Scrape versus Anti-Scrape… Edits

Scrape versus Anti-Scrape… Edits

There are very few scholarly documents written on this topic, yet it remains “the” central theoretical polemic challenging preservationists and conservators to this day. The following edits are not intended to detract from the seminal writings, but rather to consolidate and summarize their ideas in a more accessible format for the student and practitioner of preservation.

—Esquibel, A.

(Background)1

          The UK of the19th century experienced a post-war revival lending to an ideal climate for the emergence of its Victorian era “industrial revolution.” Preservation history began in the UK with the restoring of medieval churches; a golden age spanning 1780-1880. Being that most English cathedrals were first erected during the Norman, or Early Gothic period, many had suffered significant deterioration from neglect and a lack of funding. During the 1820s, this became an opportunity for a government sponsored alliance, between the church and the state, to restore them as functioning relics of their cultural heritage by initiating the “Church Building Act.” Despite its good intentions, liberties and conjecture became an architectural practice plaguing these endeavors. In the sense that “authenticity” and “significance” were largely ignored for the sake of, what became known as, a revival movement coined the “unity of style” (specifically the Gothic style—seen as the physical embodiment of Christianity, and Nationalistic identity). Fortunately, this did not go unnoticed by the public, and was openly criticized by organizations such as London’s Society of Antiquaries (chartered in 1751)—considered the custodians of ancient monuments representing British culture at that time. One practice gaining prominent attention was the scarping of plaster off of building surfaces (including the historical frescos painted on them after the Gothic period). Evidently, the case for this was that the use of plaster on wall surfaces did not emerge until a century after the Gothic period had ended; therefore, considered to be an unorthodox representation of the Gothic style, lending to restoration work that almost always involved the unceremonious scraping of plaster to re-expose interior stonework; hence, the term “scraping” became synonymous with “restoration.” 

          On the opposing side of this polemic is “scrape’s” antithesis; “anti-scrape.” Initially coined in the late 1870’s by William Morris, the notion suggested by this term became fundamental to the ideology guiding the first organized model for preservation in the modern era; namely, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB, 1877). More immediately, anti-scrape became part of the preservation lexicon, arguing against revisionist work by suggesting that historic buildings should be left to their own demise. This appears to be the notion promoted in the aftermath of so many churches being modernized and restored (conjecturally) during this period of time—fostering the desire of critics and their acolytes to do neither in the end.

          In summary, scrape and anti-scrape stand at the centre of the century-long ideological struggle that started the preservation movement in late 19th-century England. To revise, restore, or do nothing; these strategies stand at the heart of this polemic. Torn between intervention methodologies, the question of how contemporary preservationists might engage this ideological dilemma, becomes paramount. As there are still those that call for the natural deterioration of a structure to run its course—without mitigation (the anti-scrapist)—and those that challenge their contemporaries by revising a structure to a state of conjecture (the scrapist), the question remains as to whether common ground can even exists somewhere between these extremes; perhaps what’s being suggested here, is a more rational, pragmatic approach that provides thoughtful compromises at seemingly “impossible junctures.” As will become apparent, strategies of intervention, allowing for moments where both the romantic theory of restoration (see Viollet-le-Duc below), and the picturesque ruin (see Ruskin below), can exist appropriately, and simultaneously as a “complex whole,” without the loss of “authenticity” and “significance.” The historical consciousness these tenets afford—in parallel with the historical artifacts that they constitute—are the two pillars of historical value which must be safeguarded regardless of how these polemics are being spun.

1 Editing sources:

_ Janet A. Null, 1985. “Restorers. Villains, and Vandals.” Association for Preservation Technology International (APT) 27-41.

_ Maximillian L. Ferro, 1985. “Scrape v. Antiscrape: A Modern American Perspective.” Association for Preservation Technology International (APT) 21-25.

The Polemic’s Founding Fathers

(The Revisionists)2 — early adaptive reuse (U.S., rehabilitation)

James Wyatt, architect (1746-1813)

          Wyatt’s intervention strategies at the Durham and Salisbury Cathedrals (amongst a pantheon of others) were to modernize these Gothic buildings to meet the needs of the day, whilst at the same time, taking the liberty to conjecturally assert his own notions of how they should have been designed, based on his own Georgian sensibilities; in effect, evoking a principle of preference rather than an equivalency of historical importance (as defined by the Gothic period in this case). His efforts were considered to be sacrilegious revisions, rather than restorations—in both the eyes of the public, as well as his critics. By erasing character defining features—to assert his own aesthetic—Wyatt’s work ostensibly diminished the significance of these relics of England’s heritage; earning his place in history as the first publicly acknowledged “scrapist.”

Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, architect (1814-79)

          In his book entitled, Entretiens, Le Duc openly discussed his use of the new materials and techniques of his time, as being the correct approach to so-called “restorations”; however, his discourse speaks paradoxically of capturing “the original style”—given the combination of restoration, reconstruction and intervention techniques used in his work, this notion of original style was subverted in its application. This became clearly evident by the level of conjecture he asserted in his work at the Romanesque church of La Madeleine (the Benedictine Abby of Vézelay in France); justifying his decision-making in this regard, by stating that, “…to restore a building is to re-establish it to a completed state which may never have existed at any particular time.” His dogmatic implication that the original style should have never existed to begin with, reveals the spirit of his work—rather than the questioning of his care and craft; which were of the highest order—amounting to nothing short of a revision, rather than a restoration of this Early Gothic relic of French heritage. Prosper Mérimée (1803-70), the noted French writer, archeologist, and historian, that had appointed Le Duc to this commission, defined restoration as, “…the conservation of that which exists and the re-creation of that with has definitely existed,” almost handing Le Duc the permission needed to validate his loose interpretation of a history that never existed. It’s notable then, that in practice, this approach has the potential to produce both irreversible damage to the original design, as well as fanciful misrepresentations of a building’s historical presence (which it did at Vézelay)—all in the name of restoration.

(The Restorationists)3,4 — same term in U.S. (restoration is interpretation; not re-creation)

According to the Cambridge Camden Society’s Charter (aka the “Ecclesiologists” after the name of their publication), the definition of restoration is, “…to revive the original appearance … lost by decay, accident, or ill-judged alteration.”

According to Italian art critic and historian Cesare Brandi (1906-88), “The objective of restoration is to re-establish the potential unity of the work of art, without committing artistic forgery or historical falsification and without obliterating the traces of the passage of time.”

Augustus Pugin,  architect  (1812-52)

          As a converted Catholic, Pugin’s pursuits in restoration were purely in religious alignment with the Gothic revival of the Victorian era; citing the moral philosophy and lifestyle of the Medieval (or Gothic) period as superior to that of the Neoclassical Renaissance; thus, as the founder of the Ecclesiologist movement, he preached the gospel of authenticity, and restoration in the Gothic style as their charter theme. In Pugin’s 1836 book entitled, Contrasts, he expresses his passionate outrage over James Wyatt’s work at Hereford Cathedral, stating, “I rushed to the cathedral; but horror! dismay! the villain Wyatt had been there, the west front was his.” After Wyatt’s death, Pugin’s response was, “All that is vile, cunning and rascally is included in the term Wyatt.” In Pugin’s own work (notably the interiors at the Palace of Westminster), his stylistic allegiance to the authenticity of his restorations in the Gothic manner was ever so clear in his assertion that, “…we need follow, not lead.” In other words, our interpretations are only valid insofar as we have respected our moral obligation to the masterpiece.

Sir Gilbert Scott,  architect (1811-78)

          In 1864, Scott wrote a practical guide entitled, “General Advice to Promoters of the Restoration of Ancient Buildings,” in which he expressed his preference to repair so as to retain the historical authenticity of old buildings; always guarding against the indulgence of individual fancies for/or against particular styles (i.e., the principle of equivalency rather than preference), all the while avoiding the purge of features subsequent to some favoured period—potentially rendering a building worthless as a historical document of its time.

           With this in mind, Scott seemingly contradicts himself by asserting, “As a building erected for the glory of God and the use of Man… and finding it in such a state of dilapidation that… the authentic and the spurious are alike decayed… I think we are then at liberty to exercise our best judgement upon the subject, and if the original parts are found to be ‘precious,’ and the late insertions ‘vile,’ I think we should be quite right in giving perpetuity to the one, and in removing the other.”

          First, and foremost, Scott’s approach to restoration recognized that a monumental building is fundamentally an historical document, and that its “additions” should be considered as significant, contributing elements of that document; secondly, he asserted that human needs may take priority over fidelity to the historical document (a compromise contradicting the spirit guiding this category of work); and thirdly, that conservatism should be central to the restoration strategy “…knowing that the greatest  danger in all restoration work is doing too much; and the greatest difficulty is knowing where to stop.”

3 Maximillian L. Ferro, 1985. “Scrape v. Antiscrape: A Modern American Perspective.” Association for Preservation Technology International (APT) 21-25.

4 Janet A. Null, 1985. “Restorers. Villains, and Vandals.” Association for Preservation Technology International (APT) 27-41.

(The Protectionists)5,6,7 — early conservation (U.S., preservation)

John Ruskin, art critic, writer (1819-1900)

          The most influential architectural critic of the Victorian era asserted, in his book, The Seven Lamps of Architecture,

“Neither by the public nor by those who have the care of public monuments, is the true meaning of the word restoration understood. It means the most total destruction which a building can suffer . . . a destruction accompanied with false descriptions of the thing destroyed… it is impossible, as impossible as to raise dead, to restore anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture.”

          Ruskin’s influence was the beginning of a movement in maintaining material authenticity; arguing that buildings should be left to look old, and that they gain their beauty only after four or five centuries of decay. Clearly, Ruskin suggested this notion in his chapter dedicated to the “Lamp of Memory,” asserting that,

“We cannot remember without [architecture]… [because architecture is] a conqueror of the forgetfulness of man.” “The greatest glory of a building is in its age…in that deep sense of voice-fulness…which we feel in the walls that have long been washed by the passing waves of humanity.”

          The thought being that the significance and authenticity of such memories can be more easily lost to technique, rather than to time; therefore, it is better—in his opinion— “…to let the building die, [rather] than to live as a fake.”

William Morris, designer, poet (1834-96)

          Father of the “Arts and Crafts” movement in the UK, Morris was the first secretary of SPAB, and one of the authors of its manifesto. He allied himself with Ruskin’s gospel, by advocating the notion of “protecting” heritage through conservation methods that would maintain the extant state of a building’s materials and methods of construction (though often deviating from these tenets for pragmatic reasons). Stating in a letter to the politically influential Athenaeum Gentlemen’s Club of London,

“Sir, my eye just now caught the word ‘restoration’ in the morning paper, and, on looking closer, I saw that this time it is nothing less than the minster [i.e., a cathedral; formerly used as a monastery] of Tewkesbury that is to be destroyed by Sir Gilbert Scott. Is it altogether too late to do something to save it [the Abby of Tewkesbury] – it and whatever else of beautiful or historical is still left to us on the sites of the ancient buildings we were once so famous for? … What I wish for, therefore, is that an association should be set on foot to keep a watch on old monuments, to protect against all ‘restoration’ that means more than keeping out wind and weather, and by all means, literary and other, to awaken a feeling that our ancient buildings are not mere ecclesiastical toys, but sacred monuments of the nation’s growth and hope.” After Scott’s death, Morris’ epithet was, “… that happily dead dog”!

5 Nikolaus Pevsner, Scrape and Antiscrape, The Future of the Past, New York 1976, p. 49.

6 Ibid., pp. 50-51.

7 Norman Tyler, Ted J. Ligibel, Ilene R. Tyler. 2009. Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

(The Pragmatists)8,9— the pragmatic truth is that the authentic past does not exist. If we replace, we lose historic fabric, but if we do not, we lose the true spirit and appearance of what was, in favor of the romantic notion of age and patina. 

Camillo Boito, architect (1836-1914)

          In 1883, Boito presented a document at the III Conference of Architects and Civil Engineers of Rome, known as the the Charter of Restoration (Prima Carta del Restauro), which established principles inspiring the restoration and conservation of monuments used in both the U.S., and abroad. Boito’s 1893 dialogues on historic monuments, developed these eight points for consideration in the restoration of historical monuments:

  1. Differentiate between the style of new and old parts of a building.
  2. Differentiate between new and old building materials.
  3. Minimize the need for new elements in a historical building.
  4. Exhibit any material components of a historical building that were removed during restoration.
  5. Inscribe a date, or a reference, to identify new materials in a historical building.
  6. Include a written narrative of the restoration work done on a monument.
  7. Photograph, describe and publish the different phases of restoration.
  8. Document evidence of the restoration work done.

          The objective here was to maintain the authenticity and identity of a building’s materials, whilst promoting a “scientific” approach to restoration. Boito’s principles have inspired modern legislation on the restoration of historical monuments in many countries, including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for preservation in the U.S.

8 “Wikipedia: Camillo Boito,” Wikimedia Foundation, last edited 1 January 2024, 19:30 (UTC), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camillo_Boito.

9 Maximillian L. Ferro, 1985. “Scrape v. Antiscrape: A Modern American Perspective.” Association for Preservation Technology International (APT) 21-25.