Műemlékvédelem, 2004 (48. évfolyam, 1-6. szám)

2004 / Különszám - LECTURES - PRESENTATIONS - Fejérdy Tamás: Who wanted it? What is the Charter? ...and today?

not on law, but on an ethical/moral commit­ment! If we compare it with an earlier ex­ample that also dealt with the international protection of cultural assets, the Hague Con­vention of 1954, then we can state that the latter is an agreement of international law with full legal force, which has binding power in every respect for the counties that have ratified it. Serious sanctions can be the result of its violation - at least according to its text. The framers of the Venice Charter naturally were familiar with the Hague Convention, since UNESCO had the same prominent role in this agreement’s enforcement as it did in the creation of the Venice Charter and ICOMOS. We could even conclude from this that it might have been worthwhile to for­mulate the Venice Charter in a similar man­ner and form, ergo as an international con­vention. But this did not happen, and it is probably for the better that it didn’t. Since any country or community that does not want voluntarily to provide the sites imbued with their society’s identity, their historic monu­ments, with the best preservation possible will not be moved to do so by any external compulsion. The World Heritage Convention of 1972 takes this one step further, making the appreciation and mutual, but voluntary, preservation of humanity’s collective heri­tage its goal, although it does also carry in­ternational legal commitments in its content. These, however, follow the soft law example of the Venice Charter, instead of the Hague Convention. The Charter, consequently, is not a le­gal regulation - although nor is it an ethi­cal codex — at least not in the sense that we generally tend to use this term. Never­theless, more than in other fields, there is an ethical nature to conservation and res­toration that is mentioned more and more often and openly. The Charter, while rather brief, contains in its component parts and in what can be inferred from it. The text is concise and flexible, certain concepts were employed without being defined, which is probably the case because it was made possible by its great, breakthrough predecessor, the Athens Charter, which it replaced. The Charter is not a handbook, although nor is it a collection of dogmas. It does not contain a formula or recipe for resolving every possible conservation or restoration problem, but those who would like to justify their prin­ciples and solutions through an “applicable” quote from the Charter are often disap­pointed. The Charter generally and in theory de­fines the most important principles and guidelines. The original meaning of the word ‘Charter’ in both of ICOMOS’s working lan­guages means a document with legally bind­ing content, which grants rights or privileges to a group of people or other community. The Venice Charter is not like this, although it does rightfully bear the title Charter, be­cause it also grants rights and privileges, the vital rights and privileges of historic monu­ments and sites! ...and today? After forty years do we still have a need for the Venice Charter, or is it finally time for it to be reformed or replaced, or is it possible that there is no need for any document of this type? Let’s look at it from the standpoint of the four major topics for­mulated during the preparations for its draft­ing: Are the definitions of historic monument and their historic value still valid? The ar­ticles of the Charter in some cases contain precise definitions and in others they are rather ambiguous. In its essence it contains every element that allows for the inclusion of so-called new categories of monuments within the realm of historic monuments. It certainly does not deal with the concept of cultural heritage; this is not a deficiency of the Charter, but precisely its strength. Since naturally historic monuments also belong within the wider classification of cultural heritage, but as an individual category, not amalgamated into the latter. It would be a big mistake to consider historic monuments and cultural heritage as meaning one and the same thing. The phrase ‘historic monument’ should retain the definition provided for it in the Charter, wisely avoiding the taxing enumeration of its sub-categories. Articles 4 and 5 of the Charter deal with the relationship between historic monuments and modern society, but it does not contain the catch phrases and concepts that have come into use in the last forty years. It does not mention financing, management, educa­­tion/training, or among many others the is­sue of tourism. Nevertheless, it contains the essence of concepts that we now define with words like ‘integrated’ and sustainable. It is

Next