Architectural heritage: the paradox of its current state of risk

Abstract

The treatment of movable and immovable heritage is markedly different. While movable objects are highly valued and carefully protected, their immovable equivalents are often under a serious cloud of threat. This peril is the result of global mismanagement, failure of governments to provide adequate funds for their maintenance, and lack of recognition by the public that these disappearing resources are assets of major value. Conservators of immovables face special ethical and practical concerns in their efforts to preserve cultural heritage within its context - depicted in this article as case histories from the World Monuments Watch list of endangered sites. The legal and procedural mechanisms that support this task are ineffectual in the face of rapid change. The field needs new methodologies that harness public appreciation of a site's 'sense of place' to guarantee its future.

The ethics of conservation: some dilemmas in cultural built heritage projects in England

“…While the raison d'etre of the building may be gone, often accompanied by the loss of details that contributed towards its distinctive character, the losses and necessary alterations often further diminish the building's original quality, function and significance (Rowney, 2004). Burnham (1998) argued that conservation needs a succinct formal statement of ethics to which institutions can subscribe and by which priorities can be set and performance measured. Implicit within this is the requirement for a common understanding of what constitutes knowledge, a common understanding of what constitutes an advancement of that knowledge, and the means for sharing that knowledge (Clavir, cited in Munoz Vinas, 2005).…”

War and Cultural Property: The 1954 Hague Convention and the Status of U.S. Ratification

“…73 This being the case, the Hague Convention requirements, such as that a special blue and white flag be raised at important sites (see Articles 6, 10, and 16), apparently served to attract bombing rather than deter it. 74 As mentioned, cost is also a major stumbling block when one considers the amount of money and resources involved in compiling a register list, especially when most countries have budgets that barely support the protection of cultural property from looting and development. In point of fact, the United States Department of Defense (DOD) established the Legacy Program in the early 1990s to inventory all cultural sites found on DOD lands.…”

Stolen History: Looting and Illicit Trade

“…10 During the Serbian bombing of Dubrovnik in 1991-2 houses protected under the terms of the Hague Convention seem to have been deliberately targeted. 11 In conflicts such as this, when cultural obliteration is a primary war aim, it is difficult to see how international protective legislation can be effective.…”