Historic monuments are subject to material perishability and therefore measures for their conservation are an indispensable part of our responsibility to our society. Historic preservation is and will remain a social duty, which individually and as a whole is a fundamental part of the cultural identity of a region and contributes above all to its preservation.
Just as all things, whose long-term conservation is of interest, historical monuments also need continuous maintenance. Mind you the goal of historical preservation is conserving the substance with continuous care. Therefore, care and repair - as the most economical forms of substance preservation - are in accordance with the greatest rule of historical preservation. However, in order to be able to care for an object it has to be in such a state, which can be more or less maintained. The majority of the objects are far from being in such a state and care requirements can not even be discussed. It is still disputed whether or not such conditions can even be created with extensive refurbishment and restoration measures.
Despite their pitiful state the objects still embody the ideas of their creators. Alterations, damages, missing details or soiling do have a negative effect on the appearance. However, fundamentally they remain real existing, handed-down, creative works, which are witnesses to the craftsmanship traditions, progress, evolvement, zeitgeist, ambition, persistence and all of the other vices and virtues their creators.
The monumental worth of an object is as such not always clear. Even old stonework, an old window, plaster or a simple joint were are created by human hand. They are witnesses from a time, whose tradition is dependant upon memories. It is not always the reoccurring question of the “original”, but the “origin”. Originality is subject to constant change. The origin is, if at all, only fragmentally preserved. Is the origin lost bit by bit, while the original remains? More of a philosophical question, which requires long debates in the search for the answer. All that is certain is that even with careful conservation and restoration measures the substance is manipulated and the origin is inevitably influenced. Unfortunately, only objects, which are deemed as having ad libitum “high cultural value”, enjoy absolute acceptance for careful and cautious treatment and respect for their authenticity. The question unavoidably poses itself why there is such a significant difference in the daily practice. Are there important and unimportant monuments, and who decides which is which? With this awareness historical preservation serves almost constitutionally to protect that, which is handed-down, and not to relegate it to an assumed original state at the expense of its substance. It is hardly possible to define historical preservation more concisely than Georg Dehio: Protecting historical monuments does not mean looking for pleasure, but rather paying respect. ("Denkmäler schützen heißt nicht Genuß suchen, sondern Pietät üben.")
As experience shows refurbishment is not nearly as enduring as the initiators would hope. Often enough the “refurbishment effect” wears off after a short period of time and leaves few possibilities for repair. Since extensive restoration measures on diverse objects have to be repeated more often in relatively short intervals the reasons should be discussed. Numerous refurbishment attempts, which strove for the “final restoration” with absolute belief in advancement, failed thoroughly and have led to historical preservation being called into question. It is important to critically examine this development. Satisfaction of the need for superficial pleasure should never become the goal of historic preservation, just as trading in the old substance for normed and low-maintenance materials is contrary to its needs. By observing, investigating and understanding the old substance and its ageing process strategies need to be developed for its sustainable existence prolongation. Sustainability in the sense of a low-maintenance and repair-friendly object - and existence prolongation is achieved by documenting all of its changes and inadequacies. The reason why century-old building materials and technology should not compete with new industrial products and norms remains a riddle and becomes schizophrenic especially when one considers that it is these materials and technology, which are currently experiencing a zestful renaissance with “ecological building” or “green architecture”.
In diverse areas of basic research answers have been found that are significant for technological developments in historic preservation. Extensive expert literature exists on the state of historical monuments, destructive mechanisms, ageing and conservation / restoration, which is based on art history, technology, method and natural science research results. The resulting coherences are so complex that we will furthermore have to be deprived of an all-encompassing handbook for historical preservation. This complexity along with the necessary special discretion and profundity for investigation, documentation, conservation and restoration of art objects and monuments, most of them valuable unicums, make interdisciplinary co-operation - joint and supplemental work from different specialists - essential.
A foundation paper in the form of the Venice Charta has been available since 1964, unchanging in its timeliness, which lays down the goals and tasks of historical preservation. Along with it the direction has long been established without a doubt. Instead, however, competitive thinking and a lack of expertise are symptoms and a sign that historical preservation is being relegated to a commercial matter so that common social interest and acceptance for historical preservation is disappearing. Yes, it has even lead to historical preservation as a responsibility of the state being questioned. But how can the state fulfil its sovereign functions when it is overrun by an invasion of self-appointed pseudo restorers. They misuse of our cultural heritage for their self-realisation. The actual main task of historical preservation -to hand down the monuments- seems to have been forgotten.
Die The current style of refurbishing suggests "rebuilding" and usually depend on tastes and are not seldom new productions paid for with considerable loss of substance. In contrast real historical preservation means limiting loss alone in the spirit of handing down our heritage to future generations. In order to bring these ethical and moral concerns back into the awareness of society there is a great need for clarification.
Finally the careful question may be posed with respect to the thoroughness, with which refurbishment measures and the associated destruction of traditional substance have been and are carried out, if limited means really hamper or even impede serious and cautious historical preservation. There are varying opinions on whether or not the limited means are good or bad for historical preservation If less money is available perhaps the awareness for the necessity of good concepts and profound methodology could be strengthened. Many “extensive refurbishments“ have taken place in recent years with large financial investment – how much historical substance was thereby destroyed is unclear and poses the question of whether or not all measures should be applauded and should be allowed to pass for historical preservation. There seems to be a lack of efficient co-ordination and methodologically sound action in current historical preservation. It is nearly impossible to say how much project funds have been wasted and are wasted alone on poor information exchange between different “planning experts“ and a lack of serious interest in co-operation. Since “good advice” is often expensive, interdisciplinary work is, as a consequence, not seldom limited to a minimum, which results in a significant loss of quality in planning and realisation.
Theory and methodology in historical preservation are also subject to the principles of the history of development. Even dealing according to best knowledge can later be proven to be a mistake. One should at least always be aware that decisions and results always depend on the state of technology, social norms, subjective perceptions etc. and for this reason must remain correctable.
Judgement of the success of a restoration is solely dependant on the standards that one is willing to accept – but fitting standards have become rare!
