4.2 The ‘baseline problem’

Finally, look at a question that the restoration thesis provokes: where should it stop? Should restoration be to perfection (whatever that might be) or just to how things were before? In the video below, Hatala Matthes introduces the ‘baseline problem’.

Download this video clip.Video player: Erich Hatala Matthes on the ‘baseline problem’

Show transcript|Hide transcript

Transcript: Erich Hatala Matthes on the ‘baseline problem’

ERICH HATALA MATTHES

Even if we grant that there's something to Elliot's concerns about the restoration thesis, that we can't just replace nature or things that have significance because of their history without losing something, we're faced with another question, right? So insofar as we think that there's some good that can come from restoration, even if we can't recreate a particular history exactly as it was, we're faced with this further question about to what historical point we should restore, for instance, a natural space.

And so this is often called the baseline problem. So what's our what's our baseline for restoration? Should we restore a particular natural space to the way it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 10,000 years ago? What's our baseline? What's our benchmark? What are we trying to achieve?

And the worry with the baseline problem is that any answer that we give is going to be arbitrary. Why choose one historical benchmark versus another, right? Because if we're going to pursue restoration for some reason, ecological damage, for instance, why not restore in a way that would try to remedy an even longer history of ecological damage?

And this can become particularly difficult when we start to think about natural spaces that have a history not just of Elliott's kind, not just of a natural history independent of humans, but also have an important human history, right? So one kind of case you might think about is a landscape that has a really complicated history that mixes natural history and cultural history. So you can imagine wilderness space that was then turned over to farmland, that then became used as a military base. And then the military base was decommissioned, and an effort was made to turn it into a wildlife refuge.

So then, clearly, restoration work is often going to be important in a military space, right? There's unexploded ordinance and other things that need to be cleaned up. And we're faced with this question, to what point do we restore this space? If we're endeavouring to turn it into a wildlife refuge, should we try to turn it all the way back to wilderness, right, so that it's a space for animals to flourish and perhaps for humans to visit? But erasing the military history, erasing the farming history that preceded the military history, or should we try to restore it in a way that tries to capture those historical periods as well as, that tries to tell those particular stories?

So the baseline problem is, I think, a really pressing problem for any kind of ecological restoration. But I think it's also a pressing problem for historic restoration concerning other kinds of objects, such as buildings. So when you have an historic building that's been damaged, and you're contemplating how to restore it, a similar kind of baseline problem arises. You might think, well, should we restore the building to the way it looked when it was first finished? Should we restore it to some later point that takes into account other aspects of its story?

So I think one thing that we're always going to have to keep in mind when it comes to restoration projects that deal with historically significant places is that history is ongoing. History is always marching forward and adding to the story of a particular space. So if we endeavour to restore a place to a particular historically benchmarked point in time, we have to be cognizant of the other aspects of its story, the other aspects of his history, that we might be ignoring or erasing or not telling the story of, through that restoration endeavour.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

End transcript: Erich Hatala Matthes on the ‘baseline problem’

Download

Erich Hatala Matthes on the ‘baseline problem’

As Hatala Matthes says, this is a real problem. Natural landscapes and historical buildings all have histories: why pick just one moment during that history and freeze the landscape or building then? Here are some thoughts on this from Jeremy Musson. Musson worked for many years for the National Trust, who constantly face issues raised by the baseline problem. As you will see, Musson proposes a solution to this which raises the whole issue as to whether exact restoration would ever be the right thing to do.

Download this video clip.Video player: Interview with Jeremy Musson

Show transcript|Hide transcript

Transcript: Interview with Jeremy Musson

DEREK MATRAVERS

Jeremy, in 1989, Uppark a 17th century house in Sussex, was at least partially destroyed by fire. And then it was mainly restored. Do you think there's any loss of value? So, I mean, are people now just getting a fake?

JEREMY MUSSON

I think the critical thing is that it was owned by the National Trust, who are a charity dedicated to the preservation of places of historic interest and natural beauty. They had a duty to look after the building and its contents. So when the fire comes, and destroys much of the physical fabric of the building, the contents the furnishings, paintings, textiles have been rescued, largely certainly from the ground floor, where most of the historic contents shown to the public were.

So when they made the decision to go back to the condition of the house on the day before the fire, they were doing that in order to recreate the right context for those historic works of art, many of which had been in that situation, and that setting, since the, certainly the 18th century, if not, in some cases, from when the house was built.

We also have to ask ourselves, what were their alternatives? Could they have left it as a smouldering ruin? Done nothing, and therefore no intervention. Therefore no opportunity to be considered as faking the historic building that has been damaged.

I think that would have caused widespread upset and distress. And it's always inevitable that you will have to go in and do something to that burnt out building. So as soon as you begin to intervene, you're then making those interventions that change the nature of the untouched historic building.

And finally, I think when you come to consider the restoration of a building like that, the intention was a good intention. It wasn't an intention to defraud any future visitor, that they actually encountering an untouched building. But it was a well reasoned, well discussed, well debated, and resolved intention to do what they could to take the building back to the condition it was.

And they also left critical markers. And I think this is an important thing. They left those places where you could still read the history of the fire. So largely, the floorboards of the principal ground floor are still left with burn marks. So anyone wandering around that building will spot these charred elements in the oak floorboards and be able to enter into a dialogue with the people showing them around about why there are evidence of burning.

Second thing is in the recreation of lost door cases, they left some of the carved elements unpainted so that they could be read as fresh recreations of lost works of carved art, if you like. Decorative art. As you go round, you could say, why is that like that? The answer is, because it's had to be recreated. Much of what you see has been recreated. But this has been left to explain to you, the visitor, that we are not the pristine original, but something that has been carefully crafted.

DEREK

So, you think that it's actually better that it's not restored to exactly how it was before?

JEREMY

I think it's absolutely vital that the message of restoration is clearly read somewhere in the building, and also in the texts that accompany the building. And they do that very well in Uppark. They still have in every room a photograph of that burnt out shell, which draws gasps from people coming into the room.

DEREK

And something like Carcassonne, which was restored, although I'm not sure how authentically, what do you think of that?

JEREMY

Well, it is, of course, of great interest in itself. It's certainly true, cause a huge number of Victorian churches, of course, were restored in much the same way the Carcassonne was. They are bought into their full, vigorous, Gothic glory. And they have a much longer life because they've been properly their roofs have been rebuilt, their towers have been rebuilt. And they're vigorously used to the purpose that they were great for, through the 19th century, at least.

But that is indeed why William Morris founded his Society of Protection of Ancient Buildings in 1877. It was a complete cry against the fakery that that represents. The recreating these golden ages on slender evidence. And yet, one has to put that against the fact that many of those churches were decaying away into sort of seedy, sprouting with vegetation on their roofs, you know.

So the people who were doing that work often thought they were really insuring the future life. But then they couldn't resist putting it back to its 13th century original character. And Morris was desperately upset about the loss of all that intervening handy-work, and the suggestion of past times and past care into those ancient medieval buildings. Whereas the most vigorous Gothic revival Victorian architect felt that what he was doing was delivering the same spirit of that original building, which is exactly what happened at Carcassonne as well.

End transcript: Interview with Jeremy Musson

Download

Interview with Jeremy Musson