|
|
ix | |
Preface and acknowledgements |
|
xi | |
|
|
xv | |
|
1 Context: people and change in conservation |
|
|
1 | (39) |
|
1.1 Beating the bounds: the scope of the argument |
|
|
2 | (15) |
|
The question of living buildings |
|
|
3 | (4) |
|
Fixity, fluidity, and the problem of change |
|
|
7 | (4) |
|
|
11 | (4) |
|
Framing conservation as applied ethics |
|
|
15 | (2) |
|
1.2 Conservation as `making' and `keeping' |
|
|
17 | (10) |
|
Conservation, preservation, and monuments |
|
|
18 | (3) |
|
Significance and values in the contemporary conservation framework |
|
|
21 | (4) |
|
|
25 | (2) |
|
1.3 Wider heritage concerns |
|
|
27 | (5) |
|
|
27 | (2) |
|
Agency and material vitality |
|
|
29 | (3) |
|
1.4 Structure of the book |
|
|
32 | (8) |
|
2 Modernity: conservation, discontinuity, and the past |
|
|
40 | (39) |
|
2.1 The development of conservation |
|
|
40 | (6) |
|
|
40 | (5) |
|
|
45 | (1) |
|
2.2 Modernity and the past |
|
|
46 | (4) |
|
2.3 But is it art? - non-aesthetic interpretation |
|
|
50 | (5) |
|
Romantic and classical approaches to hermeneutics |
|
|
52 | (1) |
|
|
53 | (2) |
|
|
55 | (24) |
|
Cultural landscape and the palimpsest |
|
|
55 | (5) |
|
|
60 | (5) |
|
Case study: Carlo Scarpa, William Morris, and the Castelvecchio, Verona |
|
|
65 | (1) |
|
|
65 | (7) |
|
|
72 | (2) |
|
|
74 | (1) |
|
|
75 | (4) |
|
3 People: community, language, and power |
|
|
79 | (45) |
|
3.1 Where are the people? |
|
|
79 | (20) |
|
Experts, universalism, and the local |
|
|
80 | (3) |
|
|
83 | (4) |
|
The uses of intangibility |
|
|
87 | (3) |
|
|
90 | (4) |
|
|
94 | (3) |
|
|
97 | (2) |
|
|
99 | (25) |
|
|
102 | (3) |
|
|
105 | (5) |
|
Hase study: St Alkmund, Duffield, and the ecclesiastical exemption |
|
|
110 | (1) |
|
Parish churches and the Faculty jurisdiction system |
|
|
110 | (3) |
|
The case of St Alkmund, Duffield |
|
|
113 | (3) |
|
Critiquing the original judgment |
|
|
116 | (3) |
|
Justification and enhancement |
|
|
119 | (1) |
|
|
120 | (1) |
|
|
121 | (3) |
|
4 Tradition: change and continuity |
|
|
124 | (25) |
|
4.1 Modernity, tradition, and continuity |
|
|
124 | (6) |
|
Tradition and conservatism |
|
|
125 | (2) |
|
|
127 | (3) |
|
|
130 | (10) |
|
|
130 | (5) |
|
|
135 | (3) |
|
|
138 | (2) |
|
|
140 | (9) |
|
|
140 | (3) |
|
The vitality of tradition |
|
|
143 | (2) |
|
|
145 | (4) |
|
5 Narrative: time, history, and what happens next |
|
|
149 | (25) |
|
|
149 | (5) |
|
|
149 | (3) |
|
|
152 | (2) |
|
|
154 | (8) |
|
|
155 | (2) |
|
|
157 | (3) |
|
Community and the fitness of narrativity |
|
|
160 | (2) |
|
5.3 The relevance of narrative for conservation |
|
|
162 | (12) |
|
|
162 | (3) |
|
Benefits of the narrative model |
|
|
165 | (4) |
|
|
169 | (5) |
|
6 Application: the narrative approach to conservation |
|
|
174 | (37) |
|
6.2 Questions of principle |
|
|
175 | (8) |
|
|
175 | (2) |
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
|
178 | (2) |
|
|
180 | (3) |
|
6.2 Questions of everyday practice |
|
|
183 | (8) |
|
|
183 | (3) |
|
|
186 | (2) |
|
|
188 | (1) |
|
|
189 | (2) |
|
6.3 Questions of meta-practice |
|
|
191 | (9) |
|
|
191 | (3) |
|
|
194 | (1) |
|
|
195 | (4) |
|
|
199 | (1) |
|
6.4 Compatibility with tradition |
|
|
200 | (11) |
|
Case study: The SCARAB Manifesto |
|
|
205 | (1) |
|
|
205 | (2) |
|
The text of the Manifesto |
|
|
207 | (1) |
|
|
207 | (1) |
|
Ancient buildings exude Life |
|
|
207 | (1) |
|
Ancient buildings expect Change |
|
|
208 | (1) |
|
Ancient buildings embody Tradition |
|
|
208 | (1) |
|
Ancient buildings form Community |
|
|
209 | (2) |
|
7 Conclusion: conservation `as if people mattered' |
|
|
211 | (9) |
|
|
211 | (2) |
|
|
213 | (3) |
|
Hybridity and the via media |
|
|
216 | (4) |
Index |
|
220 | |