The Context of the Venice Charter (1964)

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES (998) volume 2 pages 229-233

The context of the Venice Charter (1964)

JUKKA JOKILEHTO

The Venice Charter has been the benchmark for principles governing architectural conservationl restorationfor over thirty years. We asked Jukka Jokilehto to comment on the context in which it was drawn up. Now often referred to simply as the 'Venice Charter', the correctfull name of this document (of which we print the text in an appendix) is: 'The International Charterfor the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites', adopted by the lInd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Venice, 1964.

When the lInd International Congress of Archi- Lanka) declared that the charter was 'a Magna tects and Technicians of Historic Monuments met Carta for the safeguarding of the monumental in Venice from 25 to 31 May 1964, and adopted heritage of mankind for the sake of the genera- the International Charter for the Conservation tions of the present and the future' [31 and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, it hardly The invitation to the 1964 Venice meeting was anticipated the subsequent fortunes of this docu- issued by the Italian Director General of Antiqui- ment.· Over three decades later the Venice Charter ties and Fine Arts, Professor G. De Angelis d'Ossat, continues to exercise its validity. Acceptance of at the (Ist) International Congress oLArchitects the Charter has not been without criticism: imme- and Technicians of Historic Monuments, which diately ..after the 1964 meeting it was challenged took place in Paris, 6-14 May 1957. The Paris by Professor Renato Bonelli (Italy), who claimed meeting had been organized by the French asso- that it contained nothing new, and even that the ciation of restoration architects in collaboration concepts expressed in it were contradictory to with national authorities and UNESCO, and it principles promoted after the Second World War, drew particular attention to the need for training when aesthetic criteria had. gained priority over programmes for specialists, for specialized agen- historical ones [1]. cies, and for interdisciplinary collaboration [4]. In 1977, in an assessment of the Charter, Cevat There was also a motion addressed to UNESCO Erder (Turkey) identified some of its defects, calling for the establishment of an international pointing out that, as it was written mainly by association as a link between restoration archi- Europeans, there could be difficulties in its appli- tects and technicians - this was eventually to be cation in all cultures. Erder maintained, neverthe- ICOMOS. less, that the Charter had performed its task, that There were other precursors to the Venice it was worthy of the respect due to an historic Charter, including the conclusions of the interna- document and should be preserved according to tional conference organized by the International the principles proposed for the preservation of an Museums Office in Athens, 21-30 October 1931, historic monument [2]. In 1983, Roland Silva (Sri and attended by some 120 professionals from 23

countries, mainly in Europe. These conclusions Raymond Lemaire (Belgium), in collaboration usually referred to later as the 'Athens Charter', with Paul Philippot (ICCROM) and]ean Sonnier were presented to the League of Nations member (France) [7,8], The Venice Charter was adopted states. After the conference, the Italian delegate, by the congress almost unanimously - with one Gustavo Giovannoni, drafted a 'Carta del restauro', abstention. The first version contained 15 articles, which was adopted by the Italian Consiglio but was later edited in collaboration with UNESCO Superiore delle Belle Arti in December 1931 and to include Article· 8 on integrity, thus making the published in January 1932 as an official govern- current total of 16 articles (see Appendix). ment guideline. (These two documents should There had recently been other meetings with not be confused with the recommendations of recommendations on the rehabilitation of his- the ClAM meeting on modern architecture and toric cities, an issue that the Venice Charter does city planning in Athens in 1933, edited by Le not really address. It is worth noting, however, Corbusier in 1941 and published as 'The Charter that the· concept of 'historic monument' was of Athens' in 1943 [5],) extended by the Charter· to cover historic urban The 1964 Venice congress· was organized by areas and considered previous references to the General Direction of Antiquities and Fine Arts 'dead' and 'living' monuments no longer rel- of the Italian Ministry of Education. It was at- evant. Cesare Brandi had published his theory of tended by some 600 participants representing 61 restoration the previous year (1963), which· was countries, as well as UNESCO, the Council of certainly taken into account [9]. The Venice Europe, ICCROM, ICOM and the Istituto congress gave clear attention to architectural Internazionale dei Castelli (I.B.I.). The majority of integrity, but it also emphasized the need to participants were European, while more than half respect historical integrity - considering that after of the countries represented were from other the war there had been an overemphasis on continents. The congress adopted 13 resolutions, stylistic reconstruction. Several speakers stressed the first· of which was the 'international charter' the specificity of each cultural heritage site, and (Venice Charter). Another concerned the crea- the fact that any charter could only provide tion of ICOMOS, founded in Poland the follow- guidance - it could not be a rule to be applied ing year, which came to recognize the Venice uncritically. Charter as its fundamental doctrinal document - Over the years, there have been several at- consequently the Charter has often (incorrectly) tempts to revise the Venice Charter, but without been published under the ICOMOS name. The success, and the Charter has become a major Venice meeting also recommended the organiza- reference both for national administrations and at tion of an international architectural conserva- the international level. This is proven by the tion course at ICCROM, the publication of an translations of the Charter into at least 28 different international magazine on the theory, techniques languages, and the fact that its principles have and legislation relating to the restoration of found expression in dozens of national and monuments (ICOMOS's Monumentum),\ as well international recommendations, guidelines and as proper attention to the protection and rehabili- charters [10], Perhaps the best known of these are tation of historic city centres [6]. the Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation In view of the ravages of the Second World in the USA (first published in 1978 [11]) and the War on cultural monuments, the organizers of the Burra Charter in Australia (drawn up in 1979 [12]). Venice meeting, Piero Gazzola, De Angelis d'Ossat, The principles of the Venice Charter have also Carlo Ceschi and Roberto Pane, decided to pro- been recognized as the basic .policy guidelines vide an updated reference document for the for the assessment of cultural heritage sites on international debate on safeguarding the archi- UNESCO's World Heritage List. tectural heritage. The idea of a revised charter was presented to the congress by Gazzola and Pane, who took Giovannoni's 'Carta del restauro' Jukka Jokilehto is Head of· the Architectural as a reference. The first draft was written by Conservation programme at ICCROM. THE CONTEXT OF THE VENICE CHARTER 231

Contact address: ICCROM, via di San Michele APPENDIX 13, 1-00153 Roma RM, Italy. Tel: +39 6 585531. Fax: +39 6 58553349. E-mail: [email protected] THE VENICE CHARTER (1964); INIERNATIONAL CHARTER FOR THE CONSERVATION AND

REFERENCES RESTORATION OF MONUMENTS AND SITES

1 Bonelli, R. La 'carta di Venezia' per il restauro Imbued with a message from the past, the historic architettonico. Italia Nostra, May-June (964) 1-6. monuments of generations of people remain to the 2 Erder, C. The Venice Charter under review. In: ICOMOS present day as living witnesses of their age-old Scientific Journal, The Venice Charter - La Charte de traditions. People are becoming more and more Venise 1964-1994. Paris (994), 24-31 (article written conscious of the unity of human values and regard in 1977). ancient monuments as a common heritage. The 3 Silva, R. The signific~nce of the Venice International common responsibility to safeguard them for future Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of generations is recognized. It is our duty to hand Monuments and Sites, with special reference to eastern them on in the full richness of their authenticity. countries. In: ICOMOS Scientific Journal, The Venice Charter - La Charte de Venise 1964-1994. Paris (1994), 40-44. It is essential that the principles guiding the 4 Verrier, J. Le congres international des architectes et preservation and restoration of ancient lJuildings techniciens des monuments historiques. Les monuments should be agreed and be laid down on an historiques de la France ill (1957) 65-88. international basis, with each country being re- 5 On this confusion, see Iamandi, C. The Charters of sponsible for applying the plan within the frame- Athens of 1931 and 1933. Coincidence, controversy work of its own culture and traditions. and convergence. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 2 (1997) 17-28. By defining these basic principles for the .first 6 ICOMOS.'llmonumento per l'uomo '.Atti delII congresso time, the Athens Charter of 1931 contributed internazionale del restauro, Venezia, 2~ 31 maggio towards the development of an extensive inter- 1964. Marsilio Editore, Padua (971). national movement which has assumed concrete 7 Gazzola, P. and Pane, R. Proposte per una carta form in national documents, in the work of ICOM internazionale del restauro. In: ICOMOS. 'Ilmonumento and UNESCO and in the establishment by the per l 'uomo '. Atti del II congresso internazionale del latter of the International Centre for the Study of restauro, Venezia, 25-31 maggio 1964. Marsilio Editore, Padua (1971), 14-19. Reprinted in Gurrieri, F. (ed.), the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Teoria e cultura del restaurodei monumenti e dei centri Property. Increasing awareness and critical study antichi. Edizioni CLUSF,Florence (1974), 215-224. have been brought to bear on problems which 8 Lemaire, R. A propos de la Charte de Venise. In: have continually become more complex and ICOMOS Scientific Journal, The Venice Charter - La varied; now the time has come to examine the Charte de Venise 1964-1994. Paris (994), 56-58. Charter afresh in order to make a thorough study 9 Brandi, C. Teoria del restauro. Edizioni di Storia e of the principles involved and to enlarge its scope Letteratura, Rome (963). Reprinted G. Einaudi, Turin in a new document. (977).

10ICOMOS Scientific Journal, The Venice Charter - La Accordingly, the lInd International Congress of Charte de Venise 1964-1994, Paris (994). Architects and Technicians of Historic Monu- 11 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for ments, which met in Venice from May 25th to 31st Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic 1964, approved the following text: Buildings. Revised 1983.US Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, Washington DC (1983). DEFINITIONS 12 Australia ICOMOS. The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the ARTICLE1. The concept of an historic monument Burra Charter). Sydney (1981). embraces not only the single architectural work 232 JUKKA JOKILEHTO

but also the urban or rural setting in which is found may only be removed from it if this is the sole the evidence of a particular civilization, a significant means of ensuring their preservation. development or an historic event. This applies not only to great works of art but also to more modest REST ORA TION works of the past which have acquired cultural significance with the passing of time. ARTICLE9. The process of restoration is a highly specialized operation. Its aim is to preserve and ARTICLE 2. The conservation and restoration of reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the monuments must have recourse to all the sciences monument and is based on respect for original and techniques which can contribute to the study material and authentic documents. It must stop at and safeguarding of the architectural heritage. the point where conjecture begins, and in this case moreover any extra work which is indispen- AIM sable must be distinct from the architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp. ARTICLE 3. The intention in conserving and The restoration in any case must be preceded and restoring monuments is to safeguard them no less followed by an archaeological and historical as works of art than as historical evidence. study of the monument.

CONSERVATION ARTICLE 10. Where traditional techniques prove inadequate, the consolidation of a monument ARTICLE 4. It is essential to the conservation of can be achieved by the use of any modern monuments that they be maintained on a perma- technique for conservation and construction, the nent basis. efficacy of which has been shown by scientific data and proved by experience. ARTICLE 5. The conservation of monuments is always facilitated by making use of them for some ARTICLE11. The valid contributions of all periods socially useful purpose. Such use is therefore desir- to the building of a monument must be respected, able but it must not change the lay-out ordecora- since unity of style is not the. aim ofa· restoration. tion of the building. It is within these limits only that modifications demanded by a change of function When a building includes the superimposed should be envisaged and may be permitted. work of different periods, the revealing of the underlying state can only be justified in excep- ARTICLE 6. The conservation of a monument tional circumstances and when what is removed implies preserving a setting. which is not out of is of little interest and the material which is scale. Wherever the traditional· setting exists, it brought to light is of great historical, archaeologi- must be kept. No new construction, demolition calor aesthetic value, and its state of preservation or modification which would alter the relations of good enough to justify the action. Evaluation of mass and color must be allowed. the importance of the elements involved and the decision as to what may be destroyed cannot rest ARTICLE7. A monument is inseparable from the solely on the individual in charge of· the work. history to which it bears witness and from the setting in which it occurs. The moving of all or ARTICLE 12. Replacements of missing parts must part of a monument cannot be allowed except integrate harmoniously with the whole, but at the where the safeguarding of that monument de- same time must be distinguishable from the mands it or where it is justified by national or original so that restoration does not falsify the international interest of paramount importance. artistic or historic evidence.

ARTICLE 8. Items of sculpture, painting or deco- ARTICLE 13. Additions cannot be allowed except ration which form an integral part of a monument in so far as they do not detract from the interest- THE CONTEXT OF THE VENICE CHARTER 233

ing parts of the building, its traditional setting, the critical reports, illustrated with drawings and balance of its composition and its relation with its photographs. surroundings. Every stage of the work of clearing, consolida- HISTORIC SITES tion, rearrangement and integration, as well as technical and formal features identified during ARTICLE14. The sites of monuments must be the the course of the work, should be included. This object of special care in order to safeguard their record should be placed in the archives of a integrity and ensure that they are cleared and public institution and made available to research presented in a seemly manner. The work of workers. It is recommended that the report should conservation and restoration carried out in such be published. places should be inspired by the principles set forth in the foregoing articles. The following persons took part in the work of the Committee for drafting the International Char- EXCAVATIONS ter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monu- ments: ARTICLE15. Excavations should be carried out in accordance with scientific standards and the Piero Gazzola (Italy), Chairman recommendation defining international princi- Raymond Lemaire (Belgium), Reporter ples to be applied in the case of archaeological Jose Bassegoda-Nonell (Spain) excavation adopted by UNESCO in 1956. Luis Benavente (Portugal) Djurdje Boskovic (Yugoslavia) Ruins must be maintained and measures neces- Hiroshi Daifuku (UNESCO) sary for the permanent conservation and protec- P.L de Vrieze (Netherlands) tion of architectural features and of objects dis- Harald Langberg (Denmark) covered must be taken. Furthermore, every means Mario Matteucci (Italy) must be taken to facilitate the understanding of Jean Merlet (France) the monument and to reveal it without ever Carlos Flores Marini (Mexico) distorting its meaning. Roberto Pane (Italy) S.C.J. Pavel (Czechoslovakia) All reconstruction work should however be ruled Paul Philip pot (International Centre for the out a priori. Only anastylosis, that is to say, the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of reassembling of existing but dismembered parts, Cultural Property) can be permitted. The material used for integra- Victor Pimentel (Peru) tion should always be recognizable and its use Harold Plenderleith (International Centre for should be the least that will ensure the conserva- the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration tion of a monument and the reinstatement of its of Cultural Property) form. Deoclecio Redig de Campos (Vatican) Jean Sonnier (France) PUBLICATION Fran~ois Sorlin (France) Eustathios stikas (Greece) ARTICLE16. In all works of preservation, restora- Gertrud Tripp (Austria) tion or excavation, there should always be pre- Jan Zachwatovicz (Poland) cise documentation in the form of analytical and Mustafa S. Zbiss (Tunisia)