An Introduction to Authenticity in Preservation

Author(s): Pamela Jerome

Source: APT Bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 2/3 (2008), pp. 3-7
Published by: Association for Preservation Technology International (APT)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25433945
Accessed: 13/06/2010 07:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aptech.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Association for Preservation Technology International (APT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to APT Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org
An Introduction to Authenticity in
Preservation
PAMELA JEROME, GUEST EDITOR

The meaning of authenticity The very first paragraph of the pream materials or restoration that is based on

continues to be debated decades ble to the Venice Charter (1964), in conjecture) is not permissible and that
after the drafting of the Venice
reference to historic monuments, says, only anastylosis (the reassembly of the
"It is our duty to hand them on in the dismembered original parts) can be
Charter and the World Heritage full richness of their authenticity."1 So permitted (Fig. I).4 Furthermore, the
Convention. what is authenticity? And why do we Venice Charter notes that new interven
care? tions should occur only when absolutely
In 1972 UNESCO adopted theWorld necessary and that the new materials

Convention, and five years used in preserving a historic structure

Heritage
later theWorld Heritage Committee should be distinguishable from the
defined criteria for inscription of proper original construction (Fig. 2).5What is
ties on theWorld Heritage List.2 The additionally implied is that the acquired
World Heritage Convention's Opera layers of history forming a palimpsest
tional Guidelines originally stated that have value and are the object to be
in order to be designated, cultural prop considered: the corollary belief is that
erties must "meet thetest of authenticity there may be a certain loss of authentic
in design, materials, workmanship, and itywhen the lacunae of missing parts are
setting."3 More recently the attributes of filled in to produce a coherent unified
authenticity have been expanded to interpretation of a structure.6 But what
include use, function, traditions, lan about Warsaw, then, reconstructed after

guage, spirit, and feeling. itsWorld War II destruction and in

The Venice Charter states that for scribed on theWorld Heritage List in
culturally significant
monuments recon 1980? It has been described as possess
struction (rebuilding using mostly new ing "authenticity in relation to its tern

-
y.aatfir

wm.

Fig. 1. The ongoing restoration of the Parthenon follows the Venice Charter Fig. 2. Dutchmen inserted at the Propylaia, one of the monuments of the
and is a prime example of anastylosis. All photographs by the author Athenian Acropolis, follow the exact geometry of the voids but are carved
unless otherwise noted. to the original exterior profile of the stonework, rather than the existing
weathered profile. By this means the new material, although from the
same marble quarry, is easily distinguishable from the original.

3
 4 APT BULLETIN: JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY / 39:2-3, 2008

tive cultural domains. Among the fifty

regional and national meetings on that
topic held since 1994, the Inter-Ameri
can convened in San Antonio,
meeting
Texas, resulted in the Declaration of San
Antonio (1996), acknowledging the
multi-cultural identity of the Americas
and acceding that "authenticity is a
concept much larger than material

integrity."16
The recognition of cultural land
scapes under theWorld Heritage Con
vention has also raised new on
questions
authenticity. As in historic cities, the
ongoing dynamic processes involved in
places of living heritage challenge some
of the traditional definitions and criteria
for authenticity.
The properties on theWorld Heritage
List are unevenly distributed interna
Fig. 3. The Fantoft Stave Church is a 1995 Fig. 4. An extraordinary level of detail was tionally, with the overwhelming major
reconstruction erected after the original church replicated in the reconstruction of the Fantoft ity of sites located in Europe or con
was burned to the ground by Satanists. The Stave Church, as seen in this pew end. How
structed following European traditions.
original church, dating to 1150, was relocated ever, the overwhelming smell of new wood in
At the request of theWorld Heritage
from Fortun, Norway, to Bergen in 1882, bring the interior belies the reconstruction.
ing into question authenticity of setting. Committee, ICOMOS researched this
imbalance and subsequently published a

ence took place inNara, report entitled "TheWorld Heritage

poral context."7 And does the Fantoft Japan. The - An Action Plan
Stave Church
?
constructed around Nara Document on Authentic
List, Filling the Gaps
resulting
for the Future."17 What is clear from this
1150 in Fortun, Norway, relocated to ity (1994) addressed various views of
investigation is that many of the gaps
Bergen in 1882, and reconstructed in authenticity within different cultures.11
are in the geographical locations where
1995 after itwas burnt to the ground Japan was keen on revisiting the defini
? construction materials are
three earlier Satanists not tion of authenticity because of its timber ephemeral
years by
and less permanent.
evoke authenticity of memory (Figs. 3 buildings. In Japan maintaining signifi In practice, has a
and 4)? Think also of the bridge at cant wooden authenticity signifi
temples involves periodi cant effect on our choices of conserva
Mostar in Bosnia.8 Do these reconstruc cally dismantling them to replace deteri tion interventions. The following two
tions not represent the ultimate act of orated fabric and then rebuilding using
case studies are from the office of
bravery, the revival of the spirit of place? the original construction technology. WAS A/Studio A (also known asWank
One difficulty with the Venice Char This practice dates back centuries. Is this
Adams Slavin Associates LLP), wherein I
ter and,
by extension, the early versions not then authenticity of tradition?
am the partner in charge of the Preserva
of the Operational Guidelines for the Should that continuity not be recognized
tion Group.
World Heritage Convention has been as truly remarkable and of outstanding
In 2003 WASA completed the
the identification of cultural heritage as universal value (OUV)?12 Is authenticity
restoration of the Hunterfly Road
monumental architecture, aWestern not also a cultural construct?
Houses ofWeeksville. This group of
construct. But in the post-modern era of At Nara the concept of "progressive
four
preservation, the anthropological view authenticities" ? recognizing the legiti
vernacular, wood-frame, clapboard
cottages represents the only standing
of cultural heritage has gradually super macy of layered authenticity, evoking remnant of one of the first free African
seded that of the monumental.9 This successive adaptations of historic places
? American communities in Brooklyn,
shift substantially broadened the defini over time was reaffirmed.13 Authen
? New York. After much research
tion of cultural heritage to incorporate a
ticity of tradition a type of intangible
wide ? (archival, archaeological, physical docu
range of tangible and intangible heritage
was
recognized as
having
mentation, materials analyses, and oral
expressions of authenticity. value. The need for flexibility when de
histories), the buildings have been re
Recognizing the challenge of defining fining authenticity
was recommended.14
stored and are being interpreted as
authenticity, the Government of Japan As David Lowenthal writes in one of the
house museums of African-American
and ICOMOS, working with theWorld Nara conference papers, "Authenticity is
a con in practice never rela
history (Fig. 5).
Heritage Committee, sponsored absolute, always
Initially discovered in the mid-1960s
ference.10 A preparatory workshop
was tive."15 Subsequently ICOMOS encour
a
by history professor from Pratt Uni
held inNorway early in 1994, and then aged regional meetings to explore the
versity, one of the four houses was lost
later the same year, the confer context of in their respec
during authenticity to arson before the buildings could be
 AN INTRODUCTION TO AUTHENTICITY IN PRESERVATION 5

Fig. 5. The Hunterfly Road Houses of Weeksville represent the only surviving remnant of one of the first free African-American communities in Brooklyn,
N.Y. They have been restored as a timeline (from left to right: 1960s, 1870s, 1900s, and 1930s) and interpreted as house museums of African-American
history. The building at the far left is the reconstruction. The 1930s garage at 1698 Bergen Street is the masonry structure to the far right of the photograph.
Photograph courtesy of Stephen Barker.

restored. It was reconstructed in the garage had purchased this house (as archival correspondence, this color

early 1980s as part of the restoration of opposed to leasing it). The interior of appears to have remained on the build
the houses at that time. The reconstruc the house still maintained the integrity ing for about five years; the first repaint
tion, however, replicated only the exte of the remodeling the family had under ingwas a darker buff color, perhaps
rior; the interior was left as an open taken in the 1930s as well, and there matching the soiled appearance of the
space to be used as a classroom, with were numerous
photo albums from the original color. An addition, designed by
the location of original partitions out family's private collection that were Wright's son-in-law Wesley Peters, was
lined on the floor. In this instance, the made available for the restoration (Fig. erected in 1968, at which time it seems
reconstruction is totally honest on the 6). The New York City Landmarks likely the building was repainted. In
interior because it does not attempt to Preservation Commission agreed with 1975 another alteration, designed by
deceive through conjectural interior the project's approach. Consequently the Donald Freed, enclosed the original
rebuilding. buildings were restored as a timeline driveway between East Eighty-ninth
The work of the early 1980s had representing the 1870s, 1900s, 1930s, Street and Fifth Avenue, creating the gift
restored the buildings to 1883, the first and 1960s (the latter referring to the shop, during which time the Guggen
time the structures are shown on insur rediscovery of the site, civil rights move heim was probably repainted again.
ance maps.18 In doing so, additions ment, and reconstruction). In doing so it By the time it became a New York
?
appearing in a 1904 photograph was necessary to
replicate many of the City-designated landmark in 1990, the
including a porch, shed, enclosed elements that had been removed in the building had undergone at least four
vestibule, dog house, and summer house previous restoration (Fig. 7). Thus, this repainting campaigns. Paint analysis
?
were removed because they did not
project demonstrates changing attitudes showed that a series of warm-colored
conform to the period of restoration. towards authenticity within a
20-year paints had been applied over the original
This approach was fairly typical of U.S. period. buff. These colors gradually changed
preservation theory at that time. The other case study involves the over time: the first repainting was the
Approximately 20 years later, the restoration of the Solomon R. Guggen darkest color, then the lightest, then the
buildings needed restoration again. By heim Museum, located on Fifth Avenue pinkest, and finally the most yellow.
this time notions of authenticity had inManhattan. Completed in 1959 this In 1992 most of theWesley Peters
changed, affecting concepts of period iconic, Frank Lloyd Wright-designed addition was demolished, and an addi
restorations. After analyzing the goals of building is recognized internationally as tion designed by Gwathmey Siegel and
interpretation with the stewards and an exceptional example of theModern Associates erected in its place (Fig. 9).
stakeholders, WASA/Studio A designed Movement (Fig. 8). The current work This alteration is arguably the most
the restoration as a timeline:
significant included the removal of up to 11 layers significant in terms of impact on the
elements deserved to be highlighted of paint in order to expose, assess, and aesthetics of the original building (it
from different periods, which could tell repair the original gunite, concrete, and was, however, described by noted New
important stories and enrich the histori cement stucco substrates. York Times architectural critic Paul
cal narrative. For instance a 1930s Paint analysis
was
performed
on
Goldberger as a respectful backdrop
garage was still part of one of the build more than 100 samples. The analysis that improved the Guggenheim as a
ings, 1698 Bergen Street (Fig. 5). An revealed that the original paint color museum as well as a
piece of architec
African-American family that was afflu corresponded to Benjamin Moore HC ture).20With the completion of the addi
ent enough to own a car and build a 35, a buff yellow or light brown.19 From tion, which is clad with limestone, the
6 APT BULLETIN: JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY / 39:2-3, 2008

conservation? Why do we spend so

much time worrying about this concept?
?^f^h:
How does it help us? or hinder us?
in conservation work?
Definition of authenticity. What do
we mean by authenticity} How can we
define it inways useful for application in
conservation decision-making? How do
we distinguish it from other similar
concepts such as integrity}
Application of authenticity. How do
we use authenticity in practical ways?
How does use vary in different contexts?
With cultural landscapes? With historic
cities? With historic buildings? With
archaeological sites?What have the
interpretations of authenticity used in
theWorld Heritage contexts added to
use of the What have the vari
concept?
ous regional meetings added to this?
integrity of a 1930s remodeling, How do we measure and evaluate au
Fig. 6. The interiors of 1698 Bergen Street retained the decorative
when itwas owned and occupied by an African-American family, and have been restored to that thenticity?
period. Photograph courtesy of Stephen Barker.
It is our aim to address these ques
tions and foster further discussion on
building was painted with a color corre New York City Landmarks Preservation authenticity in preservation. We hope
are
sponding to Benjamin Moore 1541, a Commissioners have recently voted for a these papers useful in progressing

coolish grayish white.21 The original buff color that is not Wright's buff. Charles dialogue about this crucial concept.
yellow color had faded from collective Gwathmey, who had designed the 1992
PAMELA JEROME, AIA, is partner in charge
memory and off-white became the pub addition, had thought (incorrectly) that of the preservation group with WASA/Studio A,
lic perception of the building. In 2003 it the color chosen for the addition was a New York City-based architecture and engin
was repainted with a similarly low close to the original color of theWright eering firm. She is an Adjunct Associate Profes
sor at Columbia Graduate School
chroma color, a little lighter than 1541. building. However, is it not possible that University's
She
of Architecture, Planning and Preservation.
The debate about what color the ifGwathmey had known the original
is a board member of US/ICOMOS and is that
Guggenheim should be repainted as part color was a yellowish buff, the exterior organization's liaison to the APT board.
of the ongoing restoration split the finishes selected for his addition may
preservation community into two dis have been very different? Our position,
tinct camps. On the one hand, there are then, is that we can accomplish a period
the preservation purists who believe that restoration only to 1992; since we are
now is the opportunity to reinstate the not removing the alterations and addi

original color chosen by Frank Lloyd tions to the building over time, it seems
Wright. (Recent articles have mistakenly inconsistent to go back to the 1958
stated thatWright, who died in 1959, color. However, both this approach and
did not see the exterior of the building the purist viewpoint are equally valid
completed.22 While it is true that he did interpretations of authenticity.
not live to see the museum opened to the So what is authenticity? Is it authen
public, the exterior was
actually painted ticity of materials and/or craftsmanship?
in the fall of 1958. There is archival Design? Setting or landscape? Spirit and
information and a historic photograph sense of place? Use or
adaptive reuse?
in the museum's archives ofWright Integrity? Memory? Public perception?
standing next to the building with a The APT Bulletin dedicates this special
backdrop of workers on a hanging issue to this topic. A working group
scaffold in the process of painting the consisting of Christina Cameron, Nora
Guggenheim.) Mitchell, Herb Stovel, and myself was
On the other hand, the position of formed to debate the topic, and a group
the museum, supported byWASA/Stu of selected authors was asked to submit Fig. 7. Later additions to 1698 Bergen Street,
such as this porch, which had been removed
dio A, is that of progressive authenticity. papers responding to the following in order to conform
during the 1980s restoration
The Guggenheim is a living entity that concepts: to an 1883 period restoration, were in
replicated
has evolved over time, and the building Importance of authenticity. Why is the recent restoration. Photograph courtesy of
is the manifestation of that history. The authenticity important for heritage Stephen Barker.
 AN INTRODUCTION TO AUTHENTICITY IN PRESERVATION 7

Fig. 8. The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, designed by Frank Lloyd Fig. 9. The Guggenheim Museum with the 1992 Gwathmey Siegel addition
Wright and seen here with the Wesley Peters addition post-1968, is an behind it. The addition is arguably the most significant alteration to the
internationally recognized icon of the Modern Movement. Photograph ? aesthetics of the original building. Photograph by Angel Avon.
The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation. All rights reserved.

Acknowledgements of Historic Monuments, which met in Venice in See http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/.

1964 (the first congress drafted the Athens See also Henry Cleere, "Concept of 'outstand
My sincere thanks go to Christina Cameron, Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monu ing universal value' in the World Heritage Con
Nora Mitchell, and Herb Stovel for their insight ments of 1931). It was adopted by ICOMOS in Conservation and Management
vention," of
ful debate and valuable contributions to this 1965. The purpose of both the Athens Charter Sites 1, no. 4 (1996): 227-233.
Archaeological
paper. Without their participation this special and the Venice Charter was to adopt acceptable
13. Von Droste and Bertilsson, 4.
issue of APT Bulletin would not have been international standards for the treatment of
realized. I also thank Norman Weiss for his cultural 14. Nobuo Ito, "'Authenticity' Inherent in
properties.
comments on the paint color of the Guggenheim Cultural Heritage in Asia and Japan," inNara
5. The Venice Charter, Articles 9, 12, and 15.
Museum. Conference on Authenticity, 44.
6. Paul Philippot, "Historic Preservation:
15. David Lowenthal, "Changing Criteria of
Philosophy, Criteria, Guidelines," in Preserva
inNara on Authen
Notes tion and Conservation: Principles and Prac Authenticity," Conference
ticity, 123.
1. The Venice Charter: International Charter tices, Proceedings of the North American
International Williams 16. Proceedings of the Interamerican Sympo
for the Conservation and Restoration of Monu Regional Conference,
sium on Authenticity in the Conservation and
ments and Sites (1964), preamble. burg, Va., 1972 (Washington, D.C.: National
Trust for Historic Preservation, 1976), 378. Management of the Cultural Heritage of the
2. The full name of the international treaty is Americas. San Antonio, 1996
Texas, March
the Convention the Protection of 7. Jukka Jukilehto, "Session 1. Session Re
concerning (Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.: Getty
the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and port," inNara Conference on Authenticity,
Conservation Institute and US/ICOMOS,
itwas adopted by UNESCO in 1972. Interna Japan 1994, Proceedings, ed. Knut Einar
1999), ix-xix. See also http://www.icomos.org/
tional concern for global heritage was vocalized Larsen, (Paris: UNESCO World Heritage
docs/san_antonio.html.
over the ancient Egyptian Abu Simbel temples, Centre; Tokyo: Agency for Cultural Affairs;
Rome: Paris: ICOMOS, 1994), 70. 17. ICOMOS, The World Heritage List, Filling
which were to be flooded as a result of the ICCROM,
- An
the Gaps Action Plan for the Future
construction of the Aswan High Dam. In 1959 8. Refer to Christina Cameron's in this
paper
at the request of both Egypt and Sudan, UN (Paris: ICOMOS, 2005).
issue, "From Warsaw to Mostar: The World
ESCO became involved in a campaign to Committee and Authenticity." 18. WAS A, "The Hunterfly Road Houses of
Heritage
safeguard the temples. Around 50 countries Weeksville. Restoration
9. B. von Droste and U. Bertilsson, Report," unpublished
"Authentic
donated funds for their preservation. After report, August 11, 2000, Alternate 1 - circa.
ity and World Heritage," inNara Conference
several other successful international safeguard 1900, p. 2.
on Authenticity, 6.
ing campaigns, a conference convened by the 19. Integrated Conservation Resources, "His
White House in 1965 proposed aWorld Her 10. ICOMOS, the International Council on
toric Paint Analysis for Exterior Colors. The
itage Trust to protect natural and cultural sites Monuments and Sites, is one of three statutory
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum Exterior
of global importance. By 1968 IUCN (Interna advisory bodies to the World Heritage Conven
Restoration and Building Enhancement,"
tional Union for Conservation of Nature) also tion.
a similar concept. UNESCO with unpublished report, June 11, 2007, p. 4.
proposed 11. "Nara Document on Authenticity," inNara
ICOMOS (International Council on Monu 20. Paul Goldberger, "The Liberation of the
Conference on Authenticity, xxi-xxiii. See
ments and Sites) and IUCN drafted the conven Guggenheim," New York Times, June 21,
tion for the safeguarding of cultural and natu www.international.icomos.org/charters/nara_e 1992.
.htm.
ral sites that are internationally recognized by 21. Integrated Conservation Resources, 4.
inscription on theWorld Heritage List. See 12. Outstanding universal value is the term the
69/. World Heritage Convention uses in its defini 22. F. G. Matero and R. FitzGerald, "The
http://whc.unesc0.0rg/en/l
tions under Articles 1 and 2 to describe the Fallacies of Intent: 'Finishing' Frank Lloyd
3. Operational Guidelines for the World Her
of monuments, groups of Wright's Guggenheim Museum," APT Bulletin
Article 24b.i. global significance
itage Convention (1977),
buildings, sites, natural features, geological and 38, no. 1 (2007): 3-14. Karla Schuster, "A
4. The Venice Charter, Article 15. The Venice and natural sites Decorating Dilemma at Guggenheim," News
physiographical formations,
Charter was drafted by the Second Interna that are inscribed on the World Heritage List. day, October 14, 2007.
tional Congress of Architects and Technicians