尊崇与约束:英美的保护理念是否限制了传统建筑技艺的延续?

S. Hartley
{"title":"尊崇与约束:英美的保护理念是否限制了传统建筑技艺的延续?","authors":"S. Hartley","doi":"10.1353/per.2019.a799468","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The concept of minimal intervention in historic structures has served as a cornerstone of conservation theory for more than one hundred years. But how has this concept affected the persistence of traditional craft skills, and what role do craftspeople serve on modern conservation sites? This paper observes the philosophical underpinning of conservation theory in the United Kingdom and the United States and its impact on heritage craft skills transfer. By studying historical and modern observations of “minimal intervention” concepts, along with the development of international standards, which incorporate wider concepts of “heritage” and “authenticity,” this paper argues that cultures that adhere to the nineteenth-century concepts of materiality should expand their concepts of heritage to include the intangible aspects of craft practice. Additionally, it argues that the hierarchical frameworks that currently exist on-site between practitioners and professionals should be reexamined to identify the enhanced role that craft workers can serve within the decision and execution processes of historic structure conservation.","PeriodicalId":211364,"journal":{"name":"Preservation Education & Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Veneration and Constraint: Do Conservation Philosophies in the United Kingdom and the United States Limit the Continuation of Traditional Building Skills?\",\"authors\":\"S. Hartley\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/per.2019.a799468\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:The concept of minimal intervention in historic structures has served as a cornerstone of conservation theory for more than one hundred years. But how has this concept affected the persistence of traditional craft skills, and what role do craftspeople serve on modern conservation sites? This paper observes the philosophical underpinning of conservation theory in the United Kingdom and the United States and its impact on heritage craft skills transfer. By studying historical and modern observations of “minimal intervention” concepts, along with the development of international standards, which incorporate wider concepts of “heritage” and “authenticity,” this paper argues that cultures that adhere to the nineteenth-century concepts of materiality should expand their concepts of heritage to include the intangible aspects of craft practice. Additionally, it argues that the hierarchical frameworks that currently exist on-site between practitioners and professionals should be reexamined to identify the enhanced role that craft workers can serve within the decision and execution processes of historic structure conservation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":211364,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Preservation Education & Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Preservation Education & Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/per.2019.a799468\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Preservation Education & Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/per.2019.a799468","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:一百多年来,历史建筑最小干预的概念一直是保护理论的基石。但是,这种观念是如何影响传统工艺技能的延续的,手工艺人在现代保护遗址中扮演着什么角色?本文考察了英美保护理论的哲学基础及其对遗产工艺技能转移的影响。通过研究历史和现代对“最小干预”概念的观察,以及国际标准的发展,这些标准包含了更广泛的“遗产”和“真实性”概念,本文认为,坚持19世纪物质性概念的文化应该扩展他们的遗产概念,包括工艺实践的非物质方面。此外,本文认为,应该重新审视目前存在于现场的从业者和专业人员之间的等级框架,以确定工艺工人在历史建筑保护的决策和执行过程中可以发挥的更大作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Veneration and Constraint: Do Conservation Philosophies in the United Kingdom and the United States Limit the Continuation of Traditional Building Skills?
Abstract:The concept of minimal intervention in historic structures has served as a cornerstone of conservation theory for more than one hundred years. But how has this concept affected the persistence of traditional craft skills, and what role do craftspeople serve on modern conservation sites? This paper observes the philosophical underpinning of conservation theory in the United Kingdom and the United States and its impact on heritage craft skills transfer. By studying historical and modern observations of “minimal intervention” concepts, along with the development of international standards, which incorporate wider concepts of “heritage” and “authenticity,” this paper argues that cultures that adhere to the nineteenth-century concepts of materiality should expand their concepts of heritage to include the intangible aspects of craft practice. Additionally, it argues that the hierarchical frameworks that currently exist on-site between practitioners and professionals should be reexamined to identify the enhanced role that craft workers can serve within the decision and execution processes of historic structure conservation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信