Jørgen Westphal
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•469 views
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
More from Association of Danish Museums / Organisationen Danske Museer
More from Association of Danish Museums / Organisationen Danske Museer (20)
Jørgen Westphal
- 1. Giver, Vesthimmerland 2010 Restaurering af multifase-monumenter Jørgen Westphal, Kulturarvsstyrelsen
- 2. Giver 1910 Hans Kjær
- 3. Giver 2010
- 4. Giver 2010
- 8. Keldby kirke – en multifaserestaurering Anakrone elementer
- 11. Viborg domkirke Før 1863
- 12. Viborg domkirke Nebelong, Tholle, Storck, 1863-1876
- 16. Berlin 1945
- 17. Reichstag
- 19. Koldinghus
- 25. Formidling Autencitet Bevaring Modsætninger mellem forskellige mål med istandsættelse
- 26. Formidling Autencitet Bevaring Modsætninger mellem forskellige mål med istandsættelse Museumslovens § 29 e Museumslovens § 29 q
- 31. Anta de São Brissos, Portugal Multifase-monument
Editor's Notes
- Another dilemma is posed by so called multi-phase monuments. How does one prioritize the expressions of the different phases? The Venice Charter rather clearly states that all phases should be respected and thus that noone should be repressed. But in that manner you very easily create a monument that has never been – not before now, that is.
- If we consider some overall aims of a given restoration, there seem, in my mind, to be contradictions between some of them. The optimal preservation or conservation of a monument will often involve so many interventions, that the autenticity is lost and the monument will be hard to access or appreciate by the public. Attempting stricktly to restore a monument with the most autentic expression, will often lead to a poorer conservation and may render it difficult or dangerous to access. And the optimal public accessibility, in turn, may result in poor authenticity and conservation. This does not always have to be the case, but one always have to consider carefully how to balance between the three.
- If we consider some overall aims of a given restoration, there seem, in my mind, to be contradictions between some of them. The optimal preservation or conservation of a monument will often involve so many interventions, that the autenticity is lost and the monument will be hard to access or appreciate by the public. Attempting stricktly to restore a monument with the most autentic expression, will often lead to a poorer conservation and may render it difficult or dangerous to access. And the optimal public accessibility, in turn, may result in poor authenticity and conservation. This does not always have to be the case, but one always have to consider carefully how to balance between the three.
- If we take a look at the 400 more or less ruined passage graves, most of them have a very complex history of decay. The initiation of the decay, however, is usually always human intervention of some kind. As in this case where a megalith is simly used as a quarry. Granite stone is a scarce ressource in Denmark and before general preservation laws in 1937, the owners of megaliths could exploit them without legal intervention.