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

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

The important thing is not itself the discovery and its demonstration but the conclusions of the history of architecture and in what way that southern gate is related to the different arhitectonic periods. If the researcher or architect can't penetrate that deep then he might find a piece that could still be authentic but without the relations for me it seems pseudo authentic. It behaves as if it would be authentic while several criteria are not met. So concerning myself I take it authentic, that is, it loses the chance with the final research to be authentic for the succeeding generations. All in all, I would treat this matter with great care and say that the criteria of monument restoration is not to be not authentic and false. Herb Stovel I don't believe authenticity is the main criteria I believe it is an essential point inside the analysis. One comment in relation to Sedlmayr János who was lucky enought to be present at the Venice meeting in 1964 and his discomfort with the idea of authentic form, authentic shape. This is something I can symphatize with and I feel very swarmly in my own train. Somehow in the West we place weird reemphasis on the material authenticity than on anything else. It's easier to believe in it but it is precisely at this point where we discover that other cultures see this question is a completely different way. The Japanese do not have a word for authenticity. But they have a word for genuine, they have a word for reliable and they use both to discuss this concept. They have a strong reverence for material authenticity, they work very hard to ensure this revival of the original material but at the same time in somehow coming from their culture. There's a profound respect for the recration of traditional forms by traditonal means. The Japanese place great emphasis on the value of ther prospect. They believe their trained traditional prospect can restore and recreate authentic forms when necessary. In fact they even designate their prospect as national treasure. If you look at one particular shrine the Ise shrine which is rebuilt every 20 years on the same site for symbolic reasons. You recognise through the Japanese eyes something they called intengible cultural heritage. It has a physical existence but for the Japanese it is not tengible. When they are talking about it, it has no physical value. It is the spirit that is very important. And I use this one example simply to show the need of our western cultural context to try to open our eyes to other ways of looking at things in a global framework. András Román Now I can see that my question was not exact or it was provocative. I can't decide that. The main criteria of restoration is authenticity. This is the question. Do you know the answer to the following question. What makes the coffee sweet? The sugar or the stir? Then's not only one thing that makes restoration good or bad. Let me tell you again about a personal experience. It was in about 1970 when Prof. Walter Frodl, who was at that time a famous and excellent leader of the Austrian protection of monuments, came to Budapest. I was one of those who escorted him. Frodl halted at number 13 on Úri street in Buda Castle. He was looking at its facade on which everything was shown to him and he said, 'This is a preparation of history of architecture'. The house itself is authentic but its restoration is not a good one. To be technical, restoration should meet the criteria of authenticity. It is one criteria of the many and to express myself in a mathematical way it is necessary but not sufficient condition.