The first article centers on the historical preservation movement and its move towards professionalization. Historic preservation takes another change in face, because as the movement gains, men take over the field and push aside the women that helped start the field of preserving historic homes, such as Mount Vernon. The article focuses on the different viewpoints on the themes in the historic homes between men and women. The author shows that women in the field spotlight on a perspective called personalism, which focuses on the material culture and its relation to the people and the time and therefore was a more personal view of history. On the contrary, men tended to focus on the buildings and architecture from a particular time and place, rather than the people and stories inside.
Nolan’s article presents two different historic preservation houses, the Monticello and the Mont, to show two different ideas and philosophies on how to restore projects. Monticello, Jefferson’s house, is remodeled to a specific time period when Jefferson lived there in the early 1800s. The Monticello is rid of all of its recent additions and is restored with current methods to its previous state. One problem shown by the author is that the Monticello shows only one part of the houses history, which focuses on Jefferson, even though he did not reside in the house the longest. The other house, the Montpelier, at one point was the house of President Madison. The curator at the Montpelier does not restore the house, but instead preserves it in its current state. Therefore the house is described to have layers that allow for multiple stories to be told from each era the house has existed. One down side to this style of preservation the visitors complained about was they got confused to which part of the house was in which era, because the house is not broken up by period, and instead is scattered through the house.
I enjoyed how the articles examined the particular approaches in historic preservation. Lindgren directly stated that the appropriate approach was a balance between personalism and professionalism. Through the examples used, this conclusion made sense. The conflict between personalism and professionalism illustrated the need to utilize both approaches. Nolan's article was more fascinating, because he never directly said which approach was the best. Though opinions are expressed throughout the article, the author presented multiple responses to restoration and preservation. Their presentation of the approaches to historical preservation forced the reader to think about the differing approaches and see how their application affected different structures. Professor Koslow acknowledged her own struggle deciding which approach was best in class. Her conclusion that every instance was different and had to be approached as unique was a perfect conclusion to the readings.
ReplyDeleteI agree that each approach depends heavily on the circumstances, but it also has a lot to do with who owns it, and therefore the purpose for preserving or restoring the location. When the goal is to preserve a building, and not create a shrine, the method of preservation is obviously preferable. Now, asking which use of a historic building or site (preserve the building or create a shrine to its most "important" inhabitants is another question altogether.
ReplyDelete