Written by Emma Donaldson
Post-war Europe was faced with many challenges as it set out to recover from the economic, social, and cultural devastation caused by World War Two. World leaders and heritage conservationists fought for the future preservation of heritage sites and to start a restoration and reconstruction process for those that had been destroyed during the war. Such restoration work was generally governed by the Athens Charter of 1931, but it was not seen to be fit-for-purpose because it did not account for post-war destruction and was, at this time, out-dated. The Venice Charter 1964 was drafted by an influential group of preservation experts to address many of the apparent constraints and shortcomings inherent in the Athens Charter and to lay the framework and codify the core principles for future preservation of cultural heritage sites.
The Venice Charter has had a significant impact on the advancement of international acknowledgement of the importance of heritage sites, and it has contributed to the recognition of the need to protect physical markers of cultural history. However, as was the case for the Athens Charter, time does not stand still. Advancements in technology and archaeological techniques over the past sixty years, together with the desire in many societies to celebrate cultural history, have thrown a stark light on the constraints that are now evident in the Venice Charter framework and principles.
While the Core Principles outlined in the Venice Charter have been a guiding light since the 1960s and have created a solid foundation upon which to preserve cultural history, they should not be taken as “gospel”. This article aims to show that although the Charter sets a solid framework for the restoration of cultural heritage, its relevance has begun to wane in today’s restoration projects because the Charter does not evolve alongside modern-day notions and understanding of cultural heritage, rendering the Charter out-dated and impractical in preservation cases.
CORE PRINCIPLES
The Core Principles of the Venice Charter are what drive the use of this Charter, but they can also warp some perspectives on cultural heritage if a site is looked at purely through the lens of the Charter’s principles set out by this Charter. For example, Article One of the Charter explicitly defines a historic monument as the architectural work itself while also including ‘the urban setting’. Article One’s vague definition of the term ‘setting’ leads to elements of ambiguity when it comes to complex and out of the ordinary restoration decisions. For example, let’s examine the case of the possible restoration of the Buddhas of Bamiyan which were destroyed in 2001 by the Taliban. Marie Louise Sørensen notes that when consulting the Venice Charter on debates such as that of the Buddhas, the Charter demands a distinction between what was the original and what will be, due to restoration, a copy of the original and the requirement to make this distinction clear. In addition, abiding to a strict interpretation of the Venice Charter’s Core Principles in the Charter show that, if looking at a piece of heritage through the lens of the Articles in the Charter, the value of a piece of heritage only rests in the original, not the restoration. This emphasis devalues the efforts spent to save pieces of cultural heritage that are damaged, or in threat of being damaged. In a way, it advocates for a perspective that allows history to forget about sites of irreplaceable historical significance, purely because the Charter refuses to acknowledge value in reconstruction or replicas.
CRITIQUES AND LIMITATIONS
The issues surrounding its stance on reconstruction are not the only challenges with the articles of the Venice Charter. One particularly poignant criticism of the Charter was made by Turkish scholar Cevat Erder. In 1977, Erder assessed the Vencie Charter and made the case that, as it was written mainly by Europeans, it had a very Euro-centric bias. This makes applying it to heritage cases of any other culture difficult. Erder’s criticism of the Charter bears more weight when applied to the case of the Bamiyan Buddhas. The euro-centric outlook that is woven throughout the Charter makes it a difficult point of reference for heritage sites that have been destroyed in events, such as civil war, that are not as frequent in the region of Europe. With this position in mind, Christopher Koziol takes a slightly different approach when discussing the limitations of the Charter. Koziol argues that the Charter should be seen as something transitional, rather than foundational and canonical to the preservation of monuments.
MODERN RESTORATION DEBATES
Since the creation of the Venice Charter the concept of preservation has progressed and developed. Values and principles associated with Heritage Preservation have shifted significantly from wartime priorities to more inclusive and community-based approaches. Cari Goetcheus argues that this development was a response to the continued international recognition of the importance of not only the cultural but also the community context that surrounds a heritage monument. This is coupled with the fact that with time, governance of heritage preservation and restoration projects moved away from an expert led model dominated by large corporate institutions such as UNESCO and moved more towards a community-based leadership method, moving away from leadership being dominated by large corporate institutions such as UNESCO. These values have progressed as society developed and moved away from a war-time mindset, something that the pre-established static Charter could not match. This means that in certain contexts, the Charter is not an entirely reliable reference to consult since it follows out-dated ideals.
ENDURING LEGACY
All that being said, the Venice Charter still holds an enduring legacy. The Charter remains influential at both the global and the local level, highlighting its continued importance in the modern age. The Charter’s legacy endures in its influence on UNESCO policies and global heritage practices, as evidenced by its translation into twenty-eight different languages. Furthermore, the Venice Charter’s Core Principles have informed the policy guidelines that are followed by UNESCO when deliberating an addition to their World Heritage List. Modern criticisms aside, we can see that although not necessarily applicable to all heritage sites or reconstruction debates, the Venice Charter has had a significant impact in the advancement of international acknowledgement towards the importance of heritage sites and has contributed to the recognition of the need to protect physical markers of cultural history.
Overall, the Venice Charter 1964 was a milestone in heritage preservation, and it led the way to an international acceptance of the importance of keeping cultural heritage safe. Its Core Principles were revolutionary for the time it was written, and contributed significantly in pushing the movement forward after World War Two. However, we must re-evaluate its significance in the context of modern preservation debates. Advanced in archaeological technology and techniques are allowing new ways to restore, preserve, and present sites of historical significance for generations to come. As seen with the criticisms of some scholars and the lack of specification in Article One of the Charter, its application to heritage sites outside of Europe is difficult and the principles in the Charter no longer comply with the advancing and modernised ideals surrounding the concept of heritage preservation today.
The Venice Charter should not be discarded and forgotten. Instead, modern historical site preservation and restoration should be guided by the spirit of its principles in conjunction with community-led and international standards, technological advances, and cultural norms that have evolved with the passage of time.
Bibliography
Goetcheus, C. & Mitchell, N., (2014), ‘The Venice Charter and Cultural Landscapes: Evolution of Heritage Concepts and Conservation Over Time’, Change Over Time, vol. 4, no. 2, p.338-357, 471, 473-474.
Jokilehto, J. (1998)., The Context of the Venice Charter (1964). Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 2(4), p.229 – 233.
Koziol, C., (2014), ‘From International to Cosmopolitan: Taking the Venice Charter Beyond the “State-Party” Politics of Experts’, Change Over Time, vol.4, no.2, p. 204-217, 472.
Neto, M.J., (2022), ‘The Restoration of Monuments in Portugal: from Athens 1931 to Venice 1964 Charters’, ARTis ON, vol.12.
Sørensen, M.L., (2020), ‘The Roles of the Locals – and the Possible Reconstruction of the Destroyed Buddha Statues in the Bamiyan Valley, Afghanistan’, in Nagaoka, M., (ed.), (2020), The Future of the Bamiyan Buddha Statues: Heritage Reconstruction in Theory and Practice. 1st Edition. Cham: Springer Nature. p. 173 – 185.
Featured image credit: “Venice” by barnyz is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
Retrospect Journal 