The Venice Charter under Review* Cevat Erder Ankara, 1977 The explosion in the demands of contemporary society and Abstract their impingement on the historic environment have sparked The Venice Charter has provided a set of guiding principles activities, concem and controversy on the place of cultural for the protection of ,historic monuments and sites since its heritage in the value systemsof the twentieth century world. adoption in 1964 at the Second International Congress of The Venice Charter was set forth as the comerstone of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments. That international principles regarding the historic environment meeting expanded and further advanced those concepts set barely more than a decadeago. 11Iesevery principles are now forth in the Athens Charter of 1931 which had, in effect, 1ed under vigorous criticism. The cause is clear; technological to the development of major institutions for international change and concepts of the historic environment have activity in the cultural field. multiplied with suchforce that the Charter provides fewer ln recent years, increasing interest in the protection of and fewer answers to demandsfor guiding principles under historic quartersand siteshas led some experts to propose that thesenewconditions.11Iesolution,however, isnotsoapparent. the Venice Charter might weIl be expanded or changed As campsform to press one view or another for inclusions, further to :reflectthe broader interests in historic conservation revisions and expansions1 will make a radical proposai. Let which have continued to emerge over the past decade. us preserve the Venice Charter as an historic monument. The author discussesthe pros and cons of this argument by conducting a critical review of the Venice Charter in order to point out why and in what respects the charter is now effective and ineffective. After a general evaluation of the charter, each article of the charter is exarnined through a set of examples. ln conclusion the author states that the explosion in contemporary activities and the growing interest in conservation make it difficult to write another charter which win be ascomprehensive and effective as the Venice Charter has been. Thus, he concludes that the Charter should be preserved as it stands, as an historic monument itself. The Charter' s approachin itself may represent a form of idealism whichhas little place in a discipline. The Background When the International Congress of Architects and Technicians ofHistoric Monuments met in Venice in 1964 to "review the Athens Charter, that Charter, accepted in 1931, was thirty-three years old. Only ten years have elapsed since the Venice Charter was prepared and proclaimed at the meeting but it is already under even more serious attack. ln fact, there are even proponents of changing the Charter 24 altogether. Consequently, a ne-wCharter was preparedon the and social differences have provoked a variety of issues, occasion of the. EuropeanCultural heritage Year' which was applications, results and in short, a variety of views. In directed to the membersof the Council of Europe. Why is the addition technicaladvances and the possibilities forwidespread Venice Charter considered inadequate? What factors have application have led to a new set of circumstances. This has producedthis attaCkafter such a short period of acceptance? heightened concern. Concern about the destructive forces of This is the place to discuss them by reviewing the Charter modernization, and its accompanying industrial effluent and itself. air pollution which even threatenhuman life, have combined The authors of the Venice Charter without a doubt with and intensified the concern about the protection of performed a tour de force at the time. Following the meeting monuments and sites. most countries incolporated its principles into their own The geographicalregionrepresented by a groupof scholars nationallaws and regulations: a significant indicator of wide and technicians who wrote the Venice Charter is a narrowly approbation. Recent reactions however show that the Venice defined one. A large majority of the participants at the Charter does not completely meet the demands of meeting as weil as those who drafted the Charter represented contemporary society. European countries. Proponentsand critics (opponents) of the Charter may be Twenty three of the people who drafted the Charter, were grouped in generalinto three separatecamps. One defendsthe representativesof international organizations; seventeen of Venice Charter as it stands.ln this camp are also those who thetwenty threeparticipantswere Europeans.Of the remaining defend the Charter with the condition that regional Charters three,one was Tunisian, onePeruvian and theother aMexican. forman adjunctto thepresentdocument. The secondproposes It is natural that the Venice Meeting, which represents the changing those articles which fail to meet current demands beginning of International Relations in this field, should have and introducing supplementary articles to complete it. The been heavily influenced by European attitudes and views. It third insists that a new charter be prepared to replace the is natural ta acceptthis situation. When criticizing the Venice Venice Charter altogether. Charter, however, one should keep this influence in mind. The Challenge to the Charter It is now easierto criticize the Venice Charter becausethe subjecthasspread and grown more diversified since 1964 and What lies behind this controversy? Why doessuch a vocal has also reflected the viewpoint of only a specific group. For majority argue for change, favour updatingand want this to those outside attitudes and traditions accepted in Europe, be accomplished as speedily as possible? One reasonmay lie evaluation is even easier. They can see the contradictions in in the Charter' s very success.The Venice Charter has been the basic principles of the Charter, (especially when those disserninated and has become known on a scale that far principles are examined not as a whole but as they have been surpassesthat experienced during the years following the applied in one caseafter another).Inadequacy is apparent not preparation of the Athens Charter. only in compassbut in concepts. Internationalmeetings bearwitness to the way thetendency If the VeniceCharter'sinadequacy has becomestrikingly to conserve historic monuments has spread. apparentin only a brief ten years then we must be especially The Congress where the Venice Charter was developed cautious when directly addressing the question of how the represented only the second international meeting of subjectislikelyto developif ourcriticisms areto beconstructive techniciansand architectsconcerned with historic monuments ones. For ~f its principles are to be meaningful they must followihg a flfSt meeting in Paris in 1957. After the Venice incorporate not only the results of recent experiences but also meeting a seriesofinternational andnational meetingsfocused take into account concepts and scope which are likely to their attention on the historic environment and thus opened emerge with new developments. the way to an increasingly rich, critical evaluation of the One of tbe necessaryfeatures for effective principles is, concepts of the historic monument and their place in for them to be general guidelines rather than weighed down contemporary societies.One could compile a large catalogue with details and specifications. This forces principles to listing only those meetings organized by UNESCO, the remain general and to avoid the cut arid dried expressions of responsible organ of the U~ted Nations in this area, as well laws. Those who have wanted to use the Venice charter as asregional;national, local orprivate groups.ICOMOS formed laws have been disillusioned. as a result of the Venice meeting and encompassing 57 The Venice Charter must be evaluated and understood as member countries, hasplayeda particularly central role in all a whole. Instead each of its articles has often been taken and thesemeetings. ICOMOS possessesvirtually no budget of its interp~ted separately and this has led in many cases to own, but neverthelesshas performed a catalytic function. Its contiadictory applications. Unlike a law, each article cannot growth and influence itself warrant close evaluation. be taken out of its context. The compass, intensity of work, and diversity qf these Another practical deficiency should be remembered. the meetings have already reached far beyond the principles of original French version when translatedinto English, Spanish the Vellice Charter. It is probable that much of the insistence and Russianproduced differences in interpretation, deviation on changehas originated in thesemeetings. Earlier, European and deficiencies in the second languages. For example, we countries formed the core of theseactivities but today in terms haveidentified four or fivedifferent versions of the Venice of the number of p'articipants, interest, and actual work Charter in Turkish,each produced by a different translator undertaken the compass has spread fàr beyond Europe. A and each translatedfrom a different language; ~ll show clear range in natural and climatic condItions, CUlturâl,econornic differences in exp'anation andunderstanding. In fact, there 25 I -"c Cevat Erder are observable differences between the original French and clearly felt primarily in the implementation of conservation the English version, and these are known to have increased projects. It makesit manifest that assistancefrorn