Before this week’s reading I had devoted very little thought to historic preservation compared to the other subfields of public history. My undergraduate university, while lacking a public history program, offered a historic preservation program through the school of architecture. This encouraged me to think of the subject as a purely technical, architectural endeavor. Nolan, by emphasizing the way in which styles of historic preservation/restoration relate to the academic theories of modernism and post-modernism, and Lindgren, by bringing out the gendered dimension of personalism versus professionalism, have made me realize the academic depth which historic preservation can have.
I have been on a number of historic building, though probably not as many as you who grew up on the East Coast, but the articles raised questions about them that I had never considered. Unless the tour guide emphasized some idiosyncratic element of the building, which was seldom, I assumed that the building’s managers followed Lindgren’s definition of restoration. This, it seemed to me, was what separated historic preservation from archeology. I now realize how easy it would be for the building to tell multiple stories from different, later owners. Viewed in this light, historic buildings are easier to appreciate as dynamic centers of ongoing history, rather than static evocations of one, earlier time period. Many of these complex and interesting elements may be impossible to see unless one, like Nolan does, explores the history of the historic site and traces the various preservationist philosophies which have been employed by different managers.
I am with you. I did not give great consideration to historic preservation until I start the Doctoral program and I began to desire to see accession books and other library memorabilia related to historic times for libraries. That is one of the reason history is my minor. I wanted to further understand historic preservation and public history. With Nolan and Lindgren’s emphasis, I further understand the relation that historic preservation has on academia.
ReplyDeleteI feel the same way, Barrett. I'm certainly going to go into museums with a more critical eye than I have in the past. I had never even considered the difference between preservation and restoration. And I'm not sure where I land on which method is preferred. I think Professor Koslow put it well today when she took back her initial leaning towards preservation and said it depends on the situation. Montpelier couldn't be reconstructed, so preservation takes the lead; thus, more of history is displayed. I wonder about where Montpelier and Monticello fall in relation to postmodernism vs. modernism. Are both displaying truths? So many things to think about!
ReplyDeleteRestoration versus preservation (conservation) is also an issue in art museums and on every archaeological site I've worked at or studied about. While there have been times that the 'restoration' has been wrong or misguided -- Knossos comes to mind and times when the restoration has created huge controversies over techniques and processes as was the case with the shipwreck, the Mary Rose, and Leonardo's painting, The Last Supper. I guess what I'm exploring here is that it seems that each method has its pros and cons. Most cases are not as clear cut as Mount Vernon or Monticello are/were/seemed to be. One of the rules of conservation in archaeology is to do nothing that can't be reversed. The idea being that if better technology comes along 100 years from now you want to be able to get back to the condition the item was in before any work was done to preserve or restore it. Even then mistakes are made, e.g. the Mary Rose burned a few years back due to the chemicals that were being sprayed on her to preserve the timbers. In the end in order to save any building, site, or object those in charge have to decide to the best of their ability what course to take using the best technology and knowledge they have at the time. It then becomes the responsibility of those who come later to remain flexible as new insights and research make changes in interpretation necessary.
ReplyDelete