Date

1977

Author

Erder, Cevat

Metadata

Show full item record

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Item Usage Stats

188
views

51
downloads

Cite This

Efforts to protect historic monuments can be traced to the earliest construction of monumental structures. It is only over the past century, however, that there has been a conscious, , concerted movement to conserve architectural heritage and to train specialists to carry out this task. At an international level there has been persistent, repeated and widespread recognition that the training of these specialists is one of the central issues in the success or failure of conservation prngranrnr^. Yet ironically enough, no organization has seriously taken the question up and thus t±rrs of terr expressed coTite~fh has remained little more than lip service. At indication of the peripheral attention actually given to training may be found by noting the position of the topic in the agendas of the major international meetings concerned with architectural heritage held during the twentieth century. In 1904 the Sixth International Congress of Architects1, in 1931 the Athens Conference2 and in 1975 the Council of Europe's Amsterdam Congress all placed this topic as the last paper on their agenda3. No matter what the motives for this may have been, the education of professionals is one of the most central, complex and challenging problems we face because intrinsically it forces one to answer the question : what is restoration all about? In this study we shall tackle the subject from three angles. First, approaches to training as they have evolved over time will be examined, linking them specifically to changes in the demands placed on the restorer. Then we shall present an overview of current training programmes and finally -make some general proposals for the common bases that need stimulus and encouragement. Taking the subject in such a broad perspective necessarily means that the exploration of important national differences is secondary to distinguishing common trends and needs.Our emphasis on the restorer as an actor in response to his socio-cultural environment should put to rest any doubts about the importance of these differences. Nevertheless, the function of this exercise should be to provide a means of communication where all in the field may find common elements on which to build.

URI

http://jfa.arch.metu.edu.tr/archive/0258-5316/1977/cilt03/sayi_1/63-83.pdf
https://hdl.handle.net/11511/51322

Collections

Department of Architecture, Article