D’ANGELO – The best hope is to foster a more effective coexistence among those involved in conservation and protection, by increasing attention and energy. It is not about softening the liveliness of the debate, but about keeping it constant.
Society continuously and in various ways seeks itself in art, culture, and the environment. This is why we must preserve what is considered part of the heritage but without confusing conservation with conservatism by encouraging research and without longing for a single model or the unification of viewpoints. Only by allowing continuity within cultural pluralism, with respect for the historical life of the work, the monument, and the environment, with their respective layers, can we avoid distortions, confusion, and impoverishment.
Naturally, general principles must be calibrated to different sectors and scales. A painting is quite different from a building, just as a building differs from a square or a historic center. Shifts in scale can upset even the best intentions, and many contradictions clearly visible in historic cities—have long been understood as challenges that must be addressed with great pragmatism.
We must let go of those theoretical surrogates which, justified by the increased sensitivity of modern times and by the expanded scope and scale of conservation, have attempted at all costs to treat different pathologies across varying scales and subjects with unified diagnoses and therapies. “To be modern is to know what is no longer possible,” said Roland Barthes. Too often, the expressive potential of a work has been reduced to a single, impoverished reality one that no longer allows us to recover it, either visually or mentally.
If function can contribute to the survival of a work especially when the work was designed to function, as in the case of a building, a book, or a weapon—it can also lead to its demise when imposed upon painting, sculpture, decorative arts, or, through poor design choices, everything else. In historic cities, however, the absence of function is always fatal.
We must reaffirm without hesitation the prerogatives of the document and its testimonial power—something that science may one day exponentially increase. Thanks to parish archives and the history of two families, the gene responsible for Alzheimer’s disease has just been identified. Who knows what we might be able to read in the future by cross-referencing old and new data—if we have the foresight to preserve documentary sources…

CRUCIANI – How can we say that the historical perspective should be prioritized over the aesthetic one?

D’ANGELO – I believe the problem can no longer be framed in these terms. This antithesis now belongs to the history of conservation and restoration, but its true origin lies in an idealist dialectical framework that has been repeated far too often.
First of all, let us clarify that a work, a building, or a site once recognized as being of significant historical and artistic interest is a subject to be respected, not a candidate for practical testing of critical and theoretical hypotheses, which by their nature are neither stable nor universal.

CRUCIANI – Are you speaking of pure conservation and conservative restoration?

D’ANGELO – I would no longer speak of pure or impure conservation—that is, of positions opposed or favorable to the coexistence of the old with the new—but rather of a design culture of conservation.
The antagonism and competition between extreme hypotheses, aside from some brilliant linguistic syntheses, generally do not allow for the most reasonable choices to be made for the subject to be safeguarded, which always possesses its own specific peculiarities.
Moreover, many formal if you will, aesthetic hypotheses can now be virtually tested. The most renowned archaeological sites in Rome have been reconstructed in this way; they can, in some sense, be seen and walked through. But who would ever dream of actually rebuilding them?

CRUCIANI – Perhaps due to the many destructions, there is often a return to talk of reconstruction à l’identique. (1)

D’ANGELO – Before proceeding—from the simplest maintenance work to the most exciting exercises in anterior writing—the practitioner would find great help in rereading Borges’ “Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote.” A very short story that lends itself to frequent rereading.

CRUCIANI – What do you mean when you speak of a “design culture of conservation”? Professional updating, scientific rigor, or a theorization on a case-by-case basis?

D’ANGELO -No culture progresses without science. To better preserve historic architecture, for example, it is essential to develop diagnostics and structural reinforcement techniques. But conservation is not a science—its practice can be partially scientific, through laboratory and on-site experience. However, awareness, dialogue, comparison, and decision-making require a broad cultural foundation and behavior grounded in ethics. In order to preserve and pass on, a strongly ethical culture of design for humanity is needed—from the smallest artifact to the built and formalized environment. A conservation project should not present itself as an interventionist execution, but rather as a thoughtful proposal aimed at keeping the historic work or building alive for as long as possible, in harmony with its identity and, as far as possible, with the present if that helps to preserve it. In the spirit of continuity, in dialectical relationship with history, the project may theoretically include the new, or foresee simple maintenance or even non-intervention.
Case studies, with all their singularities, are a fundamental point of reference. Yet randomness and the lack of cultural and ethical foundations do not allow for the establishment of principles and rules, even if for some time there has been talk of “case-by-case” approaches and methodologies. It would be like having to reinvent medical science every time a new pathology appears. Rather, the specificity of each case reinforces the originality and pragmatism of the project and, consequently, its necessity.

CIARDI DUPRE’ – In the meantime, I can speak of a need that has emerged from much reflection on my field and also from this conference, which has brought together many different aspects of restoration. Even just considering this afternoon alone, we moved from seismic issues to those of engineering and book restoration.
Then, had they participated in the discussion and I hope they will arrive we would have also touched on issues related to medieval archaeology. This shows the breadth of the topic and the necessity of constantly engaging with new fields.
We saw the issue of the Jordanian settlements, which is an archaeological issue, but also one that differs greatly from many other areas of archaeological research and conservation-based restoration.
There are methodological issues, and philosophical explorations of what restoration and conservation really mean two rather unfortunate words, actually, considering the richness that lies beneath them: micro-histories, macro-histories.
So, I share my thought here: I feel the need to continue along this path as a conclusion to these three days, which have deepened so many areas. There are many choices to be made, and I hope that, in the third International Conference on Restoration, much more space will be given to the so-called minor arts.

(1) As it 

(2) (Rc)writing or (re)constructingll1