Lev Klein: restoration theory and remakes

When I was a student, lectures on the restoration of archaeological objects were read by the old man V.N.Kononov. I read the old-fashioned way-set out the recipe for the recipe. He was recommended to precede the course of theoretical and ideological introduction. The next year, Kononov, having come to classes, pulled out a brochure with a reprint of the famous fourth chapter of the Stalinsky “short course” (“On Dialectical and Historical Materials”) and began a lecture as follows: “In his genial work, our great leader and the teacher say ...” Then the lecturer read the Stalin passage that there was a struggle between the growing, new, advanced, and advanced, and advanced, and advanced. decaying, dying. Then the lecturer completed the reading with his own conclusion: “This is our task just to prevent this dying for freeze.” Kononov was asked to read without a theoretical introduction.

Meanwhile, the theory of restoration is very important for archeology, art history and museum. Enough finds were most valued before, and antiquely sought to bring “spoiled”, dilapidated finds into proper appearance - they scraped the patina, cleaned the finds to shine, restored the missing details so that they differed as little as possible from the preserved so that the difference was invisible, etc. Even Michelangelo and Torvaldsen participated in such a restoration of ancient sculptures. In modern times, the principle of authenticity was proclaimed. It provides for the bringing of archaeological, architectural objects and in general objects of art to their former type and state. Most often, the matter comes down to the restoration of the former appearance, how much it lends itself to restoration.

The principle of authenticity implies a clear difference between restoration and reconstruction. The first means reliable bringing to the former appearance of the state and the mutual component of those parts that have been preserved; The second is the “return” to the object of the non -preserved parts, of course hypothetical (due to the absence or significant damage to the parts). In the limit (in extreme expression, in the absolute) reconstruction is a remake, scenery, props, a dummy.

Restoration looks like this. A broken vase must be glued from fragments so that its shape and mural content are visible. The fallen columns need to be raised and put on the preserved bases. Construction and other garbage must be removed.

Reconstruction pursues other tasks - clarity and suitability for practical needs. If some shards are lost, restoration gives an incomplete vase, and the details of the form will remain inaccurate, and even the mural content may completely slip away. However, it is possible to restore the missing shards only hypothetically: no matter how much they look like surviving, they are in any case made of other material and another master, at another time, and you can never vouch that there was no detail, a print, graffito, which is missing on the disappeared skull. In the statue, broken and missing nose and arms are subject to hypothetical restoration. But how they looked, one can only guess more or less believable.

Such a “return” of details is in no way connected with the restoration: it is really possible to make up for events and structures that have been preserved partially, in the methodological plan, is like a completely differential

not preserved phenomena. Both would mean either to perform theatrical performances, or try to return the past, repeating some actions. In a word, for a historian (unlike an archaeologist or architect), restoration has a completely different, not cognitive, but political meaning: the restoration of the Bourbons in France gave the name to a whole period of dominance of reaction -the period of restoration.

The theory of restoration should give the basis for solving the difficulties that arise in this case. First of all, it is necessary to decide exactly what moment of the history of the complex you need to save -the old ancient, ideologically optimal or most documented. Antiquities hunted precisely for the material remnants of antiquity, and it is natural that they sought to return things that appearance that they had in the ancient era. But before the ancient era was a very interesting primitive, and after the ancient - the Middle Ages, no less interesting. Schliemann considered it possible to demolish the Byzantine layers without special fixation, since they did not interest him, and even the upper layers of the ancient fortress destroyed mercilessly, believing that his heart is in the lowest layer, dear to his heart. But in fact, Ilion was in one of the upper ones!

Further, it is obviously clear that it is necessary to maintain the chosen moment in the complex: you can not imagine the Gothic cathedral with the romantic arches and the Renaissance turrets. It will turn out a monster far from any reality.

Unfortunately, we now have restoration (authentic preservation of historical and cultural monuments) with reconstruction, and reconstruction (restoration of the missing details) is replaced by a newspaper. In Moscow, this is the Iveron gate, the Red porch, Kazan Cathedral, the Trubetskoy house, the future hotel "Moscow", etc. In St. Petersburg, the new Holland is built, the reading rooms of the public (the National Library) and others are built, the unique “heavenly prospect” of the city center was eliminated. We live more and more in Flafaco Russia.

The last example of a glaring violation of restoration rules filed a leadership of the restoration of the Kursk station of the Moscow metro. At the finish of the station, the inscription "We were raised by Stalin to loyalty to the people ...". The inscription is not restored - it was completely demolished, so there is a remake. Why was this moment of the history of the station to recover? Of course, these are political incentives. If the collapse of the Soviet Union is regarded by the heights as a geological disaster, and Stalin is interpreted in standard textbooks not as the greatest villain, who brought the country to the brink of death, but as the most successful manager, then the leadership of the “restoration” was pleased to be fussed - and an inscription from the canceled anthem appeared.

The principle of complexity is also violated: then they would return the statue of Stalin before the inscription and the words “the name of L.M. Kaganovich” at the entrance!

I make an offer: to find an official whose signature is under the order on the return of the inscription, and oblige him to clear this place at his own expense. I'm afraid this proposal will not even be considered. After all, “restoration” in this case is not a museum and not architectural character, it is a restoration in a historical sense - a step towards the restoration period.