An Introduction To Authenticity in Preservation PDF
An Introduction To Authenticity in Preservation PDF
An Introduction To Authenticity in Preservation PDF
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aptech.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Association for Preservation Technology International (APT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to APT Bulletin.
http://www.jstor.org
An Introduction to Authenticity in
Preservation
PAMELA JEROME, GUEST EDITOR
The meaning of authenticity The very first paragraph of the pream materials or restoration that is based on
continues to be debated decades ble to the Venice Charter (1964), in conjecture) is not permissible and that
after the drafting of the Venice
reference to historic monuments, says, only anastylosis (the reassembly of the
"It is our duty to hand them on in the dismembered original parts) can be
Charter and the World Heritage full richness of their authenticity."1 So permitted (Fig. I).4 Furthermore, the
Convention. what is authenticity? And why do we Venice Charter notes that new interven
care? tions should occur only when absolutely
In 1972 UNESCO adopted theWorld necessary and that the new materials
-
y.aatfir
wm.
Fig. 1. The ongoing restoration of the Parthenon follows the Venice Charter Fig. 2. Dutchmen inserted at the Propylaia, one of the monuments of the
and is a prime example of anastylosis. All photographs by the author Athenian Acropolis, follow the exact geometry of the voids but are carved
unless otherwise noted. to the original exterior profile of the stonework, rather than the existing
weathered profile. By this means the new material, although from the
same marble quarry, is easily distinguishable from the original.
3
4 APT BULLETIN: JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY / 39:2-3, 2008
integrity."16
The recognition of cultural land
scapes under theWorld Heritage Con
vention has also raised new on
questions
authenticity. As in historic cities, the
ongoing dynamic processes involved in
places of living heritage challenge some
of the traditional definitions and criteria
for authenticity.
The properties on theWorld Heritage
List are unevenly distributed interna
Fig. 3. The Fantoft Stave Church is a 1995 Fig. 4. An extraordinary level of detail was tionally, with the overwhelming major
reconstruction erected after the original church replicated in the reconstruction of the Fantoft ity of sites located in Europe or con
was burned to the ground by Satanists. The Stave Church, as seen in this pew end. How
structed following European traditions.
original church, dating to 1150, was relocated ever, the overwhelming smell of new wood in
At the request of theWorld Heritage
from Fortun, Norway, to Bergen in 1882, bring the interior belies the reconstruction.
ing into question authenticity of setting. Committee, ICOMOS researched this
imbalance and subsequently published a
Fig. 5. The Hunterfly Road Houses of Weeksville represent the only surviving remnant of one of the first free African-American communities in Brooklyn,
N.Y. They have been restored as a timeline (from left to right: 1960s, 1870s, 1900s, and 1930s) and interpreted as house museums of African-American
history. The building at the far left is the reconstruction. The 1930s garage at 1698 Bergen Street is the masonry structure to the far right of the photograph.
Photograph courtesy of Stephen Barker.
restored. It was reconstructed in the garage had purchased this house (as archival correspondence, this color
early 1980s as part of the restoration of opposed to leasing it). The interior of appears to have remained on the build
the houses at that time. The reconstruc the house still maintained the integrity ing for about five years; the first repaint
tion, however, replicated only the exte of the remodeling the family had under ingwas a darker buff color, perhaps
rior; the interior was left as an open taken in the 1930s as well, and there matching the soiled appearance of the
space to be used as a classroom, with were numerous
photo albums from the original color. An addition, designed by
the location of original partitions out family's private collection that were Wright's son-in-law Wesley Peters, was
lined on the floor. In this instance, the made available for the restoration (Fig. erected in 1968, at which time it seems
reconstruction is totally honest on the 6). The New York City Landmarks likely the building was repainted. In
interior because it does not attempt to Preservation Commission agreed with 1975 another alteration, designed by
deceive through conjectural interior the project's approach. Consequently the Donald Freed, enclosed the original
rebuilding. buildings were restored as a timeline driveway between East Eighty-ninth
The work of the early 1980s had representing the 1870s, 1900s, 1930s, Street and Fifth Avenue, creating the gift
restored the buildings to 1883, the first and 1960s (the latter referring to the shop, during which time the Guggen
time the structures are shown on insur rediscovery of the site, civil rights move heim was probably repainted again.
ance maps.18 In doing so, additions ment, and reconstruction). In doing so it By the time it became a New York
?
appearing in a 1904 photograph was necessary to
replicate many of the City-designated landmark in 1990, the
including a porch, shed, enclosed elements that had been removed in the building had undergone at least four
vestibule, dog house, and summer house previous restoration (Fig. 7). Thus, this repainting campaigns. Paint analysis
?
were removed because they did not
project demonstrates changing attitudes showed that a series of warm-colored
conform to the period of restoration. towards authenticity within a
20-year paints had been applied over the original
This approach was fairly typical of U.S. period. buff. These colors gradually changed
preservation theory at that time. The other case study involves the over time: the first repainting was the
Approximately 20 years later, the restoration of the Solomon R. Guggen darkest color, then the lightest, then the
buildings needed restoration again. By heim Museum, located on Fifth Avenue pinkest, and finally the most yellow.
this time notions of authenticity had inManhattan. Completed in 1959 this In 1992 most of theWesley Peters
changed, affecting concepts of period iconic, Frank Lloyd Wright-designed addition was demolished, and an addi
restorations. After analyzing the goals of building is recognized internationally as tion designed by Gwathmey Siegel and
interpretation with the stewards and an exceptional example of theModern Associates erected in its place (Fig. 9).
stakeholders, WASA/Studio A designed Movement (Fig. 8). The current work This alteration is arguably the most
the restoration as a timeline:
significant included the removal of up to 11 layers significant in terms of impact on the
elements deserved to be highlighted of paint in order to expose, assess, and aesthetics of the original building (it
from different periods, which could tell repair the original gunite, concrete, and was, however, described by noted New
important stories and enrich the histori cement stucco substrates. York Times architectural critic Paul
cal narrative. For instance a 1930s Paint analysis
was
performed
on
Goldberger as a respectful backdrop
garage was still part of one of the build more than 100 samples. The analysis that improved the Guggenheim as a
ings, 1698 Bergen Street (Fig. 5). An revealed that the original paint color museum as well as a
piece of architec
African-American family that was afflu corresponded to Benjamin Moore HC ture).20With the completion of the addi
ent enough to own a car and build a 35, a buff yellow or light brown.19 From tion, which is clad with limestone, the
6 APT BULLETIN: JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY / 39:2-3, 2008
coolish grayish white.21 The original buff color that is not Wright's buff. Charles dialogue about this crucial concept.
yellow color had faded from collective Gwathmey, who had designed the 1992
PAMELA JEROME, AIA, is partner in charge
memory and off-white became the pub addition, had thought (incorrectly) that of the preservation group with WASA/Studio A,
lic perception of the building. In 2003 it the color chosen for the addition was a New York City-based architecture and engin
was repainted with a similarly low close to the original color of theWright eering firm. She is an Adjunct Associate Profes
sor at Columbia Graduate School
chroma color, a little lighter than 1541. building. However, is it not possible that University's
She
of Architecture, Planning and Preservation.
The debate about what color the ifGwathmey had known the original
is a board member of US/ICOMOS and is that
Guggenheim should be repainted as part color was a yellowish buff, the exterior organization's liaison to the APT board.
of the ongoing restoration split the finishes selected for his addition may
preservation community into two dis have been very different? Our position,
tinct camps. On the one hand, there are then, is that we can accomplish a period
the preservation purists who believe that restoration only to 1992; since we are
now is the opportunity to reinstate the not removing the alterations and addi
original color chosen by Frank Lloyd tions to the building over time, it seems
Wright. (Recent articles have mistakenly inconsistent to go back to the 1958
stated thatWright, who died in 1959, color. However, both this approach and
did not see the exterior of the building the purist viewpoint are equally valid
completed.22 While it is true that he did interpretations of authenticity.
not live to see the museum opened to the So what is authenticity? Is it authen
public, the exterior was
actually painted ticity of materials and/or craftsmanship?
in the fall of 1958. There is archival Design? Setting or landscape? Spirit and
information and a historic photograph sense of place? Use or
adaptive reuse?
in the museum's archives ofWright Integrity? Memory? Public perception?
standing next to the building with a The APT Bulletin dedicates this special
backdrop of workers on a hanging issue to this topic. A working group
scaffold in the process of painting the consisting of Christina Cameron, Nora
Guggenheim.) Mitchell, Herb Stovel, and myself was
On the other hand, the position of formed to debate the topic, and a group
the museum, supported byWASA/Stu of selected authors was asked to submit Fig. 7. Later additions to 1698 Bergen Street,
such as this porch, which had been removed
dio A, is that of progressive authenticity. papers responding to the following in order to conform
during the 1980s restoration
The Guggenheim is a living entity that concepts: to an 1883 period restoration, were in
replicated
has evolved over time, and the building Importance of authenticity. Why is the recent restoration. Photograph courtesy of
is the manifestation of that history. The authenticity important for heritage Stephen Barker.
AN INTRODUCTION TO AUTHENTICITY IN PRESERVATION 7
Fig. 8. The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, designed by Frank Lloyd Fig. 9. The Guggenheim Museum with the 1992 Gwathmey Siegel addition
Wright and seen here with the Wesley Peters addition post-1968, is an behind it. The addition is arguably the most significant alteration to the
internationally recognized icon of the Modern Movement. Photograph ? aesthetics of the original building. Photograph by Angel Avon.
The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation. All rights reserved.