Műemlék-helyreállítások tegnap, ma, holnap (A 27. Egri Nyári Egyetem előadásai 1997 Eger, 1997)

Előadások - The phylosophy of monument restoration Debate – moderator: András ROMÁN

that it has set for us about the monument restoration. This is a particular charta of monument restoration and some supplementary documents have been written to it about historic gardens and towns. Probably the Charta does not mention the spiritual content of monuments as detailed as the practical, material restoration of monuments. So I think the Venice Charta should not be abandoned like a not useable document, but should be considered as a basic starting point. We should go back to its basic principles which were founded at the composition of the Charta and we should read and apply it according to that. To mention a part of it, when the Charta says that supplementary parts of monuments should be expressed in historic relation through the contemporary architecture, then modernism is no longer considered as contemporary. It is a good question, what is contemporary architecture, architectures. But this was only an example. The Charta is still valid, we only have to know how to read, how to use it. János Sedlmayr As my age suggests, I believe in the Venice Charta fully. I have been working according to the Charta for 40 years now and my work was always effective. And this is the reason why I stand by the Venice Charta.

, I mean not the text, but its application. In 1964 in Budapest at the Academy I had the oppoortunity to criticize at least one word of the Charta, which is: genuine. I find it unacceptable that the original, authentic function should be restored. It is impossible. The original authenticity function of a building cannot be given back, just as the original state cannot be restored either. There must be some mistakes in the interpretation, since everything is changing. This was criticized earlier - at least I criticized it - and ever since. This is the kind of modification that I m meant, to omit these kinds of words. And probably something more. The Venice Charta is a charta of monument restoration and not of monument protection. Obviously, the charta of monument protection may differ from this. Tamás Fejérdy I agree with the others that is would be a great mistake to forget about the Venice Charta. It has two reasons. First of all I think it has indisputable values which are still valid in Europe. And if we consider monument restoration worldwide this differs in different cultures, it needs modofication and the ICOMOS is right when it pays attention to this. However, I think certain things need to be modernized. Though, it would be a mistake to question the validity of the Venice Charta. It has two practical reasons: Firstly, it is silly to call it inappropriate until there is no better than this one. Secondly, the Venice Charta is rather flexible in its spirit. There are many-many things that are implied by the Charta and very few things that are not. To mention a few, practical problems - that by the name of monument restoration very extreme solutions are carried out or unworthy compromises are made out of financial or economical considerations - in these cases it would be a big failure to start to destory this moral support until we do not have any better. Herb Stovel Tamás, it is very hard to get your panel to disagree. It is easy for someone from Canada to criticize the