Our third and fourth day of classes were pretty sweet. We got to spend both with Julian Smith, the director of the program. He is one of the coolest people I've ever met - he's worked on so many amazing projects. I think that what really got me was how many of the places in Ottawa, that were part of my everyday life, Julian has had a hand in restoring. He has also done work all over the world on so many UNESCO world heritage sites. One of the most awe-inspiring of the heritage sites that he spoke of was the work on the Vimy Ridge Monument. The work was so technically precise and problematic, and the scale so huge it amazes me that this project ever ended, but it did and the results are spectacular and you appreciate it even more when you know (even in brief) what has gone into the result.
So Julian Smith is totally neat! It was great to hear his perspective on Willowbank and to hear that he totally supports this vision of it being a place that blurs the lines a bit; a place where the builder can speak to the design and the architect can get his hands dirty; a place where theory and practice are not mutually exclusive.
So the lecture yesterday and then the discussion today, focused on Cultural Landscapes. We had background into the biases common in conservation, the antiquarian bias, the commemorative bias, the economic/tourism bias and the ecological bias.
Briefly:
Antiquarian Bias
This view emerged first, in the 18th and 19th centuries. It viewed artifacts as important in and of themselves. The effort is put into conserving what is left of an artifact - be it a ruin or a piece of pottery - for future generations to admire and study. The beauty is in the remainder, and there is an emphasis on leaving an artifact in the condition in which it was found. Within this bias the archaeologist holds the most power.
Commemorative Bias
Here the buildings and artifacts are secondary to conveying the historical ideals. The buildings or sites are restored to a specific time in order to commemorate an historical figure or era. This is a very powerful bias and Parks Canada actually judges physical heritage sites based upon their commemorative integrity. In this view the Historian holds the power, dictating the way things will be restored to align them with a historical ideal.
Economic/Tourism Bias
Here, there is often an emphasis on redeveloping from scratch - like Colonial Williamsburg or Fortress Louisburg in Cape Breton, or on facading. This is probably the most powerful force in conservation and has spread to whole neighourhoods - i.e. Main Street 'revitalizations'. This bias places all the power in the architects hands because the end product is about the visual show since thats what people are paying for.
The fourth bias is what we spent the most time on and is the one bias, which Julian most supports and which is just emerging as an important perspective. This is the Ecological Bias. This view places an emphasis on the relation between objects; on the rituals which link artifacts not just within historic layers but also in the contemporary one.
This is where we began to discuss Cultural Landscapes, which may include a single dwelling or a whole region. They are hard to define as they exist culturally with the imagination but are embedded in places. So its not just about the historic place it includes the feelings/rituals ingrained in that place through cultural imagination.
This is an ecological view because it focuses on the health of the relationship between the artifacts and the rituals and promotes a balance between the two. One of the most interesting parts of this idea, was that the concept has been embraced and understood very well by the Aboriginal community. This I guess, is not really all that surprising, since, from my limited understanding of the Aboriginal worldview, the surroundings are already a part of the cultural perspective. I also like that this approach does not deny the validity of the contemporary use of a historic place because to do so denies the rituals that the contemporary inhabitants associate with the artifact/place/site.
This is also incredibly relevant because it allows for a new place/space to be dynamic and recognizes that there can really be no final use for any space. It allows for the impermanence of the human legacy. There is a recognition that every persons cultural understanding of a landscape is legitimate and important to that space. In other words, it allows for an authentic experience of a place and doesn't deny anyones access or enjoyment of a landscape.
This bias celebrates the rituals - the culture that surrounds an artifact and makes it relevant to people. It also recognizes that for different groups relevancy will be felt in different ways or not at all. It displaces the power from the Archaeologist, the Historian or the Architect, from the so-called experts and places the power within the culture to define what is important to them and create/celebrate culturally significant nodes where artifact is "inhabited" by the ritual.
I think I'm in love. Maybe I'm a post-modern after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment