Total Members Voted: 2
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Firstly, while preservation of the past is of itself a good thing, any future must inevitably mean some destruction of the past, and we have to be careful to balance our need to build a future with our desire to hold on to our past.
On the other hand, if the purpose of preserving the past is to learn from it, then any changes we make, even in the name of reconstruction, is actually to damage what is there.
Its only damage if it's not for the greater good.
The future is built on the foundations of the past and to lose that what we have now because some person feels it's better to keep something totally authentic is wrong in my opinion. Sometimes you have to be ruthless and if that means to prevent them from turning to dust and being lost to future generations we need to take drastic steps then in my mind so be it. If St Paul's, The houses of parliament or Buckingham palace was to start to fall apart we would do what was required to rebuild it. Paintings which are worse for wear are rejuvenated by using careful restoration techniques which includes new paint. In London we have many old buildings which have been rebuilt preserving the old stonework, beams etc and the elements which can't be saved and are beyond restoration are replaced with new parts which mimic the originals. Over time the new parts gain a history of their own. What's the difference, they should do the same to the major historic buildings from the past like the Parthenon.
Originally, various blocks were held together by elongated iron H pins that were completely coated in lead, which protected the iron from corrosion. Stabilizing pins added in the 19th century were not so coated and corroded. Since the corrosion product (rust) is expansive, the expansion caused further damage by cracking the marble. All new metalwork uses titanium, a strong, light, and corrosion resistant material.