The debate on values surrounding heritage conservation today has a come a long way from the romanticism of John Ruskin in the late 19^th century Britain, who was poetic and utopian in his description of values, “there was yet in the old some life, some mysterious suggestion of what it had been and of what it had lost” (Ruskin n.d.). While his disciple and author William Morris had famously defined it as “… anything which can be looked on as artistic, picturesque, historical, antique, or substantial: any work, in short, over which educated, artistic people would think it worthwhile to argue at all” (Anthem Press 2014). Notably, Morris’s definition implicitly limited the responsibility of conservation to experts as opposed to the common people. Not that these views are no longer relevant or are only of historical significance, but the nitty-gritty of conservation in a rapidly changing and industrializing world and its spread across diverse cultures and economies has led to a state of constant struggle within the conservation paradigm between the need to establish universal values and the need to contextualize. In the process, also underlining the importance of balancing these two impulses.

BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

The materials-based approach to conservation dominated through the early and mid-20^th century but in the latter half of the 20^th century it was increasingly realized that assessing and preserving the intangible elements of heritage was equally critical. The materials-based approach advocated maintaining the essence of a cultural object based on scientific intervention and craftsmanship. It also implied those possessing scientific knowledge, including conservation professionals, had the power to decide what to conserve and how. This, in turn, meant that the experts were exclusively deciding what constituted cultural significance.

The International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites popularly known as the Venice Charter, drawn up in 1964 by a group of conservation professionals, can be seen as a culmination of the materials-based approach. A brief summary of its key characteristics:

The Venice Charter adopts a “monumental” approach to architectural conservation;

It states that these monuments are “living witnesses to the age-old traditions”, thereby reinforcing the notion of “pastness” of time;

The Venice Charter maintains that restoration work should be undertaken only by specialists; and

It is of the view that conservation based on conjecture should be avoided (ICOMOS Charters, IKC).

Despite the landmark nature of the Venice Charter, in the second half of the 20^th century, a significant theoretical shift in the field of conservation was already evident as intangible characteristics of objects, their significance for individuals and groups became an important aspect of conservation work. Today, considering an object’s significance to different stakeholders and the inclusion of those stakeholders in decision-making has become integral to the conservation process. The feelings, meanings, and cultural significance attributed to objects are referred to as values. They are assigned by society for reasons both tangible and intangible.

The values-based approach has been recognized as the dominant theoretical model or paradigm in heritage conservation since the turn of this century and continues to be the most preferred approach advocated by conservation authorities, both at the national and international levels, and by research and educational institutions. “It involves preserving objects with the understanding that multiple stakeholders attribute values to objects” (O’Connor, Williams and Durrant 2013). The approach may be broadly defined as “the coordinated and structured conservation of a heritage object or site with the primary purpose of protecting the significance of the place” as “determined through an analysis of the totality of values” (a value is ‘a set of positive characteristics or qualities’) that society consisting of various stakeholder groups (a stakeholder group is ‘any group with legitimate interest in the site’) attributes to this object or site (Poulios 2010). It, however, needs to be emphasized that this approach continues to be explored and interpreted in different ways across the conservation spectrum.

INTERPRETATION OF VALUES IN CONSERVATION

After Ruskin and Morris, Austrian Art Historian Alois Riegl attempted to systematically classify values in terms of: (I) Commemorative values (values of the past) comprising: (a) Age value; (b) Historic value (singles out a moment in the past); and (c) Intentional commemorative value (aims to preserve a moment in the consciousness of later generations) & (II) Present-day values comprising (a) Use value (associated with practical use or function); and (b) Art value (associated with artistic appreciation). He suggests that there are instances in which different values can coexist within the same work and others in which they may clash. In a different perspective on the significance of values, French architect and author Violett-le-Duc emphasized (late 19^th century) architectural perfection and a sense of (stylistic) completion to achieve the value (could be imagined) inherent in the object at the time of creation. He stressed function over a particular style – ‘form follows function’ – and the use of new materials “wisely” in restoration (Barassi 2007). Violett-le-Duc’s views were in marked contrast to the views of Ruskin and Morris as he proposed that authenticity could be imagined.

‘English Heritage’, a registered charity that manages the U.K.’s ‘National Heritage Collection’, has comprehensively classified values as based on both objective criteria (Evidential, Historical) and subjective in nature (Communal, Aesthetic).  The Evidential value (a) relates to the potential of the place to yield primary evidence about human activity; and (b) resides in the actual remains or ‘genetic lines’ that have been inherited from the past. The Historical value (a) relates to the ways in which the present can be connected through a place to past people, events and aspects of life; (b) tends to be illustrative or associative; and (c) depends upon direct experience of elements that have survived from the past, but it is not as easily diminished by change or partial replacement as evidential value. The Aesthetic value (a) can be a result of the conscious design of a place; (b) artistic endeavor; or (c) the way in which a place has evolved (has been used and valued over time). While the communal value relates to the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, and whose collective experience or memory it holds; and includes (a) commemorative or symbolic values; (b) social values (these are comparatively less dependent on the survival of the historic fabric); and (c) spiritual values (Piplani 2018). This recognition of ‘communal value’ has led to a push for growing community participation in conservation efforts.

The Conservation Manual for Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) by Sir Bernard Fielden, emphasizes the functional significance of values. According to this manual, the values help to set priorities in deciding proposed interventions, as well as to establish the extent of and nature of individual treatment. It classifies the values assigned to cultural property under three major headings:

1. Emotional values: (a) wonder; (b) identity; (c) continuity; and (d) spiritual and symbolic.
2. Cultural values: (a) documentary; (b) historic; (c) archaeological, age and scarcity; (d) aesthetic and symbolic; (e) architectural; (f) townscape, landscape and ecological; and (g) scientific and technological.
3. Use values: (a) functional; (b) economic; (c) social; and (d) political (Fielden 1987).

… to be continued, Bibliography at the end