Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
Tytuł artykułu

Public engagement towards sustainable heritage preservation

Treść / Zawartość
Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
Nowadays, heritage conservators are required to have not only a wide variety of technical but also social and human skills. The shift from a material-based conservation to an approach that focuses on subjects instead of objects (Muñoz Viñas, 2005, p. 147) is a structural approach in contemporary theories of conservation. This tendency towards subjectivity created many possibilities by exposing the multiple perspectives that surround a conservation object. At the same time, it made very clear that conservation objects are contextual and contingent (Clavir, 2009, p. 141). This dichotomy between the tangible and intangible features of a conservation object, however, has been successively overlooked in most conservation endeavours. Prior to the conservation decision-making, institutions usually identified the main stakeholders, with publics and communities being part of that sphere together with owners, artists, and conservators, among others. The decision-making process, however, does not engage with communities in practice. This situation is very problematic for the conservation of cultural heritage objects in general, but it becomes truly hazardous for the preservation of cultural heritage with strong intangible features, such as social artistic practices, ethnographic objects, public art, participatory or performance art or even built heritage, which necessarily involves strong cooperation with communities and artists. After all, to whom are conservators preserving cultural heritage? What is the purpose of conserving cultural heritage for “future generations” if “present generations” are not called to decide in that process? This paper attempts to reflect upon these questions through histories around two buildings in Lisbon that had relevant roles during the Portuguese dictatorship (1933-1974).
  • Instituto de Historia da Arte, Universidade Nova de Lisboa Portugalia
  • 1. Appelbaum, B. (2009) Conservation treatment methodology. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann
  • 2. AIC (1994). Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice, The Association (AIC). Available at: (accessed in 12.09.2018)
  • 3. AIC (2018). Sustainability Committee, Publication & Resources. Available at: (accessed in 12.09.2018)
  • 4. AICCM (2002). Code of Ethics and Code of Practice. Available at: (accessed in 12.09.2018)
  • 5. Ashley-Smith, Jonathan (1999). Risk Assessment for Object conservation. London: Butterworth-Heinemann
  • 6. Ashley-Smith, Jonathan (2017). A role for bespoke codes of ethics. In Bridgland, Janet (ed.), ICOM-CC 18th Triennial Conference Preprints, Copenhagen, 4–8 September 2017, ed., art. 1901. Paris: The International Council of Museums.
  • 7. Australia ICOMOS (2013 [1981]). Burra Charter, Australia Charter for the conservation of Places of Cultural Interest. Burra: ICOMOS.
  • 8. Australia ICOMOS (2013). Practice Note. Understanding and assessing cultural significance, Version 1: November. Burra: ICOMOS. Available at: (accessed in 18.08.2017).
  • 9. Avrami, Erica (2009). Heritage, Values, and Sustainability. In Richmond, Alison; Bracker, Alison (ed.): Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, p. 184-196, London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  • 10. Avrami, Erica; Randall Manson; and Marta de la Torre (ed.) (2000). Values and Heritage conservation. Research Report, Los Angeles: The Getty Foundation.
  • 11. Barrett, Jennifer (2012). Museums and the Public Sphere, West Sussex: Wiley.
  • 12. Berducou, Marie (2007). Cultural heritage values and conservation: a historical perspective. In Varoli-Piazza, R. (ed.), Sharing conservation Decisions, Rome: ICCROM.
  • 13. Boaventura, Inês (2014). Câmara de Lisboa apresentou queixa pelo roubo de placa da antiga sede da PIDE. In Público (2 April 2014, 13:11). Available at: camara-de-lisboa-apresentou-queixa-pelo-roubo-de-placa-da-antiga-sede-da-pide-1630701 (accessed in 17.02.2017).
  • 14. Bracker, Alison; Richmond, Alison (2009). Introduction. In Bracker, Alison; Richmond, Alison (ed.): Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, p. i-xvii, London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  • 15. CAC and CAPC (2010). Code of Ethics and Guidance for Practice of the Canadian Association for conservation of Cultural Property and of the Canadian Association of Professional Conservators. Available at: (accessed in 17.02.2017).
  • 16. Cane, Simon (2009). Why Do We Conserve? Developing Understanding of conservation as a Cultural Construct. In Bracker, Alison; Richmond, Alison (ed.) Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, p. 163-176, London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  • 17. Clavir, Miriam (1994). Preserving Conceptual Integrity: Ethics and Theory in Preventive conservation. In Preprints, IIC Congress, Preventive conservation: Practice, Theory and Research, Sept 12-16, p. 53-57.
  • 18. Clavir, Miriam (2009). Conservation and Cultural Significance. In Bracker, Alison; Richmond, Alison (ed.) Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, p. 139-149, London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  • 19. de Silva, Megan & Henderson, Jane (2011). Sustainability in conservation practice. Journal of the Institute of conservation 34 (1), p. 5-15.
  • 20. Dicks, Bella (2000). Heritage, Place and Community. Cardiff, University of Wales Press.
  • 21. ECCO (2003). E.C.C.O. Professional Guidelines (II). Available at: (accessed in 17.02.2017).
  • 22. Fraser, Nancy (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text 25/26, p. 56–80.
  • 23. Fraser, Nancy (2001). Recognition without ethics?. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(2–3), p. 21–42.
  • 24. Fraser, Nancy (2003). Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition and participation. In Fraser, N.; Honneth, A. (eds.) Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange, Verso: New York.
  • 25. Geismar, Haidy (2015). Anthropology and Heritage Regimes. Annual Review of Anthropology 44(1), p. 71-85. 014217
  • 26. Guillaume, Marc ([1980] 2003). La Politique du patrimoine, Paris: Editions Galilée.
  • 27. Habermas, Jürgen (1974). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article, P. U. Hohendahl (trans.). New German Critique 3, 1964, p. 45–8.
  • 28. Haldrup, Michael & Bærenholdt, Jørgen Ole (2015). Heritage as Performance. In Waterton, E.; Watson, S. (ed.) The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research, 52-68. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • 29. Harvey, David C. (2001). Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7 (4), p. 319–38.
  • 30. Henderson, Jane & Nakamoto, Tanya (2016). Dialogue in conservation decision-making. Studies in conservation 61(2), p. 67–78 (doi: 10.1080/00393630.2016.1183106).
  • 31. ICOM (1984). The Conservator-Restorer: a Definition of the Profession. Available at: (accessed in 10.08.2017).
  • 32. ICOM-CC (2008) Terminology to Characterize the conservation of Tangible Cultural Heritage. Available at: cc/what-is-conservation/#.Vz9ZBSN97mE (accessed in 20.10.2016).
  • 33. ICOMOS (1964). International Charter for the conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice charter) [online]. Available at: venice_e.pdf (accessed in 04.02.2015).
  • 34. ICOMOS (1994). Nara Document on Authenticity [online]. Available at: http://www. (accessed in 04.02.2015).
  • 35. ICOMOS (1996). Principles for the recording of monuments, groups of buildings and sites. Available at: (accessed in 04.02.2015).
  • 36. ICOMOS (2000). Principles for the conservation and Restoration of Built Heritage (The Krakow Charter). Available at: 2015/03/KRAKOV-CHARTER-2000.pdf (accessed in 14.08.2017).
  • 37. Taylor, Joel (2013). Intergenerational justice: A useful perspective for heritage conservation. CeROArt [online], Cultures of conservation. Available at: (accessed 21.10.2016).
  • 38. Taylor, Joel (2015). Embodiment unbound: Moving beyond divisions in the understanding and practice of heritage conservation. Studies in conservation, 60 (1), p. 65-77.
  • 39. Kapelouzou, Iris (2012). The Inherent Sharing of conservation Decisions. Studies in conservation, 57 (3), p. 172-182.
  • 40. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara (2004). Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production. Museum International 221-222, 56 (1-2), p. 52-65.
  • 41. Machuca, Jesús Antonio (2013). Challenges for Anthropological Research on Intangible Cultural Heritage. In Arizpe, L.; Amescua C. (ed) Anthropological Perspectives on Intangible Cultural Heritage, New York, Dordrecht and London: Springer, p. 57-70. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-00855-4_5
  • 42. Marçal, Hélia & Macedo, Rita (2017). From the periphery to the centre of decision: community engagement and justice in conservation decision-making. In Bridgland, J. (ed.) ICOM-CC 18th Triennial Conference Preprints, Copenhagen, 4–8 September 2017, Paris: The International Council of Museums.
  • 43. Marçal, Hélia; Macedo, Rita & Duarte, António Manuel (2014). The inevitable subjective nature of conservation: Psychological insights on the process of decision-making. In Bridgland, J. (ed.) ICOM-CC 17th Triennial Conference Preprints, Melbourne, 15–19 September, Paris: The International Council of Museums.
  • 44. Michalski, Stefan (1994). Sharing responsibility for conservation decisions. In Krumbein, W. E.; Brimblecombe, P.; Cosgrove, D. E.; Staniforth, S. (ed.), Durability and change: the science, responsibility, and cost of sustaining cultural heritage, London: Wiley, p. 241-258.
  • 45. Mitchell, Don (1995). The end of public space? People’s park, definitions of public, and democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 85(1), p. 108–33.
  • 46. Muñoz Viñas, Salvador (2005). Contemporary Theory of conservation. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  • 47. Museu do Aljube – Resistência e Liberdade (2015). O Museu - Museu Do Aljube – Resistência E Liberdade. Available at: (accessed in 17.02.2017).
  • 48. Oliveira, Elian (2012). Aljube, uma cadeia política. Unpublished Master Thesis, Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Available at: (accessed in 17.02.2017).
  • 49. Prati et al. (2017). Sustainability in art conservation: A novel bio-based organogel for the cleaning of water sensitive works of art, Pure and Applied Chemistry, 90 (2), DOI: 10.1515/pac-2017-0507
  • 50. Revez, Maria João (2017). Compatibility matters: Assessing the risks of built heritage cleaning. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Lisboa: Universidade Nova de Lisboa..
  • 51. Riegl, Alois (1996). The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Essence and Its Development. In Price, Nicholas; Talley, M. K.; Vaccaro, Alessandra M. (ed.). Historical and Philosophical Issues in the conservation of Cultural Heritage, Malibu: The Getty Institute, p. 69–83.
  • 52. Scholte, Tatja (2010). Um estudo comparativo sobre a conservaçãção de obras de arte (etnográficas e contemporâneas) de localizaçãção específica. I: Macedo, R.; da Silva, R. H. (ed.). A arte efémera e a conservação: O paradigma da arte contemporânea e dos bens etnográficos, Lisbon: Instituto de Historia da Arte, p. 47- 64.
  • 53. Sloggett, Robyn (2009). Expanding the conservation canon: Assessing Cross-Cultural and Interdisciplinary Collaborations in conservation. Studies in conservation 54(3), p. 170-183.
  • 54. Smith, Laurajane (2006). Uses of Heritage, London: Routledge.
  • 55. Smith, Laurajane & Akagawa, Natsuko (ed.) (2009). Intangible Heritage. London: Routledge.
  • 56. Taylor, Diana (2003). The Archive and the Repertoire, Durham: Duke University Press.
  • 57. Taylor, Joel & Cassar, May (2008). Representation and intervention: The symbiotic relationship of conservation and value. In Saunders, D.; Townsend, J. H.; Woodcock, S.: Conservation and Access: Contributions to the London Congress, London, p. 7-11.
  • 58. UNESCO (1972). World Heritage Convention, Paris: UNESCO. Available at: (accessed in 17.10.2017).
  • 59. van de Vall, Renée (2005 [1999]). Painful Decisions: Philosophical Consideration on a Decision-making Model. In Hummelen, Ijsbrand; Sillé, Dionne (ed.) Modern Art: Who Cares?, Amsterdam: SBMK, p. 196–200.
  • 60. Vall, Renée van de, Hölling, H. B.; Scholte, T. I. & Stigter, S. (2011) Reflections on a biographical approach to contemporary art conservation. In Bridgland, J. (ed.) ICOM-CC 16th Triennial Meeting Preprints, Lisbon, 19-23 September, Almada: Criterio.
  • 61. van Saaze, Vivian (2013). Installation Art and the Museum: Presentation and Conservation of Changing Artworks. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  • 62. Vecco, Marilena (2010). A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. Journal of Cultural Heritage 11, p. 321–324. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2010.01.006
  • 63. Walker, Meredith & Marquis-Kyle, Peter (2004). The illustrated Burra Charter: good practice for heritage places. Burwood: ICOMOS.
  • 64. Waterton, Emma & Smith, Laurajane (2010). The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies 16(1–2), p. 4– 15.
  • 65. Waterton, Emma; Smith, Laurajane & Campbell, Gary (2006). The Utility of Discourse Analysis to Heritage Studies: The Burra Charter and Social Inclusion. International Journal of Heritage Studies 12(4), p. 339–355.
  • 66. Weyer, Cornelia & Heydenreich, Gunnar (2005 [1999]). From questionnaires to a checklist for dialogues. In Hummelen, Ijsbrand; Sillé, Dionne (ed.), Modern Art: Who Cares?, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, p. 385–88.
  • 67. Wharton, Glenn (2005). The Challenges of Conserving Contemporary Art. In Altshuler, Bruce (ed.) Collecting the New: Museums and Contemporary Art, Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 163–178.
Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2019).
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.