Dialogues with the past_echoes in the future: cultural heritage and the transformation of buildings and cities

Seminal texts from the mid-1800s, and beyond, exhibit contradictory and shifting positions of key figures in dialogues that specifically concern conservation, preservation, and restoration in the built environment. The historical dialogues, treatises, and arguments underway in the 1850s focus on two main competing positions or paradigms in this turbulent (and still somewhat nascent) body of thought, and on the consolidation of the discipline and profession of the historian and others. The editors of "Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage" note that “It is in these decades that archaeology, history of art, and history of architecture were defined” (Price et al., 1996). These conceptual and procedural positions, some translated to English for the first time, are fundamental to how we approach cultural heritage broadly, and how we view and act upon existing specific artistic, architectural, and urban constructs in our time and over time. Initially, the main protagonists in these pivotal debates, which were most severe in the discipline and profession of architecture, included some of the most distinguished leaders in architectural theory, writings, and, to some extent, practice. On the more conservative side were Viollet-Le-Duc and his followers, including the most radical expression via what would become known as de-restoration and purism. And on the more progressive side of the debate were Ruskin and Morris, and an extension that would become known as the anti-restoration movement (Price et al., 1996). These and other voices from the past create echoes that vibrate and influence, echoes that shape and reshape thoughts, positions, and regulations. It therefore becomes clear that we must bring voice, care, and support not only to the past, but also to the present and future... Seemingly 'simple' things like cultural heritage and its theories and positions that may lead to rules and regulations that ultimately control, limit, or ban creative work in existing built environments are extraordinarily serious, and not only for the creative communities, but also for the public that is being stifled and divorced from an enhanced and transformed continuity of time and place. Additionally worrisome, overly narrow and conservative positions and policies may prefigure, or further articulate, larger problematic political, economic, social, and cultural paradigms. Rather, let us create climates that foster openness, creativity, and innovative work.