lambert, s. italy history preventive conservation. 2010

8/7/2019 Lambert, S. Italy History Preventive Conservation. 2010

1/15

CeROArtNumro 6 (2010)

Horizons

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Simon Lambert

Italy and the history of preventiveconservation

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Avertissement

Le contenu de ce site relve de la lgislation franaise sur la proprit intellectuelle et est la proprit exclusive del'diteur.Les uvres figurant sur ce site peuvent tre consultes et reproduites sur un support papier ou numrique sousrserve qu'elles soient strictement rserves un usage soit personnel, soit scientifique ou pdagogique excluant

toute exploitation commerciale. La reproduction devra obligatoirement mentionner l'diteur, le nom de la revue,l'auteur et la rfrence du document.Toute autre reproduction est interdite sauf accord pralable de l'diteur, en dehors des cas prvus par la lgislationen vigueur en France.

Revues.org est un portail de revues en sciences humaines et sociales dvelopp par le Clo, Centre pour l'ditionlectronique ouverte (CNRS, EHESS, UP, UAPV).

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Rfrence lectronique

Simon Lambert, Italy and the history of preventive conservation , CeROArt [En ligne], 6 | 2010, mis en ligne le18 novembre 2010. URL : http://ceroart.revues.org/index1707.htmlDOI : en cours d'attribution

diteur : CeROArt asblhttp://ceroart.revues.orghttp://www.revues.org

Document accessible en ligne sur :http://ceroart.revues.org/index1707.htmlDocument gnr automatiquement le 21 novembre 2010. Tous droits rservs
http://ceroart.revues.org/index1707.htmlhttp://www.revues.org/http://ceroart.revues.org/http://ceroart.revues.org/index1707.htmlhttp://www.revues.org/http://ceroart.revues.org/


2/15

Italy and the history of preventive conservation 2

CeROArt, 6 | 2010

Simon Lambert

Italy and the history of preventiveconservation

Introduction1 Preventive conservation encompasses all measures and actions aimed at avoiding and

minimizing future deterioration or loss (ICOM-CC 2008). Contrary to conservation

treatments that target single objects, preventive conservation focuses on entire collections and

their surrounding environment. Above and beyond technical prescriptions for climate, light

and handling, preventive conservation is a conceptual approach to conservation (Caple 1994)

that implies a mental shift a change in thinking from how to why things are conserved (de

Guichen 1995). What determines this shift and why does country like Italy, that prides itself

so much on its cultural heritage, currently lack a cultural heritage protection strategy that

encompasses a holistic, long-term vision?

2 This paper examines two key moments in recent history when Italy was presented with

opportunities to integrate preventive conservation into cultural heritage policy but did notsucceed in doing so. These are the Franceschini Commission (1964) and the Pilot plan for

the programmed conservation of cultural heritage in Umbria (1976). An historical overview

of the development of preventive conservation is offered to contextualize these initiatives.

Italys failed attempts can be instructive to other countries seeking to raise public awareness

for the importance of long-term planning for cultural heritage protection and allocate resources

effectively.

Tracing the origins of preventive conservation3 The desire to minimize deterioration and loss of cultural heritage is universal. This

sentiment permeates through many European treatises from Antiquity, the Middle Ages

and the Renaissance. The highly codified artistic production techniques and instructions for

maintenance indicate that these societies valued their contemporary artistic production and

took great care in ensuring it would be transmitted to posterity. Over thousands of years, there

is impressive continuity in prescriptions for the protection of buildings, sculptures and painted

works from fire, insects, mould, earthquakes, rainwater and excessive humidity (Cagiano de

Azevedo 1952; Koller 1994).

4 Several examples from around the seventeenth century also reveal a preoccupation for

protecting cultural heritage from the past from further damage. The well-documented

conservation projects of Raphaels frescoes in Rome (1659 and 1702), for instance, included

preventive measures to stop water infiltration, reduce the accumulation of dust, and limit

copyists from staining the paintings with their oil-drenched tracing papers (Zanardi 2007).

5 Some conservation professionals also showed an awareness of the potential harm caused by

treatments themselves. Nearly a century later Pietro Edwards, Director of the Restoration ofthe Public Pictures of Venice and the Rialto, warned painting restorers and inspectors to limit

overly invasive interventions (Edwards 1777) and advocated for the creation of preventive

care regiments focusing on entire collections (Edwards 1798).

6 An early example of preventive conservation applied to collections can be found in

Museographia, a guide to the museums, galleries and libraries of Europe written by Hamburg

scholar and merchant Caspar F. Neickel. In his guide, the author gives instructions on how to

avoid moisture problems by displaying objects in rooms with south-westerly orientation, how

libraries should constantly monitor insect pests, and how to avoid damage to displays through

careful design (Neickel 1727, 378, 247). He also lists 25 rules of conduct for museumgoers,


3/15


CeROArt, 6 | 2010

reminiscent of modern collections care guidelines, which include instructions on object

handling and theft prevention (Neickel 1727, 401-403).

7 After more or less sporadic cases, a cohesive body of knowledge known as housekeeping

emerged in sixteenth-century England. Housekeeping practices, which consisted in practical

advice for the maintenance and management staff in estate homes, were handed down

in diaries, manuals, letters and paintings. These guidelines included recommendations for

controlling humidity, heat, light, insects, dust and damage from abrasion (Abey-Koch 2006).

8 Cultural heritage protection has often materialized in planned activities that include regularmonitoring and maintenance. A consciousness for the need to prevent the loss of cultural

materials due to constant, cumulative damage has existed for thousands of years.

War and the immediacy of threats

9 Although the concept of continuous prevention was arguably already engrained in everyday

practice, it sometimes took total loss or the threat of total loss to awaken the need for

highly structured preventive conservation activities. The progressive integration of scientific

methods into the cultural heritage sector also provided new methods to those entrusted with

the protection of collections.

10 The conservation community is well aware of the securing and evacuation of collections in

the months leading up to the first air raids of the First World War, both at the British Museum

(Caygill 1992) and at the National Gallery (Saunders 1992) (Figure 1).

Fig. 1 Objects from the British Museum in the London Underground, 1918

Credits: from Caygill, 1992

11 The resulting damage to the British Museums collection due to improper storage conditions,

and the creation of its museum laboratory, eventually led to the migration of science to

the museum world (Plenderleith 1978). Slowly, prevention and the study of deterioration

mechanisms were added to the traditional activities of restoration workshops (Plenderleith and

Philippot 1960).


4/15


CeROArt, 6 | 2010

12 During the Second World War, the use of air raids was intensified and cultural heritage was

intentionally pillaged and plundered. As threats changed, the British Museums collections

were moved several times (Plenderleith 1978; Caygill 1992). At the National Gallery, staff had

received special emergency training, allowing its entire collection to be evacuated just three

days before war was declared (Saunders 1992). The works were later moved to underground

climate-controlled slate quarries in Wales (Rawlins 1946).

Fig. 2 Paintings stored in the Manod quarry, Wales.

Credits: from Saunders, 199213 In Italy, a less-known operation of sizeable proportions was conducted to protect immovable

and movable cultural heritage under the leadership of Education Minister Bottai of the Fascist

regime. When the war erupted, it is said that the majority of Italys cultural heritage had been

made invulnerable to damage (Lazzari 1942, vi.)


5/15


CeROArt, 6 | 2010

Fig. 3 Protection of the Antonine Column in Rome.

Credits: from Lazzari, 1942


6/15


CeROArt, 6 | 2010

Fig. 4 Protection of the Ara Pacis in Rome.

Credits: from Lazzari, 1942

14 Throughout the peninsula, historic buildings and monuments were protected structurally with

scaffolding, supporting walls, buttresses and pilasters. Decorated surfaces were covered with

sandbags, and other systems for the more fragile and delicate elements (Lazzari 1942). The

Istituto Centrale del Restauro (ICR) in Rome, which opened in 1939, created a Technical

Council responsible for verifying the suitability of environmental conditions for artworks

throughout the war (Lazzari 1942). Movable works from the most important artistic centres

were transferred to hundreds of repositories, far from any military target (Lambert 2008).


7/15


CeROArt, 6 | 2010

15 With the experiences of the Wars, an important evidence base was emerging to justify

increasing expenditure on protecting entire collections rather than repairing individual objects.

In the face of urgent, catastrophic and generalized threats, Italy had planned and implemented

an operation of singular proportions. After the war, the countrys challenges shifted to

the protection of cultural heritage against the slow and continuous threats of degradation,

abandonment and neglect.

The Franceschini Commission: Italys first opportunity16 In the sixties and seventies, Italy had several occasions to adopt preventive conservation, but

those attempts failed at theimplementation stage. After the Second World War, economic

prosperity in the Allied countries stimulated rapid industrial and technological growth and the

expansion of the construction industry. Outcries of disapproval were felt in the international

cultural heritage sector. The International Council of Museums (ICOM 1962, res 4) resolved

to protect natural and cultural heritage from rapid industrialization and the mechanical age.

Similarly, the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) expressed its desire

to protect built heritage from unbridled and disharmonious development (Gazzola 1964).

17 Before the Second World War, Italy had been principally rural and economically

underdeveloped. Afterwards, it became industrialized rapidly with the inflow of international

funding for reconstruction. New infrastructures were developed, industry flourished and the

population began to move out of historic city centres towards the newly constructed suburbs.

This important socio-economic shift is thought to be responsible for initiating Italys slow

urban deterioration and environmental neglect (Zanardi 1999).

18 In response to the imminent threat of unregulated development in Italy, a public inquiry

was opened in 1964. Commonly called the Franceschini Commission after the minister

who presided over it, this group was composed of 16 members of parliament and 11

experts in art history, archaeology, law and library science. The Commission was responsible

for revising the current legislation, administrative framework and funding mechanisms for

cultural heritage protection. Following an in-depth analysis of the situation, 84 declarations

were produced. These were synthesized in nine recommendations for urgent action, clearly

indicating of a growing desire for social change:

Establish a security service to protect cultural heritage.

Call for a moratorium on projects concerning areas of monumental, archaeological or

environmental interest.

Begin a systematic inventory of Italys cultural heritage.

Make publicly accessible historic buildings now used by the State for administrative

functions.

Eliminate unacceptable interventions/treatments on cultural heritage.

Establish headquarters for research, conservation, restoration and documentation

institutes, and for the national scientific institutions.

Train scientific and technical staff responsible for the autonomous administration of

cultural heritage. Promote contemporary artistic production.

Raise public awareness on the importance of respecting cultural heritage through a

national campaign [authors translation] (CITVPSAAP 1967, 133-139).

19 As a direct result of the third recommendation, the Central Office for Cataloguing and

Documentation (Ufficio Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione) was established in

1969. Two further Commissions followed: the Papaldo I (1968) and II (1970). Their aim

was to extract from the Franceschini Commissions declarations and recommendations all that

could be transformed and implemented into legislation. Regrettably, nothing ever materialized


8/15


CeROArt, 6 | 2010

from this work and the recommendations were never again examined by Parliament (Condemi

1993).

20 Conservation historian Bruno Zanardi (1999) has argued that the Franceschini and Papaldo

commissions were inconclusive for three main reasons. First, the real estate investment lobby,

firmly anchored within government, intentionally obstructed the work of the commissions.

Second, Italian bureaucracy was notoriously slow and ineffective. Third, in 1968 the priority

in Europe shifted towards addressing the violence, revolutions and democratization of

universities.21 Though rarely mentioned, the economic implications of these recommendations may have

been considerable, as it called for significant increases in funding allocations for culture

(Urbani 1977). Regrettably, it would be several years before the idea of holistic cultural

heritage protection would be taken up again.

Giovanni Urbani: Italys second opportunity

From specific to holistic

22 Although the work of the Franceschini, Papaldo I and Papaldo II commissions was

inconclusive, on some level there was a growing public awareness of the precarious

relationship between natural and cultural heritage. In 1966, the floods in Florence andVenice were a violent reminder of this fragility (UNESCO 1967). That same year, a massive

landslide occurred in Agrigento, Sicily, showing the severe consequences of unregulated urban

expansion in the Valley of the Temples (Erbani 2006). In the early seventies, the time was

ripe in Italy to examine once again what could be done concretely to address these issues and

prevent future disasters.

23 In a radio interview, Giovanni Urbani, art historian, conservator and future Director of the

ICR (1973-1983), expressed his view that the essence of the problem of conservation in Italy

lied in the ability to merge the protection of nature and culture in one single plan (Urbani

1971). Urbani believed that like works of art, which lose their meaning when de-contextualized

from art history as a whole, the protection of cultural heritage should be tackled globally and

integrated with the protection of natural heritage.

24 Though Urbani was himself a trained conservator, he was highly sceptical of the aims of his

profession. He once observed that from 1967 to 1976, public expenditure on restoration (i.e.

single-object treatments of aesthetic nature) had increased ten-fold, with no observable

improvement in the overall condition of Italys cultural heritage (Urbani 1977, 113).

25 Urbani advocated something radically different from treatment-oriented conservation:

preventive conservation. He argued that science had an important role to play in conservation

(Urbani 1973), but only if it was applied to large samples (i.e. collections) and not individual

objects (Urbani 1968). By merging the conservation of nature with that of cultural heritage,

and guiding decisions using a strong scientific evidence base, he could give his integrated

vision of conservation a tangible form.

Programmed conservation and the Pilot planfor Umbria26 It has been said though the same applies to other countries that Italian cultural heritage is

a unique case because of the importance of the context in which it was produced, of the extent

of its geographical distribution, of its stratification and continuity over millennia, and of its

sheer quantity (Zanardi 1999; Settis 2005). In 1976, Urbani presented the Italian Ministry of

Culture with the Pilot plan for the programmed conservation of cultural heritage in Umbria

(ICR 1976), a project strongly rooted in this specificity.

27 Once implemented, this plan would give Italy a deeper understanding of the vulnerability of

its movable and immovable cultural heritage and its exposure to several deterioration factors:

geological, seismic and meteorological risk, air pollution, and depopulation. It would allow


9/15


CeROArt, 6 | 2010

the Ministry of Culture to make systematic, evidence-based conservation decisions within a

forward planning framework.

Fig. 5 Map from the Pilot Plan showing the distribution of seismic events from year 0 to 1969.

Credits: from ICR 1976

28 As a first step, data would be gathered in the region of Umbria, where the new tools for risk

management and training would be tested. Afterwards, a plan for the entire country would bedeveloped, taking into account the cultural specificity of each region (Urbani 1976).

29 Around this time, the term preventive conservation had emerged in the museum sector

(Thomson 1977; G. de Guichen, pers. comm.). Instead, Urbani used the term programmed

conservation, presumably because the tool he sought to develop would help target

maintenance activities at specific time intervals. According to Urbani himself, programmed

conservation was a technique that included all periodic measures taken to maintain and

lower the rate of deterioration of ancient materials as much as possible [authors translation]

(Urbani 1976, 109). While Brandis (1963) preventive restoration had been a theoretical


10/15


CeROArt, 6 | 2010

abstraction (Lambert 2008), Urbanis programmed conservation depended on concrete actions

and measurable results.

30 The Pilot plan had three main objectives:

To evaluate the effects of selected agents of deterioration on the condition of cultural

heritage in Umbria.

To define the techniques to be used for documentation and treatments, and establish

cultural heritage maintenance programmes.

To describe the nature and dimensions of a regional hub where monitoring and treatment

programmes would be defined [authors translation] (Urbani 1976, 105).

31 In a preliminary phase, data had already been collected in Umbria to understand the

composition and regional distribution of cultural heritage and of the selected agents of

deterioration. Inventory forms for various types of heritage were developed and several

regional maps indicating the location and concentration of the agents were produced (Urbani

1976) (Figure 5).

32 Training was a central element of the project. Urbani firmly believed that instead of training

restorers, Italy should train technicians capable of delivering programmed conservation to a

variety of materials and types of cultural heritage (Urbani 1977). For this purpose, didactic

manuals called DIMOS (Course on the maintenance of wall paintings, mosaics and stucco)

were published from 1978 to 1979 (ICR 1979). In Italy, the DIMOS manuals (now out of

print) are still used today by several art conservation programmes.

33 In a distant future, after programmed conservation had been integrated into government policy,

Urbani believed that Italy would need new and innovative legislation for the protection of

cultural heritage. He was convinced that the Ministry of Cultural Heritage should also increase

its regional presence by decentralizing its power and initiate collaboration with the Ministry

of Environment, the Ministry of Education and with regional government (Zanardi 2006).

Unfortunately, none of this would ever happen.

The failure of the Pilot plan

34 In the months following the publication of Urbanis Pilot plan a controversy emerged, of which

Perrotta (2004) has provided an overview. It appears the ICR was criticized severely for having

assigned to the private sector work that should have remained in the public sector. In short,

the Pilot plan grew out of collaboration with TECNECO, a subsidiary of ENI (Italys energy

provider). Further disapproval came from the Republican party (then in power) who claimed

that with his plan Urbani sought to override the role of regional government. This caused great

upheaval in the Umbrian Superintendencies, who opposed the project categorically. Roberto

Abbondanza, then regional inspector for cultural heritage in Umbria, commented in national

newspapers that his role was being usurped and that the Pilot plan should be entirely re-

written. Furthermore, the Communist party claimed that Urbani was making ENI profit from

the correction of its mistakes because the project focused on deterioration associated with

industrial pollution. The Communist party also accused the project of being antidemocratic

by promoting the privatization of cultural heritage management.35 Zanardi (1999, 224), a student of Urbanis at ICR, believes this controversy over the Pilot plan

was fuelled intentionally by ministerial bureaucracy, by superintendents and by university

professors who were unqualified to comment on the technical and scientific content of the

project. This occurred, he argues, because they all stood to lose their managerial control if the

plan were ever implemented.

36 Giorgio Torraca (2004), a close friend and colleague of Urbani, explains that Urbani despised

obstacles, and although he was a public servant himself, Urbani had never accepted the

principles of Italian public administration. Although the collaboration with TECNECO had

initially been suggested to Urbani by Social-democratic minister Matteotti, also a friend of


11/15


CeROArt, 6 | 2010

Urbani, working with them meant bypassing the usual bureaucratic channels and exposing the

project to oppositions. After a series of quarrels with the Ministry of Cultural Heritage about

these and other issues, Urbani eventually resigned from his post as Director of the ICR in 1983.

37 One of the few concrete results of the Pilot plan came several years later. The Italian Risk Map

project began in 1987 under the direction of Pio Baldi, an architect employed at the ICR. It

focused on a single aspect of the Pilot plan: the mapping of cultural heritage distribution and

the intensity of agents of deterioration. Urbani, though he was not consulted on the project,

looked favourably upon it:38 A map like this allows work to be organized based on something that is defined,

analyzed, and time-bound. Today, superintendents do not have any of this. And no

one ever speaks of maintenance. From the technical point of view, a real strategy

for cultural heritage protection could emerge from this [authors translation] (Urbani

1990).

39 It has long been said that the Risk Map would be a tool used for conservation management

nationwide (ICR 1987; Bartoli, Palazzo and Urbisci 2003; Accardo 2004). Yet, 20 years later,

it has yet to fully deliver on its promises.

Discussion40

As was the case at the time of the Franceschini Commmission, building without planningpermissions and speculation in the construction industry are still important problems today

(Tosatti 2003; GIU 2010), which continue to have a negative impact on cultural heritage

conservation in Italy (Deliperi 2010).

41 In a country with such a strong bureaucratic tradition, which is often difficult to reconcile

with the requirements of the private sector, one is left to wonder whether the fate of the Pilot

plan could have been different if Urbani had put aside his personal convictions and played by

the Ministry of Cultural Heritages rules. Admittedly, it is probable that without TECNECOs

support, this document would never have been published at all.

42 Though anecdotal evidence and controversies may help to contextualize the events leading

up to the failure of the Pilot plan, the economic and moral dimensions should be further

emphasised. In 1976, annual public expenditure on restoration for publicly and privately

owned monuments, galleries and archaeological sites was approximately 35 billion lire

(Urbani 1977). Implementing the Pilot plan, would have cost only about 1.4 billion lire

(excluding staff time), or 4 % of this amount (ICR 1976). This raises a question that

is central to the very notion of preventive conservation. How much money was Italian

public administration willing to invest in 1976, for benefits that would be reaped by future

generations? Contrary to restoration, preventive conservation has no visible results, so

adopting it requires a significant mental shift.

43 Michalski (2008, 755) recently used the concept ofsocial discount rate (SDR) to investigate

conservation decision making. As he paraphrased it, SDR is the interest that people are

willing to pay () to get something now on credit.When applied to the two major initiatives

discussed in this paper, Italy was operating on a high SDR. In other words, by failing to invest

then on achieving long-term conservation objectives, it has actually magnified the losses forwhich that generation is now accountable. It is worthwhile noting that at present, the Italian

Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities (MiBAC) still focuses on single-work restoration

projects with high visibility and marketability, as displayed prominently on its website.

44 One of the few (if not the only) successfully implemented national conservation action

plans is the oft-cited Deltaplan in the Netherlands. Instead of originating from conservation

professionals, the impetus for this plan came from a 1987 report issued by the Court of Audit,

highlighting how public funds were being misspent to care for the nations collections. To

develop the plan, the concerned institutions were consulted systematically, establishing a two-

way exchange between them and central government (Talley 1999). Valuable lessons can be


12/15


CeROArt, 6 | 2010

learnt from this on the importance of stakeholder consultations to ensure the buy-in process

for preventive conservation and on the importance of making a strong financial case to justify

its implementation.

Conclusion

45 History has shown that although the concept of continuous preventive conservation may be

intrinsic to many societies, large-scale strategies are often adopted in times of emergency, orin the aftermath of disasters to avoid the repetition of errors in planning. In the late sixties and

seventies, Italy seemed to be ideally positioned to launch a national preventive conservation

strategy for cultural heritage, but failed at both attempts.

46 In Italy, most cultural heritage matters are governed by the State and prevention and

maintenance are legally inscribed in the Italian Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape

(MiBAC 2004, art. 29). Though structures are in place to facilitate the implementation of

a national cultural heritage protection strategy, these laws have not yet materialized into an

action plan. If a stitch in time really does save nine, preventive conservation is the most long-

term cost-effective solution for Italy. This is especially true, now that public spending on the

protection and promotion of cultural heritage in Italy has been reduced by 35 % since 2007

(MiBAC 2009, 27).

47 Recently, Roberto Cecchi, Director General of historic, artistic and ethno-anthropological

heritage for the Italian Ministry of Culture and Activities, commented on Romes crumbling

archaeological sites in the New York Times: We must set down methods and rules. We must

start to think ahead, not just respond when crises happen (Kimmelman 2010). A formal

commitment from central government is now needed to initiate this mental shift sooner

rather than later.

Bibliographie

Abey-Koch, M. (2006). History of housekeeping. In The National Trust manual of housekeeping. The

care of collections in historic houses open to the public, ed. K. Lithgow, H. Lloyd, J. Parry, S. Staniforth,

and N. Seeley. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, 21-33.

Accardo, G. (2004). Sullo stato di conservazione. Bollettino ICR - nuova serie (8-9): 4-22.

Bartoli, N. C., M. Palazzo, and S. Urbisci. (2003). Carta del rischio del patrimonio culturale. Il polo

regionale della Lombardia. Bollettino ICR - nuova serie (6-7): 4-25.

Brandi, C. (1963). Il restauro preventivo. In Teoria del restauro, ed. L. Borrelli Vlad, J. Raspi Serra and

G. Urbani. Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 81-89.

Cagiano de Azevedo, M. (1952). Conservazione e restauro presso i greci e i romani. Bollettino

dell'Istituto Centrale del Restauro (9-10): 53-60.

Caple, C. (1994). Preventive conservation within conservation training programmes. In Preventive

conservation practice, theory and research. Preprints of the contributions to the Ottawa congress, 12-16

September 1994, ed. A. Roy, and P. Smith, London: IIC, 65-68.

Caygill, M. L. (1992). The protection of national treasures at the British Museum during the First andSecond World Wars. In Materials issues in art and archaeology III. Symposium held April 27 - May

1, 1992, San Francisco, CA, USA, ed. P.B. Vandiver, J.R. Druzik, G.S. Wheeler, and I.C. Freestone.

Pittsburgh: Materials Research Society, 29-40.

CITVPSAAP. See Commissione dindagine per la tutela e la valorizzazione del patrimonio storico,

archeologico, artistico e del paesaggio.

Commissione dindagine per la tutela e la valorizzazione del patrimonio storico, archeologico, artistico

e del paesaggio. (1967). Per la salvezza dei beni culturali in Italia. v. 1-3. Rome: Colombo.

Condemi, S. (2003). La salvaguardia dei beni culturali. Lineamenti di storia della tutela. Florence:

Palazzo Spinelli.


13/15


CeROArt, 6 | 2010

De Guichen, G. (1995). La conservation prventive: un changement profond de mentalit. In

Study series. Committee for Conservation (ICOM-CC) v. 1. Paris: ICOM, 4-5. http://icom.museum/

study_series_pdf/1_ICOM-CC.pdf.

Deliperi, S. (2010). Stop alla speculazione edilizia a Villa Rey (Castiadas)! Gruppo dIntervento

Giuridico e Amici della Terra. http://www.patrimoniosos.it/rsol.php?op=getcomunicato&id=3984.

Edwards, P. (1777). Decalogo del restauratore. In Dal decalogo Edwards alla carta del Restauro.

Pratiche e principi del restauro dei dipinti, ed. V. Tiozzo. Padua: Il prato, 2001.

Edwards, P. (1798). Ristretto delle cose principali da prendersi in considerazione per la custodia dellepubbliche pitture. Commissione 1ogiugno 1798.

Erbani. (2006). La frana che sconvolse lItalia. La Repubblica extra (14

July 2006): 54. http://repubblica.extra.kataweb.it:80/edicola/repubblica/CheckSecurity.chk?

Action=Update&url=NZerbanix_9553947.html&data=20060714&giornale=repubblica.

Gazzola, P. (1964). Foreword. In The Monument for the man: Proceedings of the 2nd international

congress of architects and technicians of historical monuments, Venice, 25-31 May 1964. http://

www.international.icomos.org/publications/homme.htm.

GIU. See Gruppo dIntervento Giuridico.

Gruppo dIntervento Giuridico ONLUS. (2010). (blog). http://gruppodinterventogiuridico.blog.tiscali.it.

ICOM. See International Council of Museums.

ICOM-CC. See International Council of Museums Committee for Conservation.

International Council of Museums Conservation Committee. (2008). ICOM-CC Resolution

on Terminology English. http://www.icom-cc.org/54/document/icom-cc-resolution-terminology-

english/?id=744.

ICR. See Istituto Centrale del Restauro.

International Council of Museums. (1962). Resolutions adopted by ICOM's General Assembly 1962.

http://icom.museum/resolutions/eres62.html.

Istituto Centrale del Restauro. (1976). Piano pilota per la conservazione programmata dei beni culturali

in Umbria. Progetto esecutivo. Allegati I e II.Rome: TECNECO.

Istituto Centrale del Restauro. (1979). DIMOS. Fattori di deterioramento. Rome: ICR.

Istituto Centrale del Restauro. (1987). Per una carta del rischio del patrimonio culturale.Rome: Bonifica

italeco.

Kimmelman, M. (2010). As Rome modernizes, its past quietly crumbles. The New York Times (6 July

2010). http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/arts/design/07abroad.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1.

Koller, M. (1994). Learning from the history of preventive conservation. In Preventive conservation

practice, theory and research. Preprints of the contributions to the Ottawa congress, 12-16 September

1994, ed. A. Roy, and P. Smith. London: IIC, 1-7.

Lambert, S. (2008). Storia della conservazione preventiva. La formazione di una coscienza collettiva

(thesis). University of Urbino.

Lazzari, M. (1942). La protezione delle opere d'arte durante la guerra. In La protezione del patrimonio

artistico nazionale dalle offese della guerra aerea. Florence: Felice Le Monnier, v-x.

MiBAC. See Ministero per i beni e le attivit culturali.

Michalski, S. (2008). Social discount rate: modelling collection value to future generations, and

understanding the difference between short-term and long-term preservation actions. In ICOM-CC 15th

Triennial Conference, New Delhi, 22-26 September 2008 Preprints II, ed. J. Bridgland. New Delhi:

Allied Publishers, 751-758.

Ministero per i beni e le attivit culturali. (2004). Il Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio. Rome:

Ministry of Culture and Activities. http://www.beniculturali.it/mibac/export/MiBAC/sito-MiBAC/

MenuPrincipale/Normativa/Norme/index.html.

Neickel, C. F. (1727). Museographia oder Anleitung zum rechten Begriff un ntzlicher Anlegung der

Museorum, oder Raritren-Kammern [Museography or instructions for creating correct and useful


14/15


CeROArt, 6 | 2010

displays for museums or cabinets of curiosities], trans. (Italian) E. Giovannini, ed. M. Pigozzi, E. Giuliani

and A. Huber. Bologna: CLUEB, 2005.

Perrotta, A. (2004). Giovanni Urbani storico dellarte e direttore dellIstituto Centrale del Restauro. Un

profilo biografico e bibliografico (thesis). University of Naples, 181-190.

Plenderleith, H.J. (1978). Dr. Harold Plenderleith - his involvement in the field of art conservation. 170

pp. handwritten. (C. L. Sitwell, Interviewer) FAIC Oral History File, Winterthur Museum, Library, and

Archives.

Plenderleith, H.J. and P. Philippot. (1960). Climatology and conservation in museums. Museum XIII(4):242-289.

Rawlins, F.I.G. (1946). La conservation des tableaux dans les abris pendant la guerre. Quelques aspects

scientifiques du problme. Mouseion 55-56(1-2): 35-49.

Saunders, D. (1992). The National Gallery at war. In Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology III.

Symposium held April 27 - May 1, 1992, San Francisco, CA, USA, ed. P.B. Vandiver, J.R. Druzik, G.S.

Wheeler and I.C. Freestone. Pittsburgh: Materials Research Society, 101-110.

Settis, S. (2005). Battaglie senza eroi. I beni culturali tra istituzioni e profitto. Milan: Mondadori Electa.

Talley, K.Jr. (1999). The Delta Plan: a nationwide rescue operation. Museum International 51(1), 11-15.

Thomson, G. (1971). Conservation in the museums of the United Kingdom. Museum XXIII(2): 134-139.

Torraca, G. (2004). Intervista a Giorgio Torraca. gennaio 2004. In Perrotta, A. Giovanni Urbani storico

dellarte e direttore dellIstituto Centrale del Restauro. Un profilo biografico e bibliografico (thesis).University of Naples, 181-190.

Tosatti, V. (2003). I diversi tipi ti abusivismo edilizio. Corriere della Sera (25 September 2003). http://

www.corriere.it/speciali/2003/cronache/bruttaitalia/wwf/tipiabuso.shtml

UNESCO. (1967). Florence and Venice: Unesco opens world campaign Special issue. The Unesco

Courier(20).

Urbani, G. (1968). Il restauro e la storia dell'arte. In Intorno al restauro, ed. B. Zanardi. Milan: Skira.

2000, 15-18.

Urbani, G. (1971). Conservazione della natura e conservazione delluomo. In Giornale dell'Arte, ed. B.

Zanardi (2007). (266): 44-45.

Urbani, G. (1973). Problemi di conservazione. In Intorno al restauro, ed. B. Zanardi. Milan: Skira. 2000,

25-29.

Urbani, G. (1976). Piano pilota per la conservazione programmata dei beni culturali dell'Umbria. In

Intorno al restauro, ed. B. Zanardi. Milan: Skira. 2000, 103-112.

Urbani, G. (1977). Per un nuovo rapporto tra Istituto centrale del restauro e Soprintendenze. In Intorno

al restauro, ed. B. Zanardi. Milan: Skira. 2000, 113-119.

Urbani, G. (1990). La Carta: un inedito di Urbani. Il Sole 24 Ore, ed. A. Detheridge (29 June 1997): 36.

Zanardi, B. (1999). Introduzione. Le attivit di tutela dopo il 1963. In B. Zanardi, Conservazione,

restauro e tutela. 24 dialoghi. Milan: Skira, 9-52.

Zanardi, B. (2006). Conservazione programmata: bellissimo, ma un'utopia? Una conversazione tra

Bruno Zanardi e Rita Cassano. Il Giornale dell'Arte/dell'Architettura: Il rapporto Restauro 2006: 3-4.

Zanardi, B. (2007). Bellori, Maratti, Bottari e Crespi intorno al restauro. Modelli antichi e pratica di

lavoro nel cantiere di Raffaello alla Farnesina. Rendiconti, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei XVIII(2):205-285.

Pour citer cet article

Rfrence lectronique

Simon Lambert, Italy and the history of preventive conservation , CeROArt[En ligne], 6 | 2010,

mis en ligne le 18 novembre 2010. URL : http://ceroart.revues.org/index1707.html


15/15


CeROArt, 6 | 2010

Simon Lambert

Simon Lambert received his MSc in the Care of Collections (Cardiff University, United Kindgom)

with a dissertation on the carbon footprint of museum loans. He has a BA in Art History and

Italian literature (McGill University, Canada) and a Laurea in Paintings Conservation (University

of Urbino, Italy). Simon is currently engaged as a consultant for the International Centre for

the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, Rome (ICCROM). Contact:

[email protected]

Droits d'auteur

Tous droits rservs

Abstract / Rsum

Italy is a point of reference for the conservation community worldwide, but it has yet to make

a definitive leap towards preventive conservation. This paper examines some of the reasons

to explain this, in the hope that this may be useful for other countries. After a brief look at

the history of preventive conservation from Antiquity to the Second World War, two seldom-

discussed Italian initiatives are presented: The Franceschini Commission (1964) and the Pilot

plan for the programmed conservation of cultural heritage in Umbria (1976).

Keywords : Italy,ICR,environment,preventive conservation,history

LItalie est une reference mondiale dans le domaine de la conservation-restauration,

cependant, elle na toujours pas adopt la conservation prventive de faon dfinitive. Cet essai

tente dexaminer quelques raisons pouvant expliquer ce fait, dans lespoir que ces informations

pourront tre utiles pour dautres pays. Aprs un survol de lhistoire de la conservation

prventive de lAntiquit la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, deux initiatives peu connues sont

prsentes, savoir: la Commission Franceschini (1964) et le Plan pilote pour la conservation

programme des biens culturels en Ombrie (1976).Mots cls : ICR,Italie,environnement,conservation prventive,histoire

ndlr : Universit di Urbino Contact : Bruno Zanardi

lambert, s. italy history preventive conservation. 2010

Documents