Contents
The value of the monument lies in its authenticity, restorers say. But this is no reason to abandon new technologies, they add. We tell how innovations help to preserve antiquity and why they can cause controversy
Explore from all angles
Restoring old buildings is a delicate matter. In order not to lose the authenticity of the object of cultural heritage, scientists find out all the details – up to how the ancient craftsman hewed the planks for the roof. Therefore, new technologies in the process of restoration are used with great care.
But at the preparatory stage, modern technologies become an excellent assistant. “The possibilities of restorers have expanded significantly due to the emergence of more compact and advanced equipment, especially for non-destructive research methods,” says Nina Shangina, chairman of the Council of the Union of Restorers of St. Petersburg.
One of the key techniques is the 3D scanning of a monument with a laser, which makes it possible to make an accurate digital model of the object: restorers can study the structures, facades, rooms, and decor elements in every detail.
It happens that in the course of restoration, specialists do not have enough drawings of some element from a certain angle, and they have to do survey work again. A three-dimensional model allows you to get any necessary drawings in an unlimited number without re-measurements.
And with the help of a 3D scanner, you can take measurements without interrupting the work of the object. “Agree, this is extremely important for museums or libraries,” Shangina notes.
Design and manage
Another useful technology for restorers is BIM modeling. Building Information Modeling is translated as “building information modeling”. Actually, this is the next step after three-dimensional scanning. In a special software environment, a three-dimensional building model is supplemented with information about prices, materials, service life, terms of reconstruction or restoration, and so on.
The BIM model makes it possible to virtually dock and coordinate all the components and systems of the building, and check their functionality. It allows you to “digitally” check individual design solutions and choose the best. In addition, BIM technologies make it possible to predict how a building will behave during operation.
The Internet of Things (IoT, Internet of Things) is also suitable not only for turning on the coffee maker when the alarm goes off. In order to keep ancient buildings in their original form for as long as possible, they are literally “stuffed” with sensors that transmit information about the opening and closing of doors and windows, the number of visitors, crowds and their movements, and so on. This allows you to adjust human flows so as to cause as little damage to the architectural monument as possible.
Save and Recreate
Having a 3D model of an individual element that needs to be restored, you can automate the manufacturing process itself. For example, stone cutting – as in the Belgian Church of Our Lady of Laeken, where it was necessary to recreate a large number of pointed turrets in the neo-Gothic style. However, finished elements are still finalized by hand for greater authenticity.
Additive technologies are used to restore metal or ceramic elements. It’s not about 3D printing bronze parts – it’s both expensive and requires a lot of post-processing labor. But the printer copes with the manufacture of molds for casting perfectly.
Restorers approach the issue of materials even more reverently than construction technologies. A new stone to replace the destroyed one will ideally be taken from the same place where the stone was mined for the construction of the building. If this is not possible, they will select the one that is as close as possible in terms of characteristics.
But there are exceptions to every rule. For example, when the Antwerp railway station was being restored, it was decided to use modern imitation instead of historical stone. And the point is not only in economic reasons – although they also played a role, but in the fact that natural stone of this particular variety behaves unpredictably. And when the ancient stone began to crumble, the fragments destroyed the clock pavilion of the station.
“New developments in the chemical industry make it possible to significantly improve the manufacturability of restorative materials without compromising authenticity,” says Nina Shangina.
According to the expert, although modern tools and technologies make it possible to speed up research and make it more accurate, the design and execution of work still requires a significant amount of time, especially if previously unidentified features of the monument appear during the restoration. So innovation improves the quality of restoration, but does not greatly affect its speed.
Restore or change?
Modern trends in restoration are not limited only to technologies and materials – ideas about what exactly we want to get from restoration in the end are also changing. So, in Europe, a discussion is in full swing about what Notre Dame de Paris should be like, which is now being restored after a fire in April 2019.
There are no questions about the outer part: the parts destroyed by fire will be recreated as close as possible to the original. For example, to replace a 93-meter spire in France, about a thousand century-old oaks were found, including in the former royal park. But the interior is not so simple.
For example, plans to “upgrade the tourist experience” for future visitors to the cathedral have sparked fierce controversy. In particular, it is planned to modernize the interior with the help of artistic lighting, which will project quotes from the Bible in foreign languages on the walls. There are also plans to open the main entrance to tourists (rather than the side entrance, as was the case before) and move, for example, the altar to make it easier for tourists to pass through. Supporters of the innovations say the monument will become more open, including for those visitors who do not belong to a Christian culture. Opponents also compare this project with a “theme park”.
In such matters, notes Anton Ivanov, deputy chairman of the Council of the St. Petersburg city branch of the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (VOOPIiK), restorers can heed the provisions of the Venice Charter on the conservation and restoration of monuments and places of interest. According to it, nothing new can be introduced into the objects of historical heritage: even if something is lost, the charter does not welcome reconstruction.
Of course, not everyone and not always follow it literally – otherwise, for example, in Peterhof, tourists would walk along neat paths among the ruins left after the bombing. But any recreation is carried out with careful scientific preparation. And any adaptation to modern use (laying of sewerage, air conditioning, and so on) – taking into account the interests of preserving a historical monument.
According to Ivanov, in the case of Notre Dame, “to introduce some completely new elements is a violation of the same Venice Charter. However, they cannot be justified by the need to adapt this object. This is not related to any of its normal technical functioning. Responsible persons note that for the entire time of its existence, the old building, in any case, undergoes constant evolution, and therefore it is impossible to consider the changes as radical.
And what about us?
Russian restorers also do not have a common opinion about how the final result of their work should look like. Anton Ivanov gave an example of one of the palaces of Peterhof, which has not been restored so far – this is the Lower Dacha of Emperor Nicholas II in Alexandria Park, where Tsarevich Alexei was born. The palace was badly damaged during the war, and in 1961 its remains were blown up. From the building there was a basement and a piece of the wall.
Ivanov said that a few years ago the Peterhof Museum-Reserve presented three projects for the restoration of the Lower Dacha. In fact, they reflect the opposing views of experts on restoration. The first is the preservation of the ruins in full compliance with the Venice Charter. Cover somewhere with glass, strengthen somewhere, pave paths for tourists, put signs. The second is a complete reconstruction of the palace in all details from historically reliable materials. And the third is to preserve the ruins and build a museum over them, which will repeat the external volume of the palace, but will not pretend to be authentic – on the contrary, emphatically new materials will make it possible to immediately understand where a piece of a historical wall is, and where is a modern superstructure. As of 2018, the third option has won. Estimated completion of work is 2025.
“It cannot be said that one or the other view of restoration dominates today. Somewhere experiments are welcome, somewhere the maximum adherence to the Venice Charter. Often the decision depends on the availability of money from the customer,” sums up Anton Ivanov.