Review of Viollet Le Duc's, William Morris' and John Ruskin's Views on Restoration/Conservation/Preservation

    In the early ages the motivation behind restoration was religious. Keeping the ancient building in their best shape was believed to maintain its divinity. Protection was the main idea rather than restoration, maintaining the basic needs of the edifice. Ascertaining the period, styles used in that period is a imperative decision, in order to ethically restore a building. Keeping the characteristics of the building is highly important. While restoring an edifice, it is also important to consider the structural stability of it since these structures would ideally be used and has to serve a certain purpose. The restoration process must start with determining a specific purpose for the building. Because, before starting any restoration project every aspect of the original and restorated version must be analyzed in detail. Any implementations or ornaments should be in accordance with the original structure in every aspect such as the material must be either the same or one with a similar property. For example new material must have similar durability, texture, strength, color, etc. 

    Eugene Emmanuel and Viollet Le Duc have been stating that restoration is needed for a building in order to maintain spirit, by increasing the lifespan of the building. They think the restorator must project the original architects visions as if they were working on the restoration of the project. Bur John Ruskin states otherwise, he does not encourage restoration if it includes any sort of change in the edifice. He highly encourages taking good care of the structure and maintain its well being whilst not making changes. He considers the restoration of a building to be killing its spirit, since the people who designed and constructed are to say what will happen to the structure and it is only their place to make any changes whatsoever. It is even considered to be a disrespectful act toward people who consider the structure to be monumental. The differentiation between this so called disrespect and ethical conservation must be decided by the local people who are involved with the building such as people living around the surrounding of the structure, people working in the structure, local architects, local engineers and local city planners. 

    Both parties have their rightful reasons and conclusions on ethical restoration. Many monumental structures must not be restored but preserved (as John Ruskin seeks) since they hold a moral value to them that should not be disrespected. How to differ ethical restoration from unethical restoration will always be a dilemma. There are many great examples on restoration projects that have resulted in the final project having its own character aside from the original structure. How to decide it this differentiation is unethical or insufficient when compared with the original version? Criticizing the structural aspects, architectural aspects is a valid criteria. Materials used in the stabilization process the or any ornament must be superior when compared with the old material. The material must be in accordance with the surrounding and it should be implemented correctly. The local craftsman should be included in the process since local materials are used by them the best.