刍议历史真迹修复的本质与类型  

The Nature and Types of Restoration Applied to ‘True Historic Relics’:An Exploration

作　　者：陆地[1] Lu Di(the College of A rchitecture and Urban Planning,Tong ji University,Shanghai 200092)

机构地区：[1]同济大学建筑与城市规划学院,上海200092

出　　处：《建筑遗产》2022年第3期31-37,共7页Heritage Architecture

基　　金：国家自然科学基金项目(52278036,51778428)。

摘　　要：修复的本意是恢复、复原。文章延续并扩展了朱利奥·卡洛·阿尔甘的分类方法,将历史真迹常见的修复分为三类:保护性修复、艺术性修复和营造遗产特有的实用功能性修复,并探讨了三类修复的性质及其与历史真迹保护的关系。由于保护性修复和艺术性修复长期以来受到异文合并的处理,这既导致了约翰·拉斯金等人对修复的批判,又使得维修、修缮与修复的关系含糊不清。文章认为,对于理解拉斯金等人对修复的批判,理解历史真迹保护和修复的关系,并控制艺术性修复和实用功能性修复的方式与限度,从而使它们能合理地和保护兼容,至关重要的是厘清三类修复及其性质,而不是予以异文合并的讨论。The original meaning of restoration is to recover and return something to an earlier state.This article divides the common restorations of true historic relics(‘lishi zhenji’) into three types,developing upon Giulio Carlo Argan’s(1909–1992) categorisation method:conservative restoration,artistic restoration,and practical-functional restoration specific to built heritage.It explores the nature of the three types of restoration and their relationship to the conservation of ‘true historic relics’.Conservative restoration and artistic restoration have long been conflated,which has not only led to the criticism of restoration by John Ruskin(1819–1900)and others,but also left the relationship between ‘weixiu’(repair),‘xiushan’(repair and restoration)and ‘xiufu’(restoration) ambiguous.This article argues that it is crucial to clarify the three types of restoration and their nature,rather than conflating them to understand the Ruskinian criticism towards restoration,to comprehend the relationship between conservation and restoration of ‘true historic relics’,and to set boundaries for artistic restoration and practical-functional restoration for them to be reasonably compatible with conservation.

关 键 词：历史真迹 保护 保护性修复 艺术性修复 实用功能性修复 

分 类 号：TU-87[艺术—艺术设计] G112[建筑科学—建筑设计及理论]