(Italiano) Contro il restauro

Désolé, cet article est seulement disponible en Italien et Anglais Américain.

À propos de paolo ivaldi

Architetto, lavora presso il Ministero degli Affari Esteri e della Cooperazione Internazionale. Ha insegnato progettazione e storia dell’Architettura presso Sapienza Università di Roma. Impegnato in una personale ricerca sul rapporto tra arte e scienza in architettura.

Ce contenu a été publié dans temi, avec comme mot(s)-clé(s) , , , . Vous pouvez le mettre en favoris avec ce permalien.

12 réponses à (Italiano) Contro il restauro

  1. francesca pizzo dit :

    due link per analogia:
    http://www.shyarch.it/timidina.htm
    sono felice di sapere che anche tu sei affetto da Timidina C;
    http://www.farpuglia.it/images/Loco%20C%20storicoB.jpg
    sono felice di denunciarti che per le strade di Locorotondo si potrebbe camminare scalzi grazie alla costante e quasi compulsiva manutenzione dei suoi abitanti, ancora oggi attiva.
    un abbraccio.

  2. paolo ivaldi dit :

    Timidina C? Mah, non saprei… anzi, io difendo il diritto a sbagliare, ma forse… perché no, se associamo « timidezza » a « interrogarsi sempre ». Grazie del contributo, mooooooolto apprezzato. Andiamo tutti a Locorotondo!

  3. Biz dit :

    Bel post. Ho letto anche le altre cose, questo blog mi piace sono d’accordo quasi su tutto.

    • paolo ivaldi dit :

      grazie Biz! mi interessa quel QUASI. Su cosa non sei d’accordo?

      • Biz dit :

        In realtà oltre a leggere questo, ho dato una scorsa a tutto, non accuratissima (e quindi per ora il « quasi » è relativo alle parti non vagliate).
        Qui ho qualche dubbio riguardo all’errore. Nel senso che alcuni errori durante l’uso di certi edifici sono di tale gravità da non essere ammissibili, oppure da richiedere davvero un rimedio (non necessariamente ricostruttivo, certamente … ma magari verrebbe in epoca successiva considerato, a sua volta, un errore 🙂

  4. Martin Cosentino dit :

    Signore Ivaldi,

    There is a very ‘pragmatico’ atmosphere to your article AGAINST RESTORATION. Yet the sword has two sharp edges and does cut both ways. ‘Roman’-ticism is personified by the Roman and Greek ruins in the Western World, and this will not go away anytime soon. Even the earthen ‘skyscrapers’ of Sana’a hold an excitement all their own from ages past.

    What we maintain, we keep. The rest goes to rack and ‘ruin’ and whatever else we can do with a 2,000 year old structure. I can see the human need to gaze wistfully on these ancient stones, no matter the state of their neglect or preservation. We need to connect emotionally with what preceded us- the actual people who built these piles of stones. And if there is a ‘past’ that we care to preserve, that is the metal test that determines what will be saved and what will be allowed to become ‘ruins.’ In a sense we are getting our cake, and eating it too, with the both of these. That may be the final tribute we pay to our ‘antepassati’ to their culture, all fame and failure together.

    Maybe that is the ‘eternal present’ that we long for, since the passage of time does bring emptiness and death.

    • paolo ivaldi dit :

      Thank you Martin for commenting. I like the image of the both-edges-sharp sword. Reflecting on what you say, it might be put down this way: the inherited built environment serve two functions: be used (as it is, transformed, whatever), and as a physical link to our past, a solid witness of our collective unconscious, if Jung give me permission.
      The second function is quite recent, but: it implies that the object is preserved as it is, possibly forever; and that the use of it, if any, be subject to its preservation, and not vice-versa. The two things, applied to the whole built environment, prevent us from using it with ease, and encourage more and more building and land consumption.

      • Slawek Porowski dit :

        Paolo and Martin,
        Gentlemen, your insights thoughtful and so well presented, yet both your posts come from sons of a civilization which had not experienced severe loss of the historical links the way some others had. I was born in Warsaw, Poland, long enough ago to remember the city still in post-war ruins, the left bank of Warsaw destroyed more completely than even Dresden, another city reborn and restored. Yet today thousands walk the streets of Warsaw’s Old Town and behold history which has been restored fabulously and faithfully, links to the past alive with links to the future.
        Today I write to you from Seattle, born but yesterday by the European standards, yet still blessed with some once quite lovely building, many in disrepair. I am involved in restoring one of them and find myself troubled by the notion that one could consider its passage into disrepair a normal aging, and that restoration, as opposed to maintenance, somehow corrupts history. I like Paolo’s comments on function, yet what options do we have, as citizens and architects, when building are taken from us, be it by earthquakes and fires, or by acts of terror?
        There is more to this discussion, I am sure, and I am looking forward to it. Thank you both

        • paolo ivaldi dit :

          It is indeed an issue still open: if a building or an entire town is lost, should we re-build it « as it was, were it was » or make something totally new? It seems that the first solution is always preferred by the community who suffered the event (war, earthquake…), while the second leave much more possibilities to the artist’s Ego or the developer’s wallet. In an article I wrote years ago, commenting the post-earthquake (L’Aquila, 2009) policy, I tried to suggest a third way, taking care of what remains and re-designing what is missing, without pretending to « obliterate » the distruction and what caused it. I will post it again soon.

  5. Mark Unger dit :

    I have always been suspicious of the restoration of old buildings. Maintenance… no problem. It overlaps with the construction and perpetuates the story but leaping back over 50 to thousands of years to Botox a relic? If we insist on personifying buildings my guess is the more noble ruins would ask to be left alone to age with grace. « Learn my lessons and improve on the tracts of inhuman rubbish you build now. Have you stopped making stories? Don’t treat me like porn. Love the one you’re with. »

  6. Tom Smith dit :

    The decision to restore, maintain, or to « let go » I feel should be above all done on a case by case basis. Example: Bodie State Historical Park. Bodie was an old mining boom town of the 1860’s, rather than « restore » it ( like Virginia City, NV or Tombstone AZ.) It has been left in a state of « Arrested Decay » and so is an appropriate use of the site to illustrate a true « Ghost Town » of which so few remain.

    • paolo ivaldi dit :

      I definitively agree. But: are we saying that ours is a case-by-case discipline? That no general assumption can be made regarding the opportunity to do or do-not? If this is the case (and I think it is), then can we still call it science, or must we recognise that we are totally in the realm of art, or however we call it, subjective judgement? And, if it is the case, can we still provide somebody professional skills (officially defined) to call him/herself « architect » (entitled to decide whether do or do-not), or should we judge the architect’s qualification only on his/her « review pedigree », assuming all the consequences? Tough questions…

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse de messagerie ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *