Authenticity in the Conservation of Historic Houses and Palace

Authenticity in the Conservation of Historic Houses
and Palace-Museums
A resume of the conference organized by ICOM DEMHIST and ARRE
at the Compiègne Palace, 7-11 October 2014
This multidisciplinary international conference aimed to contribute to the debate on
authenticity in the conservation of historic house museums and palaces, to discuss
how the concept of authenticity has changed over time and to participate in the
dissemination of best practice. The conference was based on a partnership with
ARRE; they brought in resources and staff in order to prepare and organize
everything smoothly. On the content side, palaces and castles were therefore very
present in the different papers presented.
Palace of Compiègne
SESSION 1: Reconstruction, restitution or restoration: It’s all in the
archives
In his opening speech, Emmanuel Starcky, director of the Compiègne Palace,
explained how the idea of restitution of a former historical state as a very pure kind
of authenticity has been largely applied in his museum during the second half of the
20th century. However, this attitude also raised questions and it seems now that a
multilayered approach would be more appropriate. This should be based on three
essential elements: we must consider how posterity will judge our interventions,
address today’s audience and clearly affirm that respect for our heritage is not
incompatible with the public’s interest.
Alexey Guzanov then talked about the restoration of Pavlovsk Palace, severely
damaged during the Second World War. After deciding that it should be restored, it
became a reference for cultural heritage preservation in Russia. Former director
Zelenova and chief curator Kuchumov developed a restoration concept that was
based on a meticulous study of archives, literature, iconography, memoirs and
other materials. In a way this work shaped the principles of restoration in Russia.
The complete reconstruction of the Royal Castle in Warsaw in the 1970s was a
highly symbolic matter. As Przemyslaw Mrozowski explained, the castle was razed
to the ground in 1944. This symbol of Polish identity was reconstructed thanks to
private donations, using about 35.000 original elements that were salvaged during
the war. Some of the rooms therefore could be reconstructed up to 80%. For other
rooms, authentic elements have been used as models that were copied. Young
visitors and tourists from abroad apparently don’t seem to realize that they are
actually visiting a reconstruction. This raises the question on how you communicate
the building’s history and the ‘truth’ to your public.
Katerina Cichrova informed us about the very specific situation in post-war
Czechoslovakia, when castles and historic houses became property of the state. For
more than half a century, rather radical methods of reshuffling collections in huge
classification exercises compromised their conservation and presentation in an
objective or authentic manner. It was only from 1989 onwards that the systematic
rehabilitation of the castles and houses began, using multidisciplinary teams and
respecting the original context and the social aspect of things. A good example of
this recent philosophy is Hluboka Castle, former gothic revival residence of the
Schwarzenberg family and nowadays one of the most popular castles in the Czech
Republic.
Renaud Serrette and Sébastien Boudry presented the story of the Château in
Champs-sur-Marne. This was built in 1703 and given to the French state in 1935. It
was used by Charles de Gaulle to receive foreign heads of state, and the interiors
underwent different waves of refurbishment. When the castle was closed in 2006
for complete restoration, extensive research enabled curators to choose the most
appropriate layout. It was decided then to go back to the way the castle looked like
in the days of the Cahen d’Anvers family, who owned the castle form 1898 till
1935.
This morning session ended with a talk by Roberta Grignolo on authenticity in
modern museum houses, a rather challenging topic. Her paper focused on a
number of conservation approaches in the musealisation of 20th century houses,
illustrated by a series of case studies (modernist houses from the 20s and 30s).
The legibility of interventions is an important matter here, as different publics
require different kinds of information and dissemination, according to their
background and knowledge. It is important that different layers of interpretation of
the houses remain visible and understandable, for example by keeping one of the
rooms of the house in its original state, not changing anything and leaving the
original color scheme untouched.
SESSION 2: Spirit of Place
Silvia Cecchini and Lanfranco Secco Suardo opened the afternoon session with a
talk on historic house museums in Italy. They pointed out that historic house
museums recently developed into places experimenting with new approaches of
management, enhancement and communication. Curators, therefore, are
confronted with the possible paradox between the conservation of their collections
and the preservation of the spirit of the place.
Jurn Buisman then presented a paper on the Geelvinck Hinlopen Huis, a canal-side
mansion in Amsterdam. After a full renovation that was still very much influenced
by the ‘white cube’ idea, emphasizing on the objects shown, this house recently
moved to a focus on the history of its former inhabitants and on the authenticity of
the stories related to the place itself. This attitude created a shift from a very
‘visual’ approach to a mixture of sensorial triggers, including music, tasting, …
In her lively speech, Sarah Staniforth developed the idea of the genius loci as a
starting point for the historic house museum’s policy: this combination of unique,
distinctive and cherished aspects of the place -the ‘brand’ of the house- can guide
us in addressing a large public. It should therefore be omnipresent, even in our
museum shops (the Compiègne shop being an excellent example, selling for
instance Empress Eugénie biscuits and Marie-Antoinette tea…). Our understanding
of the spirit of place -so easily destroyed by the banality of signings!-guides all
activities, from conservation to preservation and interpretation, from marketing to
commercial activities. It is considered to be the ‘golden thread’ that runs through
good property management ensuring that all actions are respectful of and
appropriate for the character of a place.
Ian Fraser presented the next paper on Temple Newsam House, one of the great
historic houses of the UK. Most of its historic interiors were destroyed in the first
part of the 20th century, but in the early 1980s a programme was created in order
to restore them to pre-1922 decorative schemes. As surviving evidence is
incomplete, the house could not be restored back to one specific date and there are
some anomalies (for example room schemes that never existed at the same time).
However a rich visitor experience could be created through meticulous research,
conservation of evidence, restoration and narrative elements.
Compiègne Palace – Ballroom
SESSION 3: Reconciling authenticity and museography
Astrid Arnold-Wegener focused on the particular case of the Löwenburg in Kassel
(Germany): an artificial ruin, built at the end of the 18th century as a fictitious
ancestral seat for the Hesse-Kassel dynasty. After serious damage and alterations
during the 20th century, different methods to regain a more authentic monument
have been discussed recently: should the present state be preserved as an
illustration of the castle’s history or should the interior be refurbished as it was
during the Prussian age? A particular dilemma that requires careful considerations
on how to define and to fill in authenticity.
Paz Cabello-Carro then asked the particularly ironic question whether authenticity,
identity and museography are as compatible as we would like them to be. She
illustrated this with two great examples: the Escorial monastery, an iconic place
that is very much identified with it founder, king Philip II, and the Yuste monastery,
where the emperor Charles V decided to retire and died. Both places present us
with a number of difficulties, the first because it could be considered to be a
museologist’s concept that has become generally accepted by the public, the other
as it needs to convey its history and identity through its furniture and decorations;
many of those being lost or deteriorated, it is not an easy job to link the building’s
past or spirit to contemporary audiences.
The first day of the conference ended with a visit to the Carrier-Belleuse exhibition
and of the Museum of the Second Empire at the Palace of Compiègne.
In the evening, all attendees were invited for a reception in the Compiègne Town
Hall.
Emmanuel Starcky, the Deputy Mayor and John Barnes (DEMHIST chair)
The morning of the conference’s second day was spent at the Palace of Compiègne,
with visits to the Great Apartments, the Guest Apartments that were used during
the famous series de Compiègne, the Louis-Philippe Theatre, built for the wedding
of Louise d’Orléans with King Leopold I of Belgium, and the Musée de la Voiture.
Details of the Louis-Philippe Theatre at the Palace of Compiègne
The afternoon visits started with Pierrefonds, the fairy tale reconstruction of an
‘ideal medieval castle’ by Viollet-le-Duc, unfinished but splendidly romantic in its
aim to rebuild history as an almost theatrical experience. Afterwards, we visited
Chantilly, the opulent former residence of the Duke d’Aumale, an inspired collector
who filled his lavish interiors with a number of exquisite collections.
In the evening, we were welcomed by Édouard de Cossé-Brissac, Count of CosséBrissac, at the family château du Fayel, very much kept dans son jus. Strolling
through its rooms, staircases and attics was a truly Daedelian experience.
Detail of a ceiling at the Castle of Pierrefonds
Palace of Chantilly- attendees entering through the gate
SESSION 4: Challenges and theories
After the opening speech by Hans-Martin Hinz, president of ICOM and an
introduction by Jean-Pierre Samoyault, conservateur général honoraire du
patrimoine, on the restitution of former historical states at Fontainebleau, the first
paper of the conference’s third day was presented by Luc Forlivesi. It dealt with the
discussion on whether the castle of Chambord should remain empty or not and
which aspects influence a decision in either direction.
Béatrix Saule then presented an almost encyclopedic exercise on the many nuances
of authenticity, from ‘original state’ to replica in the palace of Versailles. Although it
was stated that the ambition of the palace’s curators is to go back to the original
state in every single detail and in the most genuine manner, this challenge seems
somehow to be compromised by the desire to make the palace ‘readable’ for a wide
variety of visitors, hence the need for ‘materials which are alike and of similar
provenance or similarity of form and spirit’. There seemed to be a strange and
somewhat uncomfortable antinomy between the rigorous, Cartesian definition of
authenticity exhibited here and the pragmatic way this was implemented.
Nevertheless, the statement ‘Versailles doesn’t need confrontation or dialogue’
(with contemporary art, that is) was applauded.
‘Digital anastylosis’ was the theme of Jonathan Gration’s paper, using Kirby Hall in
Northumberland as a case study. He explored the methodology that combines the
newest techniques in 3D modelling with conservation theory, paying special
attention to how authenticity and the spirit of place relate to this recent addition to
the conservators’ toolkit. The virtual reconstruction that comes out is a flexible
product that can be adjusted and updated over time as new aspects/facts come to
light. If we agree that historic houses can be seen as ‘layered cakes’, this method is
a great help in re-creating what has disappeared and could even be made
multisensory without even having to touch/alter anything in your building.
In ‘The seventh sense’ Gabriele Horn and Samuel Wittwer presented a number of
thoughts on authenticity in the Neues Palais at Potsdam. Authenticity for them
belongs to the domain of rhetoric and contains a number of traps. It is not
something that can be created, but is given. Taking into account that visitors are
interested in ‘inspiring places of beauty, must-see places, stories of the rich,
esthetic experiences, dream machines, …’ authenticity could be seen as an allpurpose word containing three levels: substance/material, action and
impression/atmosphere. It should therefore not always be used as a justification or
fig leaf for interfering in organically grown situations. With the Neues Palais as an
example, authenticity can be considered
a potential conflict zone between
architects, restorers and curators, between historical record and expectation (of the
public that is), between the material and the perceived, between the technical and
the ideological limits of a restoration/reconstruction.
Ayşen Savaş then presented a paper on the Erimtan Museum in the Ankara citadel,
as a case of authenticity reconstructed. Three modest, partly-destroyed 17th
century houses were transformed into a new museum. The major goal was to
preserve the historical and material qualities of these existing houses and the
surrounding historical fabric. Their reconstructed version was based on a body of
information about the functional layout, architectural details and materials. There
are a number of philological and philosophical considerations involved here, as the
meaning of the word ‘authenticity’ (as far as there is consensus on this) shifts from
the reconstruction of building to the reconstruction of an architectural artefact
within a museological context. This transformation could also be seen as a form of
architectural sublimation.
Last but not least, Linda Young talked on doubtful truths in house museums. In her
inimitable manner, she confronted us with a grand démasqué, immediately tackling
a few existential problems and presenting some inconvenient truths in historic
houses. Her paper surveyed the history of a number of house museums in the UK
(Shakespeare!) and the USA. If we would be willing to define ourselves as
‘consumers of fantasy’, believing in authenticity suddenly becomes all-important.
This would imply that our concept of authenticity is very much influenced by an
irrational faith in the impossible (remember Peter Pan…), in any case much more
than by a series of neo-Kantian categorical imperatives…
In a very witty conclusion, Alexandre Gady asked some very relevant questions.
How do we deal with our apparently very different approaches of authenticity that
seem to create a kind of schism between rigorous and empathic ‘schools’, between
the conservatives and the ones that like to cross some borders? And what about
the general feeling that there is a rapid degradation of the public’s cultural
knowledge and frame of reference? A lot of food for thought was offered during this
conference, also on more philosophical levels.
In the afternoon, four workshops were organized, all dealing with different aspects
of authenticity:
-Sustainable development and authenticity - Led by Edward Bosley
-Original, equivalent or copy? - Led by Vincent Droguet
-The public perception of authenticity – Led by Michael Day
-Museum constraints with regard to authenticity - Led by Bertrand Rondot
All workshops were highly participated in and stimulated the debate of ideas,
sometimes even making professionals question their approach to the public. Do we
really listen to visitors and take into consideration their perception of authenticity?
These workshops were followed by the General Assembly with the election of the
new DEMHIST Board, a visit to the Imperial Theatre and a gala dinner in the
Palace’s great ballroom.
On Friday 10 attendees had the fortune to go on a visit to Versailles (gardens,
Opéra, Grand Trianon, King’s Interior and Grand Apartment, Apartments of the
Dauphin and the Dauphine, Mesdames Apartments). Guided tours conducted by the
curators and architects of the palace were provided in order to allow the delegates
to have an in-depth knowledge of the work done at the palace in the past years, to
appreciate the rooms without visitors and to have a glimpse of the behind-thescenes restauration work. It was a remarkable experience.
The conference closed with a magnificent cocktail reception.
Palace of Versailles – The Hall of Mirrors - La Galerie des Glaces
On Saturday 11 October, those who wanted had the chance of going on a postconference tour to visit two extra palaces.
In the morning the visit started with the Palace of Fontainebleau paying special
attention to conservation. The solutions found to preserve fabrics and how to
display them for instance were seen at the theatre of the palace.
The imperial theatre of the Palace of Fontainebleau
In the afternoon the visit to the Castle of Champs-sur-Marne enabled attendees to
stroll in the apartments and to have a closer look at the servants’ apartments,
kitchen and stairs to understand how daily routines were kept in order to keep the
palace tidy.
Then, there was a short time to say goodbye and the group split up. The attendees
returned home with a multitude of good ideas in their minds.
Texts: Luc Vanackere and Elsa Rodrigues
Photographs: Minerva Keltanen and Elsa Rodrigues