilities towards this recent architectural inheritance.

Docomomo, the international committee for the documentation and con-

servation of buildings, sites and neighbourhoods of the modern movement,
was founded in 1988 on the belief that the preservation of modern archi-
tecture presented an urgent worldwide challenge, one that required the
fostering of immediate interaction and collaboration across boundaries.
Modern architects created new, uplifting, and innovative buildings, which
received recognition through media and printed matter worldwide. Yet, the
pioneering techniques and materials they often used involved unforeseen
problems. Techniques and materials, such as light concrete vaults, large
panels of glass, high-alumina cements, plastic and synthetic paints, have
deteriorated rapidly, due to the high level of experimentation involved in
their use. These preservation issues – together with changing political,
social and economic contexts, misguided or poor maintenance and low
levels of awareness among the general public – have generated numerous
inappropriate and reckless alterations. As a result, many creations of the

Conservation of Modern Architecture

JAC July 07-Final 29/6/07 1:08 pm Page 152

152 Anne-Laure Guillet

‘Modern Movement’ – from emblematic masterpieces to ‘ordinary treas-

ures’ – have been left to decay or to be destroyed.
Docomomo was created from the conviction that the sharing of expert-
ise on an international scale would be crucial to the development of a
common vision and conservation philosophy with respect to Modernist
architecture. Such collaboration would enable participants to keep abreast
of changing perspectives in preservation, facilitate international exchanges
between architects, historians, academics (teachers as well as students) and
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 18:16 23 December 2014

professionals and advance the recognition of modern heritage and its con-
servation. At present, the network consists of over 2,500 architects, archi-
tectural historians, preservation practitioners, civil servants and Modern
Movement enthusiasts, belonging to more than 50 chapters throughout
the world.
Docomomo holds a very special place among the other major organiza-
tions that strive for the recognition and the preservation of cultural
heritage, such as the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, ICOMOS,
TICCIH (The International Committee for the Conservation of the
Industrial Heritage) and more recently mAAN (Modern Asian Architecture
network). Operating with minimal administrative overhead, Docomomo is
a flexible structure, effectively an open ‘stage’ for dialogues, whose driving
forces evolve geographically like tectonic plates, answering specific calls for
preservation from country to country. Docomomo’s unique approach,
being specifically directed to the study of the architectural contribution of
the Modern Movement and of architects who shared the ethos of moder-
nity, has already influenced the practices and operations of its above-
mentioned sister organizations. This is very much the case with the newly
formed twentieth century committee of ICOMOS, whose members include
many architects and scholars affiliated to Docomomo International.
Modernity in culture, which is given material shape in modern architec-
ture, has many faces. Many architectural historians assess the Modern
Movement as a closed chapter in architectural history, in other words as a
past period. By contrast, Docomomo stresses that, rather than its ‘style’, it
is the innovative character of the modern approach to twentieth-century
building (in its social, technical and aesthetical dimensions) that creates its
uniqueness. However, the Modern Movement’s youth is in itself a major
difficulty for specialists and for the wider public alike: it lacks the perceived
inherent value retrospectively attributed to almost anything conventionally
recognized as belonging to ‘the past’. For academics, studying and
researching this architecture requires a whole new set of tools and meth-
ods, because the identification and selection criteria vastly differ from
those applied before – chronologically, historically and stylistically.
Paradoxically, in a number of European countries, the public associates
Modernity with the political turmoil of the first half of the twentieth
JAC July 07-Final 29/6/07 1:08 pm Page 153

Docomomo International 153

century, that is in the period before suffering the consequences of the dem-
ocratic ruptures that were to follow. Nevertheless, the major post-war con-
struction boom generated a large number of modern buildings and sites
which, although not ‘masterpieces’ in an iconic way, are of architectural,
social and technical significance and deserve to be preserved.
In parallel with these theoretical issues, mainly involving the definition
and recognition of Modern Movement’s architecture, there are a number
of practical and material challenges. These include the lack of consistent
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 18:16 23 December 2014

legislation for its protection, real estate speculation, the obsolescence of the
construction materials used, and the buildings’ functions. Conservation in
practically every country faces a variety of legislative impediments, ranging
from a total lack of protective legislation to inadequate national laws for
the protection of more recent heritage. In some European countries (such
as Italy, the Netherlands, Spain), a building must be at least fifty years old
to even qualify for possible protection. This limitation has resulted in the
demolition of a number of important buildings. In other countries, where
there is provision for the protection of more recent structures, lack of sup-
port for their protection has also resulted in some significant losses. For
example, Greenside (Connell, Ward & Lucas architects, 1937) in
Wentworth (Surrey, UK) was demolished in 2003, despite its inscription as
a Grade II listed building: its owner ignored the national listing and tore it
down, arguing that he did not have sufficient means for its upkeep.1 These
limitations in the legislative protection, coupled with the typical pressures
of real estate speculation, have made it difficult to retain modern buildings
on economic grounds. This was very much the case for Richard Neutra’s
Maslon house in Los Angeles County (1962, Rancho Mirage, CA, USA),
which was torn down by its new owners just one month after its purchase
for $2.45 million.
Even assuming that a modern building does achieve protected status,
there can be specific technical issues that arise in the conservation process.
One of the Modern Movement’s characteristics is the use of materials –
particularly the ‘modernist triad’ of concrete, glass and iron. The architec-
tonic and aesthetic value of a building is equally important. Getting the
right skills and knowledge on how to deal with the fabric and aesthetic
issues can often be a challenge. Furthermore, during their construction, this
lack of experience sometimes resulted in poorly executed detailing and
ensuing damage, leaving structures vulnerable to material decay and fail-
ure. Also, most of the original manufacturers do not exist any more; and,
even if the materials are still available, they may not always be exactly the
same. In this respect, a (successful) case study is Giuseppe Terragni’s Casa
del Fascio in Como, Italy (c. 1932–6). The architect in charge of the
restoration of the numerous walls of glass block was fortunate enough to
find new glass blocks of similar dimensions, produced by the only remaining
JAC July 07-Final 29/6/07 1:08 pm Page 154

154 Anne-Laure Guillet

manufacturer of them in Italy. The new blocks however, differed from the
original ones in shade and surface structure; to obtain the same opaque
effect, the new glass blocks had to be etched. Other examples can be found
in the restoration of the Zonnestraal sanatorium in the Netherlands, where
both the thin window frames and the glass surfaces were expressly repro-
duced in a factory outside the country. To produce the necessary replace-
ment ceramic tiles for the conservation of the façades of the Pirelli
skyscraper in Milan, Villeroy & Bosch opened a new production line in the
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 18:16 23 December 2014

Czech Republic. The costs associated with these types of approaches are
significant; hence they are applied only to a few, iconic buildings. Such dif-
ficulties in replacing modern materials in a like-for-like way more often
than not lead to the adoption of alternative approaches – the removal and
complete replacement of matching materials, for example – and thus the
potential to make considerable alterations to the original design.
Finally, one of the main characteristics in the conception of experimen-
tal modern buildings was the search for architectural solutions for very spe-
cific and novel twentieth-century functions. Examples abound in the fields
of health care (for example, sanatoria), mass housing, leisure (cinema
theatres, stadiums, pools, for instance) and industry. The very specific
nature of the design of these buildings can sometimes make their adapta-
tion for a new use problematic. The Van Nelle factory, a Dutch manifesto
for functional rationalism, built in 1931 in Rotterdam by Jan Brinkman
and Leen van der Vlugt, is one of the most successful examples of the adap-
tation of an industrial building. In this case, it has been refashioned as an
office building – and has justly achieved a very wide recognition. Others
have been included on the World Heritage List after being restored to their
original condition, such as the Tugendhat Villa in Brno and the Schröder
House in Utrecht. In contrast, the case of the International Fair in Tripoli
(Lebanon), built by Oscar Niemeyer in the late 1960s, illustrates the mis-
fortune of an architectural masterpiece partly abandoned because of the
lack of rehabilitation scenarios adapted to the very specific cultural and
political context of the city of Tripoli.
In 1992, in response to those theoretical and practical challenges,
Docomomo developed its main tool: the International Specialists
Committee on Registers (ISC/Register), addressing a precise goal formu-
lated in the Eindhoven Statement,2 namely that of creating an international
register of the most important buildings of the Modern Movement. It
aimed at standardizing the inventory process in a rigorous and demanding
way. This standardized format of the International Register fiche provides
historical and descriptive information, as well as status information (e.g.
canonical or ordinary at a local, national or international level) and crite-
ria (social, technical, aesthetic) to facilitate the selection of buildings of out-
standing and universal value. Since then, the scope of the criteria used for
JAC July 07-Final 29/6/07 1:08 pm Page 155

Docomomo International 155

selection has widened geographically and chronologically to include signifi-

cant examples in many diverse categories: modern urbanism, landscapes
and gardens, sites and neighbourhoods, infrastructures, civil engineering
works, and industrial complexes, but also alterations to existing buildings,
interiors, furniture, and architectural industrialized elements. This decision
was the upshot of an agreement with the World Heritage Centre to provide
shared criteria for the complex process of selection and listing of the cities
and urban complexes of the Modern Movement. The publication, in 2000,
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 18:16 23 December 2014

of The Modern Movement in Architecture, an anthology containing the

selections of 32 Docomomo chapters, represented an important step in
stimulating the interest of a wider public in modern architecture.3
Docomomo’s archives now comprise more than 800 records gathered by
over 35 countries throughout the world.4 The Register is currently categor-
ized under thematic sections, which are presented in exhibitions as well as
in publications. Among the ongoing efforts at publicizing the Register and
its application, two publications can be mentioned: firstly, the book The
Body, Sport and Modern Architecture, published in 2006 by Docomomo
Greece and dealing with sport facilities in modern Europe;5 and secondly,
issue 36 of Docomomo Journal, which presents a selection of buildings
recorded under the rubric ‘other modernisms’.6
Just as the ISC/Register addresses the theme of ‘documentation’ within
Docomomo, another working group, the International Specialists’
Committee on Technology, focuses on ‘conservation’: it is dedicated to
advancing the technical challenges associated with the conservation of
modern buildings. It brings together historians and architects who are
experts in diverse fields, offers an international network of professionals,
and organizes seminars that deal with distinctive technical modern issues
and preservation challenges, such as curtain walls,7 concrete,8 glass,9
wood,10 colour,11 stone or ‘building physics’,12 as well as restoration case
studies, such as Alvar Aalto’s Library in Vyborg (Russia).13
Beyond a more adequate understanding of the scope and breadth of the
Modern Movement’s heritage, it is therefore a matter of urgency for us to
direct our reflections towards an international heritage ‘vision’ that pro-
vides the evaluation, selection and protection criteria to protect and con-
serve or save the iconic as well as the ordinary. Docomomo works towards
this end in different ways. As an important example, within the framework
of the campaigns raising the general public’s consciousness of Modern
Movement structures, each regional or national chapter develops pro-
grammes of visits and publications that aim at a better public understand-
ing of the full range of twentieth-century architecture. Equally importantly,
the organization strives for the development and enforcement of national
protection legal rules when a building, despite the recognition of its value,
is threatened by unauthorized or careless restructuring, or even demolition.
JAC July 07-Final 29/6/07 1:08 pm Page 156

156 Anne-Laure Guillet

Biography
Anne-Laure Guillet MA, MBA
Anne-Laure Guillet is projects manager, Docomomo International, Cité de l’architec-
ture et du Patrimoine, Paris. She has an MBA in the History and Management of
Cultural Heritage (Paris, La Sorbonne, 2003) and a Master’s degree in History. She has
been working for Docomomo International’s secretariat as projects manager since
2003.
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 18:16 23 December 2014

References
1 For more details of the Greenside case, see the paper by Dennis Sharp in this
publication.
2 The Eindhoven Statement is the founding charter of Docomomo. It defines the
main goals of the organization, which are as follows:
1. To bring the significance of the Modern Movement to the attention of the
public, authorities, professions and educational communities concerned
with the built environment.
2. To identify and promote the recording of the works of the Modern
Movement, including a register, drawings, photographs, archives and
other documents.
3. To foster the development of appropriate techniques and methods of con-
servation and disseminate this knowledge throughout these professions.
4. To oppose destruction and disfigurement of significant works of the
Modern Movement.
5. To identify and attract funding for documentation and conservation.
6. To explore and develop the knowledge of the Modern Movement.
3 Cooke, C. and Sharp, D. (eds.), The Modern Movement in Architecture:
Selection from the Docomomo Registers, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam (2000).
4 These fiches can be viewed at www.docomomo-registers.com (accessed 1 June
2007).
5 The Body, Sport and Modern Architecture, Docomomo Greece (2006).
6 Docomomo Journal, issue 36, March 2007.
7 Curtain Wall Refurbishment: A Challenge to Manage, Preservation technology
dossier 1, Docomomo, Eindhoven (1997).
8 The Fair Face of Concrete: Conservation and Repair of Exposed Concrete,
Preservation technology dossier 2, Docomomo, Eindhoven (1998).
9 Reframing the Moderns: Substitute Windows and Glass, Preservation technol-
ogy dossier 3, Docomomo, Delft (April 2000).
10 Wood and Modern Movement, Preservation technology dossier 4,
Docomomo, Delft (2000).
11 Modern Colour Technology: Ideals and Conservation, Preservation technol-
ogy dossier 5, Docomomo, Delft (2002).
12 Stone in Modern Building: Principles of Cladding, Preservation technology
dossier 6, Docomomo, Paris (2003).
13 The Alvar Aalto Vyborg Library: Technology of Sensations, Preservation tech-
nology dossier 7, Docomomo, Paris (2004).