Volume 9, Issue 1 (6-2026)                   KCR 2026, 9(1): 16-25 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Rastegar Zhaleh S. Analysis and Criticism of Ethical Principles in Contemporary Theory of Monument Conservation with a Deconstructive Approach. KCR 2026; 9 (1) :16-25
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/kcr/article-1-268-en.html
Art University of Isfahan
Abstract:   (680 Views)
The idea behind the principle of sustainability - which has shaped the entire body of contemporary conservation ethics- is to consider future users when making decisions and interventions. This principle tries to prevent extreme decisions based on taste and prejudice or interventions based on current knowledge. Ethical principles such as "reversibility" and "least intervention" have been shaped by different theoretical approaches and are widely used in conservation literature today. However, these fundamental principles, as influential variables in ethical and technical decision-making, have become a subject of debate and criticism in contemporary conservation thought. The aim of the present study is to address these criticisms from the perspective of sustainability in contemporary conservation by using the method of "deconstruction". Deconstruction is a critical thinking that examines variables in detail with the aim of showing gaps and contradictions. Having a critical approach means examining the causal relationships of issues and revealing what has remained hidden. Therefore, deconstruction does not want to destroy the truth, but rather restores it. Therefore, this research aims to reveal challenges such as the "subject of conservation", "reasons", "objectives" and "method" that have made the ethical principles of conservation contradictory, opaque and sometimes impossible, and also to criticize and deconstruct the principles that were accepted as axiomatic and unquestionable in classical conservation, trying to denaturalize what has always been natural. The present study has gone to the deconstructionist approach in order to examine the criticisms because it believes that with the deconstructionist approach, firstly, the real thing or, in other words, the "thing in itself" in the sense of pure truth, independent of human perception and senses, does not exist; secondly, theorists such as Marcuse (1988) and Nietzsche (1992) believe that what is known as truth within a culture is a form of communication and social peace contract between people. All moral standards are created by specific conditions (such as culture) and are solely related to these conditions. In this thinking, awareness of indeterminacy and uncertainty is the most real characteristic and truest characteristic of cultural and artistic phenomena. An issue in which moral standards and valuation do not remain in the monopoly of fixed principles and predetermined functions and roles and do not accept a fixed definition, but rather act as a fluid and changing factor in their cultural and situational context. The result is that contemporary ethics, with greater flexibility. Ethics are not applied as static and mechanical principles at the time of intervention, but are prepared to face unpredictable behavior by "adaptation" and "compatibility" and are considered as added values, that is, they are not mandatory in any case and can be ignored depending on the circumstances. Ethical principles and criteria such as minimal intervention, reversibility in interventions, similarity of materials and conservation techniques to the original part.
Full-Text [PDF 190 kb]   (173 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research, Original, Regular | Subject: Conservation and restoration of historical-cultural architectural objects and decorations.
Received: 2025/07/11 | Accepted: 2026/06/20 | Published: 2026/08/10

References
1. Ali Akbari, H.; Ramezani, H. (2012). A study of the theoretical foundations of decision-making based on Islamic ethics. Islamic Management. 20 (1). 174-149. (In Persian).
2. Aminpour, A. Abbasi Harofteh, M. (2011). The principle of least intervention, the challenge facing conservation interventions in cultural heritage. Discovering and explaining the shortcomings and shortcomings of the aforementioned principle with a theoretical approach to the existing opinions in this field. Restoration of historical and cultural textures. Issue 1. 82-69. (In Persian).
3. Avrami, E; Mason, R & De La Torre, M (2000), Values and Heritage Conservation, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
4. Ayer, A.J. (2002), Language, Truth & Logic, First Edition, London: Penguin Books. Brans JP (2002). Ethics and decision. European Journal of Operational Research, 136:340–352.
5. Basiri, S. Vatan-Doost, R. Emami, M. A. Ahmadi, H (2014). Historical and ideological course of cultural heritage protection from the perspective of the conceptual position of integrity (integrity). Islamic Studies: History and Culture. Serial number 92. 108-85. (In Persian).
6. Benehvalo, L. (1998), History of Modern Architecture, translated by Hassan Nayyar Ahmadi, Volume Two, Nayyarsan Consulting Engineers, Tehran. (In Persian).
7. Bradley, A (2008). Derrida’s of Grammatology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
8. Brandi, c. (1986). Theory of restoration, translated by cykthia Rockwell, Istituto Centeraleper il estauro, nardini editore.
9. Capel, C (2004), Conservation Skills: Judgment, Method and Decision Making, Routledge, New York.
10. Clark, K. (2000). From regulation to participation: Cultural heritage, sustainable development and citizenship. Forward planning: The functions of cultural heritage in a changing Europe, 113.Volume 117. 103-110.
11. Clavir, Miriam.1998. (THE SOCIAL AND HISTORIC CONSTRUCTION OF PROFESSIONAL VALUES IN CONSERVATION). Studies in conservation, Volume 43, Number 1.
12. Corfield, M., (1988), The Reshaping of Archaeological Metal Object: Some Ethical Considerations, Antiquity, 62, 235, 261-265.
13. Cosgrove, D.E. (1994). Should we take it all so seriously? Culture, conservation and meaning in the contemporary world”, in: Wolfgang E. Krumbein, Peter Brimblecombe, Denis E.Cosgrove and Sarah Staniforth (eds.), Durability and change: the science, responsibility, and cost of sustaining cultural heritage, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp. 259-266.
14. Cosgrove, D.E. Hastie, L.C.(2001). Conservation of threatened freshwater pearl mussel populations. (river management, mussel translocation and conflict resolution). Volume 99, Issue 2.
15. Dann, N., Cantell, T., (2007), Maintenance in Conservation. In Understanding historic building conservation, edited by M. Forsyth, Blackwell, Oxford
16. De La Torre, M. (2013). Values and heritage conservation. Journal of Heritage and Society, 60(2), 155-165.
17. Fadaei Nezhad, S. Eshrati, P. (2014). Analysis of Authenticity Recognition Components in Cultural Heritage Conservation. Journal of Fine Arts, Architecture and Urban Planning, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp. 77-86. (In Persian).
18. Feilden, Bernard. M. 2003.Conservation of Historic Building. third edition. Oxford: Architectural Press
19. Forsyth, M., (2007), The Past is the Future. In Understanding historic building conservation, edited by M. Forsyth, Blackwell, Oxford.
20. Freundlg, H. (2010). (To Restore or Not Restore? The Never-Ending Controversy Over Art’s Integrity Vs). The Preservation of Cultural Heritage.
21. Guidance for World Heritage Properties, preparation of Retrospective Statement of utstanding Universal Value, 2010.
22. Habibi, M., Maqsoudi, M. (2015). Urban Restoration; Definitions, Theories, Experiments, Publications and Global Resolutions, Urban Methods and Actions. Tehran: University of Tehran. (In Persian).
23. Jokilehto, J. (1999).A Century of Heritage Conservation. Journal of Architectural Conservation5(3): 14-33. (In Persian).
24. Jokilehto, J. (2006). Considerations on authenticity and integrity in world heritage context, City & Time No.2
25. Kant, A. (1980). Foundations of the Metaphysics of Ethics, translated by Hamid Enayat and Ali Qaysari, Tehran, Kharazmi Publications. (In Persian).
26. Kant, A. (2006). Critique of Practical Reason, translated by Insha'Allah Rahmati, Tehran: Noor al-Thaqalayn. (In Persian).
27. Lacoste, J. (2011). Philosophy of Art. Translated by Mohammad Reza Abolghasemi. Tehran: Mahi Publishing. (Persian translation, 2011).
28. Lowenthal, D. (1998). Fabricating Heritage. History and Memory. 10(1). 5-24.
29. Lyotard, J. F. (2005). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Translated by: Hossein Ali Nozari, Tehran: Gam No Publishing House. (In Persian).
30. Mahmoudi, S. A. (2004) Kant's Political Philosophy, Tehran, Negah Moaser Publishing. (In Persian).
31. Marcuse, H (1934). Reason and Revolution · Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory. translated by Mohsen Salasi. Tehran: Noghreh. (Persian translation, 1934).
32. Mason, R. & Avrami, E. (2000). Heritage values and challenges of conservation planning. In J.M. Teotonico and G. Palumbo, Management Planning for Archeological Sites: An International Workshop Organised by the Getty Conservation Institute and Loyola Marymount University (pp. 13-26). Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute.
33. Mason, R; David, M & Delatorre, M (2003), Port Arthur historic site management Authority a case study, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angless.
34. Matero, F. (2000). Ethics and policy in conservation. Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter, 15(1), 5–9.
35. McGilvary, D. (1988). raisins versus vintage wine. Calvert and Galveston, taxas. In Adaptive Reuse: Issues and Case Studies in Building Preservation. 3-17.
36. Michalski, S. (1994). A systematic approach to preservation: description and integration with other museum activities, Preventive conservation: practice, theory and research.
37. Mirniam, A. and Ahmadi, H. and Piravi-Vank, M. (2017). Conservation and Cultural Heritage from the Perspective of Culture, a Critical Approach. History and Culture. Serial No. 98. 82-61. (In Persian).
38. Mitchell, Nora J. (2008). Considering the Authenticity of cultural landscapes, APT Bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 2/3.
39. Mogharabi, N. (2017). Review and criticism of the book Ethics of Science; Ethics of Science as a branch of the sociology of science. Critical Research on Humanities Texts and Programs. 17 (5). 254-229. (In Persian).
40. Mosleh, A. A. Khanghah, M. P. (2011). Deconstruction as a Strategy. Metaphysics. 3 (12 and 11). 72-59. (In Persian).
41. Munoz Vinas, S. (2009), Minimal Intervention Revisited. In Conservation: Principles Dilemmas and -Uncomfortable
42. Munoz Vinas.S. (2005). Contemporary theory of conservation. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. (In Persian).
43. Nezaratizadeh, M.; Vatandoost, R. (2022). Recognizing authenticity in the protection and restoration of historical and cultural monuments based on the opinions of scholars in the 19th and 20th centuries. Iranian Architectural Studies. No. 22. 254-237. (Persian translation, 2021).
44. Nietzsche, F. (1969). On the Genealogy of Morals, Ecce Homo, ed, trans. Kaufmann, Walter, New York.
45. Nietzsche, F. (2011). The Thing-in-Itself and Appearance in: A Critique of the Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Mohammad Mehdi Ardebili. Tehran: Bidgol. (Persian translation, 2011).
46. Omid, M. (1998). Comparison of Motahari's and Kant's epistemology. Tehran: Elm Publishing. (In Persian).
47. Pye, E. (2001). Caring for the Past; Issues in Conservation for Archaeology and Museums; Jams and Jams
48. Rahimzadeh, M.R. Najafi, M. (2010). The position of understanding the intrinsic values of historical monuments in the process of their restoration. Collection of papers of the first national conference on recognizing and introducing the advantages and capacities of restoration and exploitation of historical sites. Publishers: Samira and the Fund for the Restoration and Exploitation of Historical and Cultural Sites: Tehran. (In Persian).
49. Rauderad, A. (2003). Sociological Theories of Art and Literature. Tehran: University of Tehran. (In Persian).
50. Riegl, A. (1982). The modern cult of monuments: Its character and its origin. Oppositions 25, 21-51.
51. Seeley, N. (1999). Reversibility, does it exist? Oddy, Andrew, ed. London: British Museum.
52. Staniforth, S., (2010), Slow Conservation, Studies in Conservation, 55:74-80.
53. Tabei, A. (2005). The Relationship Between the Postmodern Idea and Indeterminacy: A Comparative Study of Western Philosophy and Art. Tehran: Nay Publishing. (In Persian).
54. Torraca, G. (1999). The Scientist in conservation. Conservation. The GCI Newsletter. 14(3). 8-11.
55. Vestheim, G; Fitz, S & Foot, M. J (2001), Group report: Values and the artifact, In Rational Decision Making in the Preservation of cultural property (N. S. Baer and F. Snickars, eds), pp 211-222.
56. Ziashahabi, N. and Azarnoush, M. (2011). Interior architecture in historical buildings. Jelveh Naghsh. Serial 6. 76-79. (In Persian).

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.