Conservation & Compromise

The museum conservators face the problem how to preserve the frescos in the museum. Should they not to strive to preserve every last atom of the original fabric in the state in which it has come down to us, making all works of necessary conservation wholly reversible, recognising that future generations may have access to better techniques. The ideal that their conservation procedure represents is not altogether irrelevant in a building conservation context. In fact, there is total unanimity in the museum conservation world and yet the conservators still need to compromise. If the conserved work is seen finally to be something separate from the building structure, then we must admit that the artist’s intention has been modified and to that extent the whole meticulously careful process had led to loss in term of both historic record and aesthetic intent. The problem arise from the fact that conservation in these terms is a highly artificial procedure which attempts to arrest, if not eliminate, nature process of change and decay. The arguments sound almost unanswerable, but there will still be those who will say that the interference with the original material has nevertheless been too drastic and in some respects is irreversible. The impression of completeness is quite false and the devices used to distinguish modern from original work simply laughable. Other than museum, some buildings do in some respects have the character of museum objects, but the problems they pose are likely to be far more complex and the compromises they lead to at least as open to debate as any that face the museum conservator.

(John Earl, 2003, Building Conservation Philosophy, 3rd Edition, Donhead Publishing)

Criteria Entries of UNESCO & Principle for Conservation

Criteria entries of UNESCO Asia- Pacific Heritage Awards:

Criterion A: The articulation of the structure’s heritage value in order to convey the spirit is place through conservation work.
Criterion B: The appropriate use or adaptation of the structure.
Criterion C: The interpretation of the culture, social, historical and architectural significant of the structure(s) in conservation work.
Criterion D: The understanding of the technical issue of conservation/ restoration in interpreting the structure’s significance.
Criterion E: the use and quality control of appropriate building, artisan and conservation techniques.
Criterion F: the use of appropriate material.
Criterion G: How well any added elements or creative technical solutions respect the character and inherent spatial quality of the structure(s).
Criterion H: The manner in which the process and product contribute to the surrounding environment and the local community’s cultural and historical continuum.
Criterion I: The influence of the project on conservation practice, locally policy, nationally, regionally and internationally.
Criterion J: The on-going social economy viability and relevance of the project, and provision for the future use and maintenance.
Criterion K: The complexity, sensitivity and technical consistency of the project methodology.

First Principles for Conserving Historic Built Heritage

Principle 1: Collective mapping of cultural space, its hierarchies, symbolic language, and associations is a prerequisite for appropriate and successful conservation.
Principle 2: Tangible cultural expression derives their origin, value and continuing significance from intangible cultural practices.
Principle 3: Authenticity, the defining characteristic of heritage, is a culturally-relative attribute to be found in continuity, but not only in the continuity on material only.
Principle 4: The conservation process succeeds when histories are revealed, tradition revived, meaning recovered in a palimpsest of knowledge.
Principle 5: Appropriate use of heritage is arrived through a negotiation process, resulting in a life-enhancing space.

(Asian Conserved, Lessons Learn from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Heritage Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation (2000-2004), Published by UNESCO Bangkok August 2007)

Built Heritage vs Accessibility

Guys out there, if wanna find out what is my research; plz have a look on the proposal summary that I did.

Here you go:

Conservation of heritage buildings is a way to promote our culture to the tourists and to inculcate the appreciation of culture and heritage among Malaysians.

In 2007, Malacca and Pulau Pinang have been nominated to be included in the UNESCO Heritage List. Apparently, this will increase popularity of those destinations not only within the local community but also foreigners. The heritage properties need to cater to wider audience, inevitably disabled and elderly people should be under consideration. In addition, there is a relevancy to include disabled and elderly people in tourism industry since Malaysia had signed the ‘Proclamation on the Full Participant and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asia-Pacific Region’ on 16th May 1994 (Accessibility in Malaysia: Disability Awareness Training for Local Government Technical Personnel).

In the year 2002, government endorsed the Biwako Millennium Framework for Action (BMF). It proclaimed the extension of the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 1993-2002, for another decade, 2003-2012. The BMF is emphasis on the human rights-based approaching to disability issues with defining slogan “inclusive, barrier-free and rights-based society” rather than charity-based. Accessibility to built environment is one of the areas out of 7 priority policy where Biwako Millennium Framework for Action wants to achieve. The policy reflects the consequence of implementing barrier-free in built heritage rigorously in order to accommodate involvement of disabled people in the society. Thus the conflicts of accessibility for disabled and elderly people in heritage buildings need to be ascertained.

In preservation and conservation of heritage buildings, architects, building managers and authority play their crucial role respectively. Building managers will always need to ensure their services provided for disabled and elderly visitors when undertaking their heritage properties. Whilst, architects perform the restoration procedure according to conservation guidelines and standards. Apart from that, they need to work on legislative mechanism and statutory framework given by the authority concern carefully to accomplish barrier free and disabled friendly environment.

According to the literature survey, the approach of conservation in Malaysia is generally similar to the practice in developed countries especially United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the mechanism of legislation in Malaysia lack of flexibility compared to United Kingdom where there are systematic statutory frameworks that have been implemented to achieve accessibility in heritage sites. Hence, the manipulation of conservation guidance and access legislative control need to be addressed.