Document Type : Original Article
Author
Assistant professor, Department of Architecture, Art and Architecture School, Yazd University, Iran.
Abstract
Historical architecture is a continuum of three-dimensional space and time, where values have been attributed to it through interaction with humans over time, defining its distinction and continuity as identity. The conservation of historical architecture is also defined to maintain its values and, consequently, its identity, for transmission to present and future generations.
During the modern era, particularly after the 1950s, with the growing importance of development at various scales, different policies such as reconstruction, renovation, and redevelopment were implemented. The changes resulting from these policies, at various scales from urban fabric to historical architectural spaces, conflicted with the commitment to preserving identity. However, due to the conflicts that arose and the negative impacts of maximum and one-dimensional development, the regeneration policy was defined as a comprehensive approach that became more moderate in its approach to historical spaces and, consequently, historical architectural spaces, and directed its policies towards their conservation. But based on all these approaches, the persistence of historical architectural space over time and, consequently, the conservation of its identity, has been defined in terms of the function of space in relation to developmental policies centered on economic development. This means that the value of historical architectural space is due to its rarity and values based on current needs. Historical architectural space is measured at any given time by the criterion of “defined needs of that day” and, if valuable in relation to them, is preserved and utilized. Within this framework, historical architectural spaces are offered as a consumer and economic commodity to ensure their long-term survival. In this process, there is no commitment to preserving the values that define the historical building’s identity and transmitting them; instead, what continues are the consumer and economic values of the space.
In this research, with the primary goal of identifying the reasons for the discontinuity of the identity of historical buildings and their role in their continued existence, the main question “What is the reason for the discontinuity of the identity of historical buildings and their proper role in planning their continued existence under the concept of conservation?” is answered by addressing the question “Given the conditions of the modernity period (dominant paradigm), how is the identity of a historical building and its continuity defined in the process of its conservation and development?”. This qualitative article critically analyzes the three main components involved in the decision-making process for the survival of historical architecture: the conservation expert, the identity/self of the architecture, and the modernity period (dominant paradigm), using an inductive approach, logical reasoning, and library research methods. In the first step, the historical evolution and current state of conservation and development policies for historical buildings, as used by the conservation expert (subject), are described and analyzed. In the second step, different perspectives on the concept of identity and self as the objective (object) of the article are explained. In the third step, the conditions of the modernity period are explained as an independent factor governing the other two factors, and its impact on the expert’s decision is clarified. Finally, through logical reasoning, the interaction of the three components and the outcome of the conservation expert’s decision on the identity of the historical building are discussed.
Based on the analysis of approaches to the conservation of historical buildings, until the first half of the 19th century, experts and theorists, similar to Viollet-le-Duc’s scientific view, considered conservation without development of the historical building, viewing the historical building as a product of the past and initial time, and preserving space separate from time – in the sense of “in time” and “era.” From the second half of the 19th century, and with John Ruskin’s theories, the revival of the concept of “in time” was established, and in addition to the initial time, other times in which different generations interacted with the building and their effects on the building and vice versa also gained importance. In the 20th century and beyond, and in the view of individuals such as Feilden and Jokilehto, among others, adding contemporary value to historical buildings considers both the present and the future, and conservation is defined as being accompanied by development. Of course, in this period as well, the three-dimensional space is a product of conservation before it is placed in the development process. During the development process, it assumes a temporal quality, being intermittently fragmented and occurring “moment by moment” within each development phase. In other words, at any given time, the building’s capabilities are actualized in response to daily needs during the development process, thereby gaining contemporary value. In this view, the continuum of space and time is formed with a different and fragmented temporal dimension, relying on the “moment” of development processes. Therefore, in all approaches, especially from the 20th century onwards, the influence of the characteristics of the modern era is seen in/on the experts’ views; such that in the expert system, based on standardized values, abstractly and by reducing time to zero in space, in a closed cycle resulting from institutional reflexivity, they identify historical buildings anywhere in the world and decide on their continued life based on probabilities arising from fundamental doubt. In other words, given the separation of space and time in all approaches, and in other words, the lack of “continuity” of the space-time continuum of the historical building, experts, influenced by the modern era, have pursued two approaches regarding identity: “stabilizing self and identity in the past” and “changing identity and self over time.”
Identity stabilization occurs in conservation without development. In this approach, represented by Viollet-le-Duc’s theories, the “distinction” dimension of identity is defined based on the historical building’s values, resulting from the interaction between the human creator and their connection to the past. According to this process, the building’s identity structure has no plan for its continuation in the present and future. It is, in a way, a “rejected space” in the present, which will have two fates: either it will be forgotten and ruined after a while, or it will become a commodity that is managed by the commodity fetishism process resulting from the capitalist system of the modern era and used in tourism economics and museology.
In the “conservation with development” approach, the continuation of the historical building in the present and future depends on its ability to meet the needs of contemporary humans. Of course, these needs, under the abstract systems of the modern era’s fleeting world, are identified and addressed by the conservator and are not dependent on time and space. By viewing identity as fluid and structural, its role in present and future planning is negated. Identity’s conservation is thus limited to momentary distinctiveness, rendering the continuation of a “self” meaningless. This historical building has an identity in the past, present, and future. It will retain its identity for as many periods as decisions are made for it, and it will again be transformed into a commodity to meet daily needs.
Therefore, preventing the transformation of a historical building into a commodity without its authentic identity is only possible within a single-centered and unified view of identity. According to this view, identity is a single-centered structure that, in addition to defining its independence and “distinction” from others, plans for its “continuation” over time against external decisions and risks. In other words, through the people who built it and lived in and with it, it has managed the coherence of its identity in the past and plans for its conservation in the present and future. In this view, the subject and object are the same “self/identity of the historical building.” Based on this, the conservator does not plan for the future of the building; instead, by establishing a “direct” and “committed” connection with the historical building, they reduce the influence of abstract systems and the characteristics of the modern era on the interpretation of the historical building’s identity and the reading of its story over time. Based on this, identification and the formation of a false self for the historical building are prevented. By reading the story of the historical building, the policies and principles that ensure the coherence of its identity (distinction and continuity) in the past are extracted. By observing these policies and principles, the manner in which the historical building’s continued existence is planned, and consequently, the conservation and continuity of its identity, is determined. In other words, the identity of the historical building, as a “distinguishing” and “continuing” structure in itself, is interpreted through the direct and committed connection of the conservator, and it expresses its plan for continued existence in the present and future, as well as its approach to addressing needs and risks outside itself. In this approach, the identity of the historical building takes a central role as a policymaker, and the establishment and change of identity are not allowed, resulting in a definition of “development for conservation.”
Keywords
Subjects